That is where the unlaced shoes and the baggy falling down pants style came from as well because inmates aren't allowed to have shoe laces or belts. The gold chains are a nod to the 70s pimp style. In almost every case the whole gangster look can be attributed to celebrating criminals.
1) I haven't read anything about that as being accurate but I don't see it as being completely out of line. I will say that historically such things tend to be more complex and less neatly pigeonholed. Etymology is full of great stories that are absolutely false.
2) How would you describe children playing with toy guns? Are shooting each other not a criminal act that most American parents seems to feel is acceptable without irrevocably destroying the moral fiber of their children or turning them into homicidal maniacs? What about playing Cowboys and Indians, something I did as a child? Does that mean I support the genocide of nearly all Native American people?
3) What make you think Dr. Dre doesn't have shoelaces in this shoes?
4) Culture is not a standard. It is built from innumerable complexities. Are you saying there is nothing in your culture that may have come from a less than ideal beginning? I'd think not trusting rap musicians, people with tattoos, and/or people not in business suits is an indication there is.
How would you describe children playing with toy guns? Are shooting each other not a criminal act that most American parents seems to feel is acceptable without irrevocably destroying the moral fiber of their children or turning them into homicidal maniacs? What about playing Cowboys and Indians, something I did as a child? Does that mean I support the genocide of nearly all Native American people?
If you were still doing those things as an adult, then yes. I have not been to 'hood', so to speak, but I can imagine young children might try to mimic the bad ass mannerisms of an adult gangster poser. But if they continue to act out those cultural behaviors as an adult they will be perceived as a criminal by main stream society.
Your cowboy and indian was typical of the TV western at the time.
That is where the unlaced shoes and the baggy falling down pants style came from as well because inmates aren't allowed to have shoe laces or belts. The gold chains are a nod to the 70s pimp style. In almost every case the whole gangster look can be attributed to celebrating criminals.
I haven't read anything about that as being accurate but I don't see it as being completely out of line. I will say that historically such things tend to be more complex and less neatly pigeonholed. Etymology is full of great stories that are absolutely false.
How would you describe children playing with toy guns? Are shooting each other not a criminal act that most American parents seems to feel is acceptable without irrevocably destroying the moral fiber of their children or turning them into homicidal maniacs? What about playing Cowboys and Indians, something I did as a child? Does that mean I support the genocide of nearly all Native American people?
You're confusing children, who have little responsibility, with adults, who have a lot.
I haven't read anything about that as being accurate but I don't see it as being completely out of line. I will say that historically such things tend to be more complex and less neatly hateful.
Not hateful at all. It is purely fear and distrust. Like I said earlier I have the same reaction to Hells Angel types. Has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the dress style and behavior that criminals or gangster wanna-bes often take so much pride in displaying.
You're confusing children, who have little responsibility, with adults, who have a lot.
And adults are responsible for children. I would hope that today parents wouldn't let their children play cowboys and indians and let their kids beat up on the effeminate kid in the neighborhood… but perhaps that's just wishful thinking.
Interesting. I certainly can't relate to how the exact individual in two different types of clothing can make you go from trustful to distrustful.
You may not want to acknowledge it but that is what impressions are all about. It should be easy to see, you just don't want to. Let me ask a simple question. If that guy was going to the bank to apply for a loan, which outfit would he likely wear? I'd say the one on the right. Of course I think he should ditch the earring.
Some speculate that the origin of the earrings worn by men started with slavery. It was a symbol in the middle east that a man was a slave, a trusted voluntary slave, but definitely a low ranking person in society who was owned by someone else. Also children wore earrings to show they belonged to someone of stature.
If I were a black man I would definitely not wear anything that had a connotation of slavery or being owned by someone. Perhaps they think it makes them look mean like a pirate.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the hip-hop-gangster look is a culturally accepted norm, except perhaps among inmates. That is the origin of the style and it was adopted by gang members as a way to make others fear them. And that is the general impression that non-gangster style main stream society views them as.
What an ignorant statement. It's been an acceptable norm for the past decade or more. Your comment makes sense if it were 1994.
You may not want to acknowledge it but that is what impressions are all about. It should be easy to see, you just don't want to. Let me ask a simple question. If that guy was going to the bank to apply for a loan, which outfit would he likely wear? I'd say the one on the right. Of course I think he should ditch the earring.
