Those donuts are racist!

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Fixed.

This has nothing to do with concentration camps. It has to do with (white) liberals getting offended for black people over something nobody even cares about.

Um. First you criticize "blacks" who may have been offended and say "they should really learn to get rid of that self entitlement issue they have." Next, when that absurdity is challenged, you claim it is merely "(white) liberals getting offended for black people" when no one is actually offended.

Given your express approval of racist sentiments in the past, it is not surprising you are not offended by the ad. When you figure out a coherent (although unreasonable) argument for why no one could be offended, get back to us.

[Aurora Novus]

I really don't see anything racist about this image at all, "blackface" be damned. That something was used in a particular manner in the past, does not mean all future events similar to it carry the same connotation.

Of course not. I mean it is not like communication is based on images, symbols, or sounds that have been used in a particular manner in the past that helps us determine their meaning in the present. Instead, all communication begins tabula rasa.

That you interpret something as being racist based upon precedent does not actually make it so. Images, symbols, and sounds are without objective meaning, and human beings are free to provide them with whatever meaning they wish.

Meaning that the creators of this image are free to create it without any racist intent.


You are of course free to interpret it as racist, based upon precedent. However, in a delicious twist of irony, that some argue about it's objective racist connotations, despite the fact no racism was intended by the creators, is itself a racist position to take. A white person painting their face black is not inherently racist. "Blackface" is not inherently racist. And while you may wish to jump to conclusions based upon precedent, I prefer to look at the image itself, and try and understand what it's trying to convey, rather than force my own meaning onto it, and then lambaste it, despite the fact that this outrage is solely the result of my own projection.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Of course not. I mean it is not like communication is based on images, symbols, or sounds that have been used in a particular manner in the past that helps us determine their meaning in the present. Instead, all communication begins tabula rasa.

That you interpret something as being racist based upon precedent does not actually make it so. Images, symbols, and sounds are without objective meaning, and human beings are free to provide them with whatever meaning they wish.

Meaning that the creators of this image are free to create it without any racist intent.

You are of course free to interpret it as racist, based upon precedent. However, in a delicious twist of irony, that some argue about it's objective racist connotations, despite the fact no racism was intended by the creators, is itself a racist position to take. A white person painting their face black is not inherently racist. "Blackface" is not inherently racist. And while you may wish to jump to conclusions based upon precedent, I prefer to look at the image itself, and try and understand what it's trying to convey, rather than force my own meaning onto it, and then lambaste it, despite the fact that this outrage is solely the result of my own projection.

Cute.

You assume that racism requires intent. That is false. And that false assumption undermines your entire argument.

You assume it is a fact that no racism is intended by the creators. That is without basis. More deceptively, you seem to be deriving the conclusion that no racism was intended by the creators because it is possible no racism was intended by the creators. That is absurd.

You simultaneously assert that the meaning of a form of communication must be judged both by the subjective intent of the creator/speaker and by the viewer/listeners attempt to "understand what [is being] convey[ed]." That is contradictory. It is also nonsense.

You assert that images, symbols, and sounds have no "objective meaning" and leap clear over to the notion that they may have any meaning one wishes. That is not only somewhat of a false dichotomy, but also does not answer my argument. You cannot communicate without some mutual understanding of the meaning of images, symbols, and sounds. Individuals or groups without mutual understandings can -- by various methods -- establish them. And, past understandings, can be replaced by new ones.

None of that makes it irrational (let alone "racist") to apply (or at least suspect) well-established meanings for images, symbols, and sounds. Nor is it irrational to object to certain images, symbols, and sounds that have been used to denigrate and dehumanize certain peoples in the absence of clear context removing any such meanings (intentional or not).

[Kryezikstan]

Those liberals *grumbles to himself* always their fault with all their wanting 'equal rights' *grumble grumble grumble*
In seriousness, there's nothing racist here, its not the liberals fault. End of.

[Aurora Novus]

Cute.

You assume that racism requires intent.

Yes, it does. Unless you are using some strange definition of the term 'racism', or some strange definition of the term 'intent', to put down or discriminate against a group based on skin color requires intent. And popularly, discrimination is thought of as an intentional act. We would not say you "discriminated" against a man in china, because you did not invite him to your birthday party, due to having no knowledge of him. We typically describe discrimination as "consciously acting against". To act against something in such a manner requires intent.

