Governor Northman Blackface Controversy

Recommended Posts

The guys just an idiot. He first apologized for doing it, then he turned around and said it wasn't him, then he brought up a whole different incident. He's just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm leaning towards this being typical making mountains out of molehills mudslinging that is so common in American Politics. Bit surprising to hear of both ruling parties being united in their juvenile harassment of an elected official instead of one side immaturely bashing him while the other side defends him in a game of "you suck, no you suck" that would have bickering children on the playground shaking their heads in shame.

But meh, that's American politics for you. No one can muster a logical argument for or against any particular politician's policy stances, so everyone resorts to name calling and blowing trivia completely out of proportion in an attempt to discredit politicians they don't like instead of putting any effort into discrediting their ideas.

And in case it isn't obvious, while I'm well aware of how black face was abused back in the day, I don't believe that diminishes it as a legitimate visual effect nor do I agree with the kneejerk reaction that all uses of it are intended to be racist, and I do not support censorship that would have all films that employed the technique purged from the history of cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite agree with the "mountains out of molehills" take on this matter. What does it even matter? If I were to put on a bear costume, would I be considered insensitive to bears? Are cosplayers being insensitive to the Japanese? Should Al Roper (famous black weatherman in U.S.A.) be shamed for white-facing with his great halloween costume last year? This is all just really stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Imouto Kitten said:

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm leaning towards this being typical making mountains out of molehills mudslinging that is so common in American Politics. Bit surprising to hear of both ruling parties being united in their juvenile harassment of an elected official instead of one side immaturely bashing him while the other side defends him in a game of "you suck, no you suck" that would have bickering children on the playground shaking their heads in shame.

But meh, that's American politics for you. No one can muster a logical argument for or against any particular politician's policy stances, so everyone resorts to name calling and blowing trivia completely out of proportion in an attempt to discredit politicians they don't like instead of putting any effort into discrediting their ideas.

And in case it isn't obvious, while I'm well aware of how black face was abused back in the day, I don't believe that diminishes it as a legitimate visual effect nor do I agree with the kneejerk reaction that all uses of it are intended to be racist, and I do not support censorship that would have all films that employed the technique purged from the history of cinema.

Yes, I agree with this stance. It's just a distraction from the real problems of this world we should be worrying about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, desperatewet said:

Yes, I agree with this stance. It's just a distraction from the real problems of this world we should be worrying about. 

Hell, people are saying Mary Poppins was racist due to the scene of the chimney sweeper getting soot all over his face, and people are calling it blackface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, diokno44x said:

Hell, people are saying Mary Poppins was racist due to the scene of the chimney sweeper getting soot all over his face, and people are calling it blackface

Seriously? Is this the stupidity we've come to in America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of a argument from a while back on another forum I frequent regarding the use of complexion altering makeup in cosplay. I was of the opinion that even drastic alteration of skin tone is acceptable in the pursuit of being accurate to the target character while others where arguing that it was inherently racist to make oneself look like a different race and that it was better to have an inaccurate costume than to employ black/white/yellow/etc face. I think there was even someone who suggested it was racist to cosplay as any character not your own race whether or not you attempted to look like the character instead of just looking like random person wearing the character's clothes.

As for the Mary Poppins scene, considering that some people took offense to Mr. Popo from Dragonball and Jynx from Pokemon(Or Ash dressing up like one of the simian G6/7 mons), I can't say I'm surprised. Granted, considering that chimney sweep is an occupation of a bygone era and that there are entire generations living now that have never seen a wood-burning fireplace in operation, part of it might be ignorance of just how dirty cleaning chimneys is. Then again, some of it might be deliberate overreaction out of fear of being called racist for not being outraged at anything the slightest bit racist, and part of it is just people being pathologically thin-skinned.

And thanks for the reminder that this site has an unusually low level of toxicity for being on the Internet. I avoid Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, et al like the plague and thus avoid the worst of what the Internet has to offer, but even I find myself exposed to the radical v radical discourse that is so prevalent and find myself pulled into debates over trivialities far more often than I'd like to admit. Still, even knowing how chill most of this board is, I half-expected to be crucified for not demonizing a politician I've never heard of from a jurisdiction I've never lived in over some ultimately trivial thing he did in his youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I see things like this arise it makes me realise why the world is in the state it is in when the powers that be spend their time focusing on insignificant problems instead of the actual issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I don't know, I think it might just be the smart people are too busy doing science, making art, improving existing technology and trying to invent new ones, and all the other things that contribute to this being one of the best points in human history to live to try to infuse the circus we call politics with anythingg worthwhile.