Some speculate that the origin of the earrings worn by men started with slavery. It was a symbol in the middle east that a man was a slave, a trusted voluntary slave, but definitely a low ranking person in society who was owned by someone else. Also children wore earrings to show they belonged to someone of stature.
If I were a black man I would definitely not wear anything that had a connotation of slavery or being owned by someone. Perhaps they think it makes them look mean like a pirate.
1) The first outfit is better for applying for a bank load because it's high quality but still casual. The suit is specific for entertainment event which makes it overkill. That said, it doesn't matter because a loan is based on credit and assets, which Sean "P-Diddy" Combs has plenty.
2) This notion that the quality of your clothing or the specific type of clothing means you are more or less inferior to others is bigotry. "Oh, I don't care that he's black. I care that he doesn't wear the same clothes as I do." A stock broker isn't a better stock broker because he bought a more expensive suit. Clothes do not make a person… and anything that thinks they do are superficial.
3) I guarantee I'd be more weary of walking down an otherwise empty alley at night when a group of men jump out of nowhere dressed as the Pope and Cardinals than I would be by walking down college hallway during the day and passing a large group of people wearing these "gangsta" clothes and Beats headphones that you find fear inducing.
4) As for "not wearing anything that had a connotation of slavery" you have just stated that, among many other things, that if you were a black man you wouldn't wear cotton. How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
You may not want to acknowledge it but that is what impressions are all about. It should be easy to see, you just don't want to. Let me ask a simple question. If that guy was going to the bank to apply for a loan, which outfit would he likely wear? I'd say the one on the right. Of course I think he should ditch the earring.
Some speculate that the origin of the earrings worn by men started with slavery. It was a symbol in the middle east that a man was a slave, a trusted voluntary slave, but definitely a low ranking person in society who was owned by someone else. Also children wore earrings to show they belonged to someone of stature.
If I were a black man I would definitely not wear anything that had a connotation of slavery or being owned by someone. Perhaps they think it makes them look mean like a pirate.
1) The first outfit is better for applying for a bank load because it's high quality but still casual. The suit is specific for entertainment event which makes it overkill. That said, it doesn't matter because a loan is based on credit and assets, which Sean "P-Diddy" Combs has plenty.
2) This notion that the quality of your clothing or the specific type of clothing means you are more or less inferior to others is bigotry. "Oh, I don't care that he's black. I care that he doesn't wear the same clothes as I do." A stock broker isn't a better stock broker because he bought a more expensive suit. Clothes do not make a person… and anything that thinks they do are superficial.
3) I guarantee I'd be more weary of walking down an otherwise empty alley at night when a group of men jump out of nowhere dressed as the Pope and Cardinals than I would be by walking down college hallway during the day and passing a large group of people wearing these "gangsta" clothes and Beats headphones that you find fear inducing.
4) As for "not wearing anything that had a connotation of slavery" you have just stated that, among many other things, that if you were a black man you wouldn't wear cotton. How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
In this post and many others, you have demonstrated that you have a complex about racism, bigotry-whatever that means, and inferiority.
We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
Your dark alleyway paragraph is ludicrous. Any group of men jumping out at you is liable to instil fear, regardless of what they are wearing. And you compare it to a group of students in a college!
Sorry to be harsh, but you have a real chip on your shoulder when it comes to issues of race, which I find a shame, because it weakens your arguments. In my experience, when accusations of racism start to get thrown around, intelligent discourse has left the building.
Surprisingly, although Siri can open apps, she can't close them. I discovered this recently when I was trying to get Siri to show me something on a map but she was such a miserable failure I said... just close maps. Sorry I can't close an app! Why the hell not?
Siri cannot delete notes or messages either. Sometimes when dictating a note I will mis-speak or Siri will misunderstand me. I wish you could just say, "Delete last note. "
In this post and many others, you have demonstrated that you have a complex about racism, bigotry-whatever that means, and inferiority. We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
I absolutely take issue with this silly notion of racism and all the foolish lies fearful and ignorant people tell themselves that they aren't being racist. Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit. All that speaks to underlying racism based on some learned and cultivation notion that if someone looks a certain way they are a certain way.