That is false. And that false assumption undermines your entire argument.

Try again.

You assume it is a fact that no racism is intended by the creators. That is without basis.

Not at all. If you have read any of the news articles discussing the Thailand branch of DD's response to the issue, it's quite clear they don't even understand the notion of painting someone's skin black as being racist. If someone does not even comprehend that a particular action is racist, it does not seem plausible they could seriously intend for it to be racist.

More deceptively, you seem to be deriving the conclusion that no racism was intended by the creators because it is possible no racism was intended by the creators. That is absurd.

I fail to see how you took this away from my post. Try again.

You simultaneously assert that the meaning of a form of communication must be judged both by the subjective intent of the creator/speaker and by the viewer/listeners attempt to "understand what [is being] convey[ed]." That is contradictory. It is also nonsense.

That is not quite what I have asserted. It would seem you have not read my post properly at several points. I would suggest you go back and think over it again.

What I am saying is this: Images and symbols are without objective meaning. We ascribe meaning to them, in an attempt to communicate ideas and feelings. All communication (speaking, writing, symbolism, ect.) is the process of one individual creating a medium, with an intent applied to it, in the hopes that the receiver will perceive the same meaning, and the idea will be communicated successfully.

Now, if you perceive racism in something, whether or not that perception is accurate in terms of the intent of the image is entirely based upon the creator's intent of the image. You can, of course, perceive something as racist, regardless of the author's intent.

But as the racism can only be projected by the receiver, or intended by the author, if you perceive the image as racist when the author did not intend racism, you are the one who has made the image racist. You are at fault for your own offense.


As I said, you are free to do this if you wish, but I find it absolutely silly. I much rather prefer to try and understand what the author is intending to communicate, to understand the idea they have, rather than project my own views onto the image, and subsequently be outraged when I see exactly what I have projected. I prefer to be outraged when the creator's idea is in the wrong.

I prefer to look to the future, instead of staying muddled in the past.


It would be ridiculous if I came up to you and said "How dare you wear that white sweater in public! Where I'm from, white sweaters are a sign of oppression for my people! You insensitive bastard!" The white sweater does not carry the same meaning to you, and you do not intend to communicate such an idea by wearing it. You are in no way in the wrong for wearing it, and I would only have myself to blame for my perceived offense.

You assert that images, symbols, and sounds have no "objective meaning" and leap clear over to the notion that they may have any meaning one wishes.

Quite the contrary, I have asserted just that. Which is precisely why they have no objective meaning. If something can mean anything to anyone, the meaning you perceive is not objective.

That is not only somewhat of a false dichotomy, but also does not answer my argument. You cannot communicate without some mutual understanding of the meaning of images, symbols, and sounds.

Indeed, this is true, as I stated above.

That does not at all change the value of what I have stated however. And in fact, you have only supported my case.

Individuals or groups without mutual understandings can -- by various methods -- establish them. And, past understandings, can be replaced by new ones.

Indeed. and so I am perplexed as to why you want to seemingly replace a nonracist interpretation of something, with a racist interpretation. That seems incredibly...well backwards. I should think it would be much better to replace the racist interpretation with the non racist one. That reality seems far more pleasurable for everyone.

None of that makes it irrational (let alone "racist") to apply (or at least suspect) well-established meanings for images, symbols, and sounds.

You seem to have missed my point (again) about calling that position racist. Allow me to reiterate it for you.

The notion that the blackface image carries an inherent connotation of racism is itself a racist position to take, due to the fact that it discriminate and puts down a skin color unjustly. There is not an inherent connotation of racism, and to socially reprimand someone in your society, let alone someone in a society miles across the globe, who have no understanding of your values and perception of the image, is irrational, and arguably racist.

Nor is it irrational to object to certain images, symbols, and sounds that have been used to denigrate and dehumanize certain peoples in the absence of clear context removing any such meanings (intentional or not).

You stand to assume all such imagery to be, as a baseline, being used in a bad context. You stand to assume this, based upon a history of such images being used in this manner.

I disagree with this thinking. I find it irrational and silly. It is far better to assume no context, but rather, try and understand what context the author was using said imagery in, before drawing conclusions about the image. This leads to a more accurate and successful communication of ideas.

Your method, however, is nothing more than an excuse to feel self-generated outrage.