The world isn't perfect, and modern living has its own set of problems, but most of us living in the developed world don't have to work fromm dawn to dusk for our survival, many of us have more leisure time than we know what to do with, and there are many people who can live fulfilling lives in the 21st Century that a few short centuries ago would've been left for dead, slaughtered for something they have no power over or a minor offense, or treated like property.

Granted, I do wonder if the government wouldn't run more smoothly if we got rid of Congress and the Cabinet and just told the rest of the government workers to keep doing their jobs. Deliberate stagnation doesn't sound much worse than stagnation induced by bickering, surely there are better uses for all the money that goes into paying Congress, the cabinet, and all the fringe benefits of being president, and at least we wouldn't have to worry about congress passing bills based on bad ideas or bills based on good ideas the opposition party ruined or the president abusing executive orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 9:38 AM, diokno44x said:

Hell, people are saying Mary Poppins was racist due to the scene of the chimney sweeper getting soot all over his face, and people are calling it blackface

An interesting issue - as appreciators of fine omo, what would we think of the application of "political correctness" to censor our interests? Too much is too much!

Anyone thought of making USA truly democratic by requiring everyone to vote? Some countries do this already, and it's not considered an infringement on their right of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, blasseroz said:

 

Anyone thought of making USA truly democratic by requiring everyone to vote? Some countries do this already, and it's not considered an infringement on their right of choice.

Which countries do this? I am guessing they are probably smaller countries than the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (maybe) Sweden and Australia do, and yes, they are smaller, but with on-line voting systems starting up, it would be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm all in favor of redefining voting as a duty and not a right, forcing everyone to participate in an electoral system doesn't automatically make that system democratic. Even if we removed all barriers to voting(including, but not limited to, abolishing the voting age, ending disenfranchisement of felons, making all voting locations 24/7 for multiple weeks prior to the end of the election, providing transportation/remote voting to those that need it, letting people vote at whichever voting place is most convenient, etc.), we still have a voting system that's all but rigged to keep the ruling parties in power, staggering of when offices are up for re-election makes knowing what will be on the ballot difficult, Congressional maps are so convoluted that knowing which district you're in is difficult, you might have nothing in common with people at the opposite end of the district, and the incumbent might be running unopposed, it takes a lot of research to learn more than party affiliations for all candidates that will appear on your ballot, the President isn't elected directly, most states give their electoral votes in a winner takes all fashion if they're even required to take the popular vote into consideration, some states are so firmly in one party's pocket that even voting for hte opposition candidate among the ruling parties is practically a wasted vote, Vice president can't be voted for separately, etc. And that's just a sampling of issues at the Federal level(I hear California has a big problem with referendums that essentially tie the Government's hands on an issue until another referendum is held if they pass, and I'm sure there are plenty of other state, county, and municipal-level issues).

Granted, there's Arrow's Impossibility Theorem to deal with, but I think the fact that more than a quarter of Americans can't vote and that less than half of those who can vote do vote is a smaller problem than the inherently bad design of how votes are counted and the strategies such incentivizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else remember Blazing Saddles? Yes, the good ol days when we could all make fun of one another and just laugh about it.

PC has gone way too far... too many snowflakes getting butt hurt over every little thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 1:01 AM, Imouto Kitten said:

we still have a voting system that's all but rigged to keep the ruling parties in power,

Yes, it does appear on the surface to have more characteristics of an Oligarchy. So why is Democracy referenced so often?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, blasseroz said:

Yes, it does appear on the surface to have more characteristics of an Oligarchy. So why is Democracy referenced so often?

Well, America is, in part, a constituional democracy, or a democratic republic. Hell, a number of the Founders WERE against the party system in the first place, however, things eventually became the way they were, then you to the electoral college

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is talked about a lot because it's part of the, for lack of a better term, Religion of America, and because, nominally, The US Constitution defines a government with a democratically elected legislature(though its probably worth noting that the Senate was originally appointed by the states and it was one of the lesser talked about amendments that made senators elected by popular vote).