We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
No one is saying you shouldn't constantly analyst a situation but to take one stereotype which you then propagate into another stereotype to work yourself into some frenzy that FOX News would have been proud of broadcast is irrational. You need to analyze the situation, not make sweeping claims with no proof because you've been taught to be afraid. You can choose to be better than that.
Your dark alleyway paragraph is ludicrous. Any group of men jumping out at you is liable to instil fear, regardless of what they are wearing. And you compare it to a group of students in a college!
My examples was worded exactly how I intended to show you that a reasonable response should have nothing to do with he color of one's skin or this "gangsta" clothing you guess like to call it but rather many circumstances that should tell a reasonable person why one situation isn't a fine and the other might be cause to be more aware. The answer is to thinking smarter, not double down on your bigotry.
Sorry to be harsh, but you have a real chip on your shoulder when it comes to issues of race, which I find a shame, because it weakens your arguments. In my experience, when accusations of racism start to get thrown around, intelligent discourse has left the building.
You think my argument would be stronger if I took drblank's "Dr. Dre is a black rapper who comes from a culture I don't fully understand so I should be fearful and distrust him" position? Now that's funny. Discourse comes from looking at why you feel you can't distrust someone because their culture is slightly different from yours. Learning comes from trying to understand why you become so fearful by seeing a man wearing expensive clothes whose brands you can't name and would never wear. It all boils down to racism, bigotry, elitist and hatred for thinking these people whom you have grown up believing are below you and now you get to see how wealthy, powerful, and successful they really are. I'd prefer to be happy for them whilst working to accomplish the same. Dr. Dre, Sean Combs, and Oprah aren't to be hated but admired.
1) The first outfit is better for applying for a bank load because it's high quality but still casual. The suit is specific for entertainment event which makes it overkill. That said, it doesn't matter because a loan is based on credit and assets, which Sean "P-Diddy" Combs has plenty.
2) This notion that the quality of your clothing or the specific type of clothing means you are more or less inferior to others is bigotry. "Oh, I don't care that he's black. I care that he doesn't wear the same clothes as I do." A stock broker isn't a better stock broker because he bought a more expensive suit. Clothes do not make a person… and anything that thinks they do are superficial.
3) I guarantee I'd be more weary of walking down an otherwise empty alley at night when a group of men jump out of nowhere dressed as the Pope and Cardinals than I would be by walking down college hallway during the day and passing a large group of people wearing these "gangsta" clothes and Beats headphones that you find fear inducing.
4) As for "not wearing anything that had a connotation of slavery" you have just stated that, among many other things, that if you were a black man you wouldn't wear cotton. How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
You are really going out to left field now. You only presented two extreme modes of attire, but lets just imagine for a second that one outfit was full on bad ass gangster and the other was a business suit, and instead of going to the bank let's say meeting the Queen.
Second, what you wear says to the world what you think of them. If you dress like a gangster, the public will be fearful of you. Personally I think it is better to be respectful of others and not upset them. If you are going to a masquerade party by all means dress as outlandishly as you wish.
Third, let's keep the discussion at least somewhat realistic. If you are walking down an alley at night anywhere in an urban environment, you probably have a death wish complex.
Finally, fourth, cotton is not a symbol of anything. The earring being a symbol of slavery was because only men who were slaves wore them. Everyone wears cotton.
In this post and many others, you have demonstrated that you have a complex about racism, bigotry-whatever that means, and inferiority. We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
I absolutely take issue with this silly notion of racism and all the foolish lies fearful and ignorant people tell themselves that they aren't being racist. Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit. All that speaks to underlying racism based on some learned and cultivation notion that if someone looks a certain way they are a certain way.
We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
No one is saying you shouldn't constantly analyst a situation but to take one stereotype which you then propagate into another stereotype to work yourself into some frenzy that FOX News would have been proud of broadcast is irrational. You need to analyze the situation, not make sweeping claims with no proof because you've been taught to be afraid. You can choose to be better than that.
Your dark alleyway paragraph is ludicrous. Any group of men jumping out at you is liable to instil fear, regardless of what they are wearing. And you compare it to a group of students in a college!