[Xsyne]

Of course not. I mean it is not like communication is based on images, symbols, or sounds that have been used in a particular manner in the past that helps us determine their meaning in the present. Instead, all communication begins tabula rasa.

That you interpret something as being racist based upon precedent does not actually make it so. Images, symbols, and sounds are without objective meaning, and human beings are free to provide them with whatever meaning they wish.

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[7] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[8] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia)[9]"

As much as you might wish it to be so, this is not how language works. Humpty Dumpty is not someone you are supposed to emulate.

[Aurora Novus]

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[7] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[8] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia)[9]"

You've done nothing other than show that some adults go so far as to accuse others of mental deficiencies, for recognizing reality.

Please, do show me how words have inherent, objective meanings.

I'll wait.


By the way, your "disorder" does not actually disprove what I'm saying. All it suggests is that people who hold such views are typically dysfunctional within society. Which is understandable, as if everyone held a different belief about the meaning of a word, communication would be impossible, and society dysfunctional.

It does not, however, mean that the statement is false.

As much as you might wish it to be so, this is not how language works. Humpty Dumpty is not someone you are supposed to emulate.

Quite the opposite. Language works exactly as I have described it.

If you disagree, I challenge you to prove words have objective meaning and inherent connotations and definitions.

But so far, all you've done is tossed a thinly-veiled ad hominem my way.

[Dakini]

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[7] This tendency is considered normal in children, but in adults can be a symptom of psychopathy[8] or a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia)[9]"

You've done nothing other than show that some adults go so far as to accuse others of mental deficiencies, for recognizing reality.

Please, do show me how words have inherent, objective meanings.

You want someone to show that words, which are really just man-made inventions that have been changed, refined, redefined etc over millenia have inherent, objective meanings? And you seem to think that you win the argument if they don't?


Fucking seriously?

By the way, your "disorder" does not actually disprove what I'm saying. All it suggests is that people who hold such views are typically dysfunctional within society. Which is understandable, as if everyone held a different belief about the meaning of a word, communication would be impossible, and society dysfunctional.

And I like how here you contradict your earlier statements where you assert that words and images do not have commonly agreed upon meanings, or rather, that it is okay to ignore these commonly understood meanings. You acknowledge that commonly understood meanings communicate ideas.

This doesn't mean that everyone else should adapt to a person who understands meanings differently (e.g. we should not adapt to a person who suffers from neologism), but the individuals who understand words to have different meanings should adapt to be better understood by the rest of us. If we go about expecting that everyone has their own definitions of words, communication breaks down and nobody is understood.

This is what you advocate in the first paragraph and then say is a bad thing in the second. So I'm not really sure what you think you're proving here.

[Aurora Novus]

You want someone to show that words, which are really just man-made inventions that have been changed, refined, redefined etc over millenia have inherent, objective meanings? And you seem to think that you win the argument if they don't?


Fucking seriously?

Well considering they said that they were not that, yes, I should think that's exactly what they have to do.

And I like how here you contradict your earlier statements where you assert that words and images do not have commonly agreed upon meanings

I never stated this. I said that do not have objective or inherent meanings, not commonly agreed upon meanings.

or rather, that it is okay to ignore these commonly understood meanings. You acknowledge that commonly understood meanings communicate ideas.

I've acknowledged that the entire time. Clearly you have not been paying attention. Furthermore, this is not a contradiction. I have never argued against a mutual understanding of meaning, I have simply argued in favor of a different method of looking for that mutual understanding. In this instance, instead of looking at an image and, based on historic precedent, assuming it is being used in some racist manner, we should instead assume nothing, and seek to understand the intent of the creator. Why that is such a radical concept to some of you is beyond me.

This doesn't mean that everyone else should adapt to a person who understands meanings differently (e.g. we should not adapt to a person who suffers from neologism),

That depends on whether or not their understanding is better, more useful, or more accurate.

but the individuals who understand words to have different meanings should adapt to be better understood by the rest of us.

If they wish to communicate successfully, sure.

However, when it comes to things which are "offensive", I'm not quite sure I agree. I personally desire a world where less people view less things as offensive, not more of both. And so when a group of people complain about something being offensive, I think it perfectly acceptable, and good actually, that the other party defend themselves by pointing out the lack of offensive intent.

Perhaps the offended party will then realize their offense lies solely within themselves, and they can move past it, rather than seek to drag others down with them.