The Founding Fathers weren't the Infallible Paragons of Virtue and Political Mastery they are so often portrayed as in American Mythology, but in their defense, I'm not sure social choice theory was even an established field back in the 1790s when the Constitution was written, many of their ideas that seem nonsensical when lookd at objectively in the 21st Century made sense at the end of the 18th Century, and I doubt any of them could've predicted what the world would've looked like two-and-a-quarter centuries later. Hell, I doubt they could've predicted all the ways less scrupulous politicians would bend the system they designed to their benefit despite the concerns many of them had about the risk of tyrants.

When most people think democracy, they typically think simple plurality voting, where everyone picks their favorite and the one with the most votes wins. For truly binary decisions, this usually works pretty well, but tends to fall apart when there are three or more options. The literature detailing this subject could probably fill a bookcase or two, but some of the biggest problems with simple plurality is that it tends to favor established options, making it harder for new options to gain a foot hold, encouraging people to pick there least hated of the established options over their preferred option with little hope of winning, and can sometimes hurt the more popular of established options due to losing support to a less established option.

Again, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem basically says no electoral system is perfect, but what the US has is mathematically proveable to be among the worst, or at least close to such.

Personally, some things I'd like to happen regarding electoral reform in the US:
Abolishment of the Electoral College and the concept of running mates.
Abolishment of straight party tickets.
Implementation of Ranked or Ranged Voting wherever there are three or more options.
None of the Above option wherever applicable.
Congressional maps redrawn with fewer, multi-seat districts, each district having proportional representation and with no county, municipality, or equivalent divided across multiple districts, every district contiguous, and where possible, districts given names that correspond to geographical regions of the state. For example, I'd probably propose reducing North Carolina to three districts corresponding to the Coastal Plains, Piedmont, and Mountains, possibly dividing the piedmont in two to separate the Triangle from Charlotte's metropolitan area.
Replace the age-requirements for holding public office with something more tangible. I've previously proposed a Bachelor's Degree for Representatives, a Master's Degree for senators, not counting degrees in law, political science, or business for either and a Doctorate relevant to the position for the President and their Cabinet(e.g. the Secretary of Education should be a Doctor of Education), but given the rhetoric that degrees are less about actual skill and more about virtue signalling, I'm not so sure they work as a decent proxy for Wisdom any better than age does.
Granting Congress vote of no confidence power over the President and their cabinet and ostracisim over their fellows(though perhaps requiring a two-thirds or three-quarters majority for either to avoid abuse by the majority party).

And to briefly explain some terms people might not be familiar with:
Ranked Voting: Voters rank candidates from favorite to least favorite and all ballots are cocunted with first choice. If there's a majority canadidate, they win. If not, the last place candidate is eliminated and their ballots recountned with their next choice. repeat until you have a winner.
Range voting: Voters score each candidate on a scale(the articles I've read suggest 0-9 or 0-20 and recommend avoiding 5 or 10 as the top score). Each candidate's scores are averaged and the candidate with the highest average wins.
Proportional representation: Found in multi-seat districts. Possibly best explained by example: Say you have a five seat district and fields five candidates each for the Democrats and Republicans. By simple Pluality voting, the five seats would all go to the five most popular candidates, which might be the 5 democrats even if only 60% of the district is Democrat. In proportional representation, if the vote is split 60-40 D-R, than three of the seats would go to the three most popular Democratic candidates and the remaining two to the two most popular republican candidates, even if the two least popular Democrats are still more popular than the republicans. In other words, it ensures major minorities have a voice and aren't crushed by the majority.

None of the above: The idea here is that, if a voter finds all candidates unappealing, they vote for none of them to be elected, and if enough vote for this option, the election is redone with a new field of candidates.

Vote of no confidence: This a way for a legislative body to check the power of executives. If the Legislative body doesn't think an executive is doing a good job, a vote of no confidence can be called, and if passed, the executive is stripped of their office and a replacement appointed or elected as appropriate.A common power foro Parliments to hold over Prime Ministers, and I think the lack of something equivalent in the US is one reason the president sometimes has more than their fair share of power(Impeachment is much weaker since it requires actual criminal charges to remove the impeached from office).

Ostracism: Similar to a vote of no confidence, but allows a legislative body to expel members of their own number for misconduct or abuse. Allows legislators to police their peers and helps to keep influence of individual members on an even playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, luvmybladder4 said:

You could at LEAST have spelled his name right:  NORTHAM!

Oh, sorry, every source I've found has Northman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.