My examples was worded exactly how I intended to show you that a reasonable response should have nothing to do with he color of one's skin or this "gangsta" clothing you guess like to call it but rather many circumstances that should tell a reasonable person why one situation isn't a fine and the other might be cause to be more aware. The answer is to thinking smarter, not double down on your bigotry.
Sorry to be harsh, but you have a real chip on your shoulder when it comes to issues of race, which I find a shame, because it weakens your arguments. In my experience, when accusations of racism start to get thrown around, intelligent discourse has left the building.
You think my argument would be stronger if I took drblank's "Dr. Dre is a black rapper who comes from a culture I don't fully understand so I should be fearful and distrust him" position? Now that's funny. Discourse comes from looking at why you feel you can't distrust someone because their culture is slightly different from yours. Learning comes from trying to understand why you become so fearful by seeing a man wearing expensive clothes whose brands you can't name and would never wear. It all boils down to racism, bigotry, elitist and hatred for thinking these people whom you have grown up believing are below you and now you get to see how wealthy, powerful, and successful they really are. I'd prefer to be happy for them whilst working to accomplish the same. Dr. Dre, Sean Combs, and Oprah aren't to be hated but admired.
You're doing it again! You've got a really bad habit of inserting words into people's mouths. You're completely hung up on race!
You said: 'Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit.'
Why did you insert 'like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers' into my sentence? You're slandering me.
I've come across people like you on other sites who get the racism bit between their teeth and won't stop shaking it. I consider your reply malicious or deluded.
You're doing it again! You've got a really bad habit of inserting words into people's mouths. You're completely hung up on race!
You said: 'Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit.'
Why did you insert 'like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers' into my sentence? You're slandering me.
I've come across people like you on other sites who get the racism bit between their teeth and won't stop shaking it. I consider your reply malicious or deluded.
1) I also used specific words drblank used. I thought that was clear, but your odd comments of smelling like weed and vomit and in rags compared to being dressed in a suit are also ridiculous.
2) You think I have malice and are delusional for saying the that races don't exist and therefore we should stop use these taught crutches to disparage others. That's just crazy. You also thought my alleyway example was ludicrous because I didn't put "the blacks" in the alley to make it more agreeable with you which is just ridiculous. There is so little difference between the desires of all people. Whether through nature or nurture we have invented this fear that makes us irrationally afraid that someone that looks slightly different from us is out to get us. It's bullshit!
Wasn't this thread about a priceline acquisition? Then Solip goes off and makes it a race thread single-handedly. Brings it up out of nowhere- uninticed. Then says he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about race. How rich.:rolleyes:
You're not alone, but you're falsely attributing the culturally accepted attire and dress to an invalid notion of an individual's character. If Andre Young hasn't proven himself at this point to be both a successful entertainer and businessman I don't know what else to show to convince you otherwise but I will leave you with this idea (which I believe was from Robert X. Cringely's Triumph of the Nerds documentary) that Steve Jobs would negatively judge interviewees if they came in looking like they worked for IBM.
edit: It was a scene from Pirates of Silicon Valley. No idea on its authenticity but the point stands.
Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. Criticising people based on the chooses they make in presenting themselves is different then criticising somebody for their ethnicity. People elect to present themselves a certain way (e.g. dress in a suit, or dress like a gangster) because they want other people to have certain impressions of them. If somebody wants to look like a gangster, and somebody else doesn't like the message that sends, it is perfectly valid not to like the person based on that message. You can't choose your ethnicity, but you can elect how you present yourselves to others.
It also seems odd to suggest race was a significant reason for some people disliking the Beats acquisition based on a handful of tasteless comments. Best just to ignore those and not give them any attention. I'd say far more people just didn't understand the deal.
I dislike the acquisition based on not seeing what Apple gets for the deal, and believing it over priced. There are still questions about what Apple is getting. Did it acquire the music rights Beats acquired? Generally those terms are non-transferable. What was so attractive about a couple hundred thousand subscribers in the realm of streaming music especially when AT&T was heavily promoting the service? I just don't get it. If Apple was interested in a streaming music service, it could probably put one together probably overnight. It already offers streaming radio stations. I doubt the Beats service is making money.