If we go about expecting that everyone has their own definitions of words, communication breaks down and nobody is understood.

This is what you advocate in the first paragraph and then say is a bad thing in the second. So I'm not really sure what you think you're proving here.

First of all, there is a difference between advocating, and stating a fact. I have not stated people shouldn't hold common understandings for most things. What I have stated is that, regardless of these common understandings, these meanings pi]are not inherent[/i]. That is reality. And consequently, anyone can mean anything when they speak. When I say "fuck you" it is entirely possible that I am meaning "this pizza is delicious".

Whether or not this is efficient for communication is another matter entirely.


What this situation is, and what I am advocating for boils down to this. People from another culture have accused others of being racist, by doing something they see within their own culture as racist. I think this is completely idiotic, because nothing is "objectively" racist. What truly matters is the intent of the creator. And seeing as it was not to be racist, those who perceive racism in this ad have no one but themselves to blame for their outrage.

Rather than replace the nonracst perception with the racist perception, I would much rather those who perceive racism stop projecting, and look to the author's intent, and replace their racist understanding with a nonracist one. That reality is far better for everyone.

[Scholencia]

Your point is?

You wanted to know if there was blacks participating in such shows. Here your evidence and they obviously did not considered this shows to be bad. It was just parody and for the purpose of entertaining.

So one show = the entire black population being okay with it?
Also, being will do strange things for money, especially if you were in the same socioeconomic position black people were at that time.

You do realise you are having prejudice toward black people: "But all black people were uneducated, stupid and poor." You should provide a really good source that 100%, no in fact let us say 85% black where living in such condition.

You racism is staggering.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

So one show = the entire black population being okay with it?
Also, being will do strange things for money, especially if you were in the same socioeconomic position black people were at that time.

You do realise you are having prejudice toward black people: "But all black people were uneducated, stupid and poor."

You'll note I never said that, or anything like it, anywhere.
Good job making up a quote, though, although it's kinda given away as something of your own invention by the fact I'd never say something as incredibly wide-ranging as that so ridiculously simplistically and artlessly. You, on the other hand...have an affinity for that sort of thing.
Nice try. Well, not even that nice a try. I'd give it like a 4 out of 10.

You should provide a really good source that 100%, no in fact let us say 85% black where living in such condition.

Look in an American history textbook. Seriously, you need me to provide a source that black people were pretty horrifically left behind in terms of economics and education in the aftermath of abolition and Reconstruction? Anyone who's ever paid attention in a junior-year APUS history course knows that.
Seriously, I could dig out my fucking texbook (or Lies My Teacher Told Me, an excellent book on certain topics often left behind in US History classes that has an excellent section on the history of African-American poverty in the post-Reconstruction "Nadir" of US race relations) if you'd like me to, although clearly you'd have no way to corroborate what I'm saying, given that I doubt you have any expertise on the subject to cross-check.

You racism is staggering.

I'd imagine the version of me that said what you put in quotes up there would possibly be, if that person was real and not a figment of your own imagination. Besides, if your little racist invented comment there is enough to "stagger" you, Little Miss Prim N' Delicate, then I can scarcely imagine how you deal with some of the racist shit you post.
What you portrayed me as having said isn't even a slam against black people necessarily, although you're either unwilling or unable to realize that - it's a slam against the system that kept them down - Jim Crow and the like.
You do know what that is, right?

Also, nice job taking this long to put together a response, either you're the slowest typer I've yet seen or you should just get the hell over it.

[Acsicurezza]

What's funny is that race isn't a thing, xD

[The Tiger Kingdom]

What's funny is that race isn't a thing, xD

Nope:
From the wiki definition, which is pretty much echoed across the board:
"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation."
So...none of those affiliations exist either?

The genetic part of "race" is fairly trivial and shallow compared to what people like the Nazis said it was, but the differences are real.

[The Black Forrest]

What's funny is that race isn't a thing, xD

Nope:
From the wiki definition, which is pretty much echoed across the board:
"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation."
So...none of those affiliations exist either?

The genetic part of "race" is fairly trivial and shallow compared to what people like the Nazis said it was, but the differences are real.

So it's a social construct.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Nope:
From the wiki definition, which is pretty much echoed across the board:
"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation."
So...none of those affiliations exist either?

The genetic part of "race" is fairly trivial and shallow compared to what people like the Nazis said it was, but the differences are real.