The headphone business seems profitable, and potentially will pay for the deal itself in a few years, but Apple certainly is capable of making headphones and by acquiring Beats it potentially puts itself at odds with other arguably better headphone manufacturers.
So there plenty of reasons not to like the acquisition other than race. I doubt many people even understood Dre's relationship to the company other than his name appearing on the product.
It also seems odd to suggest race was a significant reason for some people disliking the Beats acquisition based on a handful of tasteless comments.
It does seem odd but that's exactly what happened. Even now people are using the word "gangsta" but I don't they are talking about organized crime families from the 1930s.
So there plenty of reasons not to like the acquisition other than race.
Absolutely, which goes back to my original question as there is none of the outrage with this acquisition like there was with Beats, which has been shown be highly profitable, especially in light of Oculus, WatsApp, Instagram, Nest and OpenTable have not. If it's not about race then make comments that the CEO is misogynistic "gangsta" and claim baggy clothes and rap music make everyone afraid for their lives? That's all failed racism and bigotry. If one cares about business they look at the business to see what that purchase can do for the company in question. It's really that simple.
Finally, fourth, cotton is not a symbol of anything. The earring being a symbol of slavery was because only men who were slaves wore them. Everyone wears cotton.
Sure it is, but you choose to overlook that because you like wearing cotton but you see a buy with jewelry and you've decided that means they are a "gangsta" who is out to get you. Hide yo kids! Hide yo' wives! The truth is it's all about fashion but it's ridiculous to be scared of fashion statements from a culture that is slightly different from yours. Clothes ? Personality, morality, nor intent.
I sure did. I learned that you can make a movie purportedly about not judging people on looks, and still use a theme song about love at first SIGHT: "And then I saw her face
Now Im a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind"
Shrek is a lightweight and shallow comedy, at best.
Speaking of judging folks on dress... I was once ejected from a pub in the UK because of my clothing. I'd unknowingly worn a shirt bearing the colors of the opposing football team. Apparently folks over there get in fights over stuff like that, which is absurd to me as an American. Nevertheless, I was only transiently insulted by the ejection, and eventually realized that I'd rather not be at the center of an incomprehensible bar-fight!
I sure did. I learned that you can make a movie purportedly about not judging people on looks, and still use a theme song about love at first SIGHT: "And then I saw her face
Now Im a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind"
Shrek is a lightweight and shallow comedy, at best.
1) It's weird to call Shrek shallow and lightweight. Were you expecting something else from a children's movie?
2) You're conflating two separate things in culture. One is to innately judge another as an enemy and the other is physical attraction. Are you honestly saying that if you can look upon someone for the first time and be physically attracted to their look it's the same biological mechanism that makes you innately hate people that wear certain types of clothing that you have decided only applied to people of a certain "race" you find to be below you? You can't see how that's a huge leap over seeing beauty from the sex one is attracted to? In either case you should neither trust nor distrust either of these cases without additional information. You have that choice!
PS: It's funny that stone keeps bringing up "gangster" and yet my idea of gangster is from The Godfather were a group of men wearing expensive suits are controlling the money for an area. Sounds a lot Wall Street except without the nepotism.
Comments
1) I haven't read anything about that as being accurate but I don't see it as being completely out of line. I will say that historically such things tend to be more complex and less neatly pigeonholed. Etymology is full of great stories that are absolutely false.
2) How would you describe children playing with toy guns? Are shooting each other not a criminal act that most American parents seems to feel is acceptable without irrevocably destroying the moral fiber of their children or turning them into homicidal maniacs? What about playing Cowboys and Indians, something I did as a child? Does that mean I support the genocide of nearly all Native American people?
3) What make you think Dr. Dre doesn't have shoelaces in this shoes?
4) Culture is not a standard. It is built from innumerable complexities. Are you saying there is nothing in your culture that may have come from a less than ideal beginning? I'd think not trusting rap musicians, people with tattoos, and/or people not in business suits is an indication there is.
If you were still doing those things as an adult, then yes. I have not been to 'hood', so to speak, but I can imagine young children might try to mimic the bad ass mannerisms of an adult gangster poser. But if they continue to act out those cultural behaviors as an adult they will be perceived as a criminal by main stream society.
Your cowboy and indian was typical of the TV western at the time.
That is where the unlaced shoes and the baggy falling down pants style came from as well because inmates aren't allowed to have shoe laces or belts. The gold chains are a nod to the 70s pimp style. In almost every case the whole gangster look can be attributed to celebrating criminals.
I haven't read anything about that as being accurate but I don't see it as being completely out of line. I will say that historically such things tend to be more complex and less neatly pigeonholed. Etymology is full of great stories that are absolutely false.
How would you describe children playing with toy guns? Are shooting each other not a criminal act that most American parents seems to feel is acceptable without irrevocably destroying the moral fiber of their children or turning them into homicidal maniacs? What about playing Cowboys and Indians, something I did as a child? Does that mean I support the genocide of nearly all Native American people?
You're confusing children, who have little responsibility, with adults, who have a lot.
Not hateful at all. It is purely fear and distrust. Like I said earlier I have the same reaction to Hells Angel types. Has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the dress style and behavior that criminals or gangster wanna-bes often take so much pride in displaying.
And adults are responsible for children. I would hope that today parents wouldn't let their children play cowboys and indians and let their kids beat up on the effeminate kid in the neighborhood… but perhaps that's just wishful thinking.
Interesting. I certainly can't relate to how the exact individual in two different types of clothing can make you go from trustful to distrustful.
Interesting. I certainly can't relate to how the exact individual in two different types of clothing can make you go from trustful to distrustful.
Well mstone is clearly Italian. That culture is known to place a severe overemphasis on the importance and meaning of dress and fashion.
You may not want to acknowledge it but that is what impressions are all about. It should be easy to see, you just don't want to. Let me ask a simple question. If that guy was going to the bank to apply for a loan, which outfit would he likely wear? I'd say the one on the right. Of course I think he should ditch the earring.
Some speculate that the origin of the earrings worn by men started with slavery. It was a symbol in the middle east that a man was a slave, a trusted voluntary slave, but definitely a low ranking person in society who was owned by someone else. Also children wore earrings to show they belonged to someone of stature.
If I were a black man I would definitely not wear anything that had a connotation of slavery or being owned by someone. Perhaps they think it makes them look mean like a pirate.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the hip-hop-gangster look is a culturally accepted norm, except perhaps among inmates. That is the origin of the style and it was adopted by gang members as a way to make others fear them. And that is the general impression that non-gangster style main stream society views them as.
What an ignorant statement. It's been an acceptable norm for the past decade or more. Your comment makes sense if it were 1994.
1) The first outfit is better for applying for a bank load because it's high quality but still casual. The suit is specific for entertainment event which makes it overkill. That said, it doesn't matter because a loan is based on credit and assets, which Sean "P-Diddy" Combs has plenty.
2) This notion that the quality of your clothing or the specific type of clothing means you are more or less inferior to others is bigotry. "Oh, I don't care that he's black. I care that he doesn't wear the same clothes as I do." A stock broker isn't a better stock broker because he bought a more expensive suit. Clothes do not make a person… and anything that thinks they do are superficial.
3) I guarantee I'd be more weary of walking down an otherwise empty alley at night when a group of men jump out of nowhere dressed as the Pope and Cardinals than I would be by walking down college hallway during the day and passing a large group of people wearing these "gangsta" clothes and Beats headphones that you find fear inducing.
4) As for "not wearing anything that had a connotation of slavery" you have just stated that, among many other things, that if you were a black man you wouldn't wear cotton. How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
In this post and many others, you have demonstrated that you have a complex about racism, bigotry-whatever that means, and inferiority.
We constantly judge people on the slightest detail, for good reason. If you go to a bank for a loan dressed in rags and smell of weed and vomit, you are unlikely to be looked kindly upon, unless you are a known customer with a good reputation. If you wear a suit and present yourself well, you are more likely to be viewed seriously. That's nothing to do with inferiority, a word which you have put into mstone's mouth.
Your dark alleyway paragraph is ludicrous. Any group of men jumping out at you is liable to instil fear, regardless of what they are wearing. And you compare it to a group of students in a college!
Sorry to be harsh, but you have a real chip on your shoulder when it comes to issues of race, which I find a shame, because it weakens your arguments. In my experience, when accusations of racism start to get thrown around, intelligent discourse has left the building.
I absolutely take issue with this silly notion of racism and all the foolish lies fearful and ignorant people tell themselves that they aren't being racist. Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit. All that speaks to underlying racism based on some learned and cultivation notion that if someone looks a certain way they are a certain way.
No one is saying you shouldn't constantly analyst a situation but to take one stereotype which you then propagate into another stereotype to work yourself into some frenzy that FOX News would have been proud of broadcast is irrational. You need to analyze the situation, not make sweeping claims with no proof because you've been taught to be afraid. You can choose to be better than that.
My examples was worded exactly how I intended to show you that a reasonable response should have nothing to do with he color of one's skin or this "gangsta" clothing you guess like to call it but rather many circumstances that should tell a reasonable person why one situation isn't a fine and the other might be cause to be more aware. The answer is to thinking smarter, not double down on your bigotry.
You think my argument would be stronger if I took drblank's "Dr. Dre is a black rapper who comes from a culture I don't fully understand so I should be fearful and distrust him" position? Now that's funny. Discourse comes from looking at why you feel you can't distrust someone because their culture is slightly different from yours. Learning comes from trying to understand why you become so fearful by seeing a man wearing expensive clothes whose brands you can't name and would never wear. It all boils down to racism, bigotry, elitist and hatred for thinking these people whom you have grown up believing are below you and now you get to see how wealthy, powerful, and successful they really are. I'd prefer to be happy for them whilst working to accomplish the same. Dr. Dre, Sean Combs, and Oprah aren't to be hated but admired.
1) The first outfit is better for applying for a bank load because it's high quality but still casual. The suit is specific for entertainment event which makes it overkill. That said, it doesn't matter because a loan is based on credit and assets, which Sean "P-Diddy" Combs has plenty.
2) This notion that the quality of your clothing or the specific type of clothing means you are more or less inferior to others is bigotry. "Oh, I don't care that he's black. I care that he doesn't wear the same clothes as I do." A stock broker isn't a better stock broker because he bought a more expensive suit. Clothes do not make a person… and anything that thinks they do are superficial.
3) I guarantee I'd be more weary of walking down an otherwise empty alley at night when a group of men jump out of nowhere dressed as the Pope and Cardinals than I would be by walking down college hallway during the day and passing a large group of people wearing these "gangsta" clothes and Beats headphones that you find fear inducing.
4) As for "not wearing anything that had a connotation of slavery" you have just stated that, among many other things, that if you were a black man you wouldn't wear cotton. How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
You are really going out to left field now. You only presented two extreme modes of attire, but lets just imagine for a second that one outfit was full on bad ass gangster and the other was a business suit, and instead of going to the bank let's say meeting the Queen.
Second, what you wear says to the world what you think of them. If you dress like a gangster, the public will be fearful of you. Personally I think it is better to be respectful of others and not upset them. If you are going to a masquerade party by all means dress as outlandishly as you wish.
Third, let's keep the discussion at least somewhat realistic. If you are walking down an alley at night anywhere in an urban environment, you probably have a death wish complex.
Finally, fourth, cotton is not a symbol of anything. The earring being a symbol of slavery was because only men who were slaves wore them. Everyone wears cotton.
You're doing it again! You've got a really bad habit of inserting words into people's mouths. You're completely hung up on race!
You said: 'Like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers and call their clothing rags and say they smell of weed and vomit.'
Why did you insert 'like when some decides to refer to "the blacks" as rappers' into my sentence? You're slandering me.
I've come across people like you on other sites who get the racism bit between their teeth and won't stop shaking it. I consider your reply malicious or deluded.
1) I also used specific words drblank used. I thought that was clear, but your odd comments of smelling like weed and vomit and in rags compared to being dressed in a suit are also ridiculous.
2) You think I have malice and are delusional for saying the that races don't exist and therefore we should stop use these taught crutches to disparage others. That's just crazy. You also thought my alleyway example was ludicrous because I didn't put "the blacks" in the alley to make it more agreeable with you which is just ridiculous. There is so little difference between the desires of all people. Whether through nature or nurture we have invented this fear that makes us irrationally afraid that someone that looks slightly different from us is out to get us. It's bullshit!
You're not alone, but you're falsely attributing the culturally accepted attire and dress to an invalid notion of an individual's character. If Andre Young hasn't proven himself at this point to be both a successful entertainer and businessman I don't know what else to show to convince you otherwise but I will leave you with this idea (which I believe was from Robert X. Cringely's Triumph of the Nerds documentary) that Steve Jobs would negatively judge interviewees if they came in looking like they worked for IBM.
edit: It was a scene from Pirates of Silicon Valley. No idea on its authenticity but the point stands.
Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. Criticising people based on the chooses they make in presenting themselves is different then criticising somebody for their ethnicity. People elect to present themselves a certain way (e.g. dress in a suit, or dress like a gangster) because they want other people to have certain impressions of them. If somebody wants to look like a gangster, and somebody else doesn't like the message that sends, it is perfectly valid not to like the person based on that message. You can't choose your ethnicity, but you can elect how you present yourselves to others.
It also seems odd to suggest race was a significant reason for some people disliking the Beats acquisition based on a handful of tasteless comments. Best just to ignore those and not give them any attention. I'd say far more people just didn't understand the deal.
I dislike the acquisition based on not seeing what Apple gets for the deal, and believing it over priced. There are still questions about what Apple is getting. Did it acquire the music rights Beats acquired? Generally those terms are non-transferable. What was so attractive about a couple hundred thousand subscribers in the realm of streaming music especially when AT&T was heavily promoting the service? I just don't get it. If Apple was interested in a streaming music service, it could probably put one together probably overnight. It already offers streaming radio stations. I doubt the Beats service is making money.
The headphone business seems profitable, and potentially will pay for the deal itself in a few years, but Apple certainly is capable of making headphones and by acquiring Beats it potentially puts itself at odds with other arguably better headphone manufacturers.
So there plenty of reasons not to like the acquisition other than race. I doubt many people even understood Dre's relationship to the company other than his name appearing on the product.
It does seem odd but that's exactly what happened. Even now people are using the word "gangsta" but I don't they are talking about organized crime families from the 1930s.
Absolutely, which goes back to my original question as there is none of the outrage with this acquisition like there was with Beats, which has been shown be highly profitable, especially in light of Oculus, WatsApp, Instagram, Nest and OpenTable have not. If it's not about race then make comments that the CEO is misogynistic "gangsta" and claim baggy clothes and rap music make everyone afraid for their lives? That's all failed racism and bigotry. If one cares about business they look at the business to see what that purchase can do for the company in question. It's really that simple.
Sure it is, but you choose to overlook that because you like wearing cotton but you see a buy with jewelry and you've decided that means they are a "gangsta" who is out to get you. Hide yo kids! Hide yo' wives! The truth is it's all about fashion but it's ridiculous to be scared of fashion statements from a culture that is slightly different from yours. Clothes ? Personality, morality, nor intent.
Did you learn nothing from the movie Shrek?
I sure did. I learned that you can make a movie purportedly about not judging people on looks, and still use a theme song about love at first SIGHT: "And then I saw her face
Now Im a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind"
Shrek is a lightweight and shallow comedy, at best.
Speaking of judging folks on dress... I was once ejected from a pub in the UK because of my clothing. I'd unknowingly worn a shirt bearing the colors of the opposing football team. Apparently folks over there get in fights over stuff like that, which is absurd to me as an American. Nevertheless, I was only transiently insulted by the ejection, and eventually realized that I'd rather not be at the center of an incomprehensible bar-fight!
1) It's weird to call Shrek shallow and lightweight. Were you expecting something else from a children's movie?
2) You're conflating two separate things in culture. One is to innately judge another as an enemy and the other is physical attraction. Are you honestly saying that if you can look upon someone for the first time and be physically attracted to their look it's the same biological mechanism that makes you innately hate people that wear certain types of clothing that you have decided only applied to people of a certain "race" you find to be below you? You can't see how that's a huge leap over seeing beauty from the sex one is attracted to? In either case you should neither trust nor distrust either of these cases without additional information. You have that choice!
PS: It's funny that stone keeps bringing up "gangster" and yet my idea of gangster is from The Godfather were a group of men wearing expensive suits are controlling the money for an area. Sounds a lot Wall Street except without the nepotism.