So it's a social construct.

Eh...yeah, but it's a social construct based in actual, visible differences.
It's basically meaningless on a genetic/ethnic level, I'll grant you.

[The Black Forrest]

So it's a social construct.

Eh...yeah, but it's a social construct based in actual, visible differences.
It's basically meaningless on a genetic/ethnic level, I'll grant you.

But declaring them a separate race? Hardly, we can all pretty well intermix and have successful offspring.

At best you can argue for sub-species......

[Viperco1]

The world does not revolve around American culture. Whether this is racist or not is dependent on the history of racism in Thailand and the nationality of the marketing executive responsible.

The point of the advertisement seems to be an emphasis on being all black, as in the donut(unless it is in fact racist), though the pink lips do interrupt this effect.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Eh...yeah, but it's a social construct based in actual, visible differences.
It's basically meaningless on a genetic/ethnic level, I'll grant you.

But declaring them a separate race? Hardly, we can all pretty well intermix and have successful offspring.

First, who exactly are we talking about here?
Second off...having "successful" offspring doesn't exactly rule out any sort of genetic difference ever existing ever.

At best you can argue for sub-species......

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO POSSIBLE ACCIDENTAL KKK TALKING POINT REACHED
Sub-species are far, far more different than each other than people of separate races. Look up the definitions.
Think of it this way:
White people - black people = racial differences, specifically, different pigmentation. No real other visible differences on any level deeper than that.
Normal humans - Tolkien's elves - Tolkien's dwarves = major, relatively uniform genetic differences indicating each is an actual subspecies of some larger "humanoid" species bracket.
Humanity isn't an old enough species to have evolved "subspecies", with one exception, which may or may not be an actual subspecies (I'm not sure) and who are, at any rate, all extinct now (Neanderthals).
Seriously, calling different racial groups "subspecies" actually veers really, really close to weirdass white-nationalist anti-miscegenation talking points. They love believing that.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well I'm sure there are different cultural perceptions on blackface or er -charcoal face. Still a bit distasteful.

[Altarak]

I dont see anything racist in that ad......

[Ceannairceach]

I find it funny how the alleged capitalist is so angry about people fighting Dunkin' Donuts with their dollars. They didn't like the company, so they asked them to change it. No government intervention whatsoever. What's the problem here, exactly?

[Llamalandia]

Oh, yeah.

The blackface is kinda an issue.

I'd feel more comfortable agreeing with that sentiment had this been done in America or by an American. The simple fact is Thailand to my knowledge doesn't have a lot of black people and certainly no history like the USA in that regard to be sure. I seriously doubt it even crossed anyone's mind that this might be even the least bit inappropriate. I really think people are just trying to superimpose American standards on a foreign country, I mean come on its simply cultural relativism.

That said I agree with the article that the ads are "bizarre" I don't really get what they were going for but again I'm not Thai and I no little of their culture so perhaps it makes perfect sense to them.

All that said I could go for donuts right about now.

[South American Indochina]

Except the pink lips make it obviously an imitation of blackface makeup, which has rather negative connotations, because actors wearing blackface were trying to make African-Americans look as ridiculous as possible, by acting weirdly and flamboyantly, or dressing in drag. I, as a BLEEDING HART EVUL LIBRUHL, wouldn't actually find it racist if not for the pink lips.

Oh, so blacks should always be portrayed in a positive light? Nothing that could make fun of them or insult them should be allowed, right? Maybe we should start banning all kinds of humor that make fun of white people as well. Oh how nice it would be, nobody's feelings would be hurt!

Some Thai could start an ad campaign with stereotypical sassy black ladies and ghetto gangsters, why would it matter? There are like three people of African descent in the whole country anyway, and I'm pretty sure they could handle it.

How about portraying them in a neutral light? Not everything is, unintended pun approaching, black and white as you would see it.

This world is global. Nothing that happens in Thailand stays in Thailand. Eventually your next door neighbor will find out and get pissed.

[South American Indochina]

For what I see it, the blackface is a historical troll. We, the sophisticated leftist liberal intellectuals should just ignore it and not feed it. Those who remember the blackface minstrel shows know the racist connotations attached to a face painted black and will just vote with their wallets.

I am not saying it is not ridiculous, because it is. History of mankind tends to be.

[Ceannairceach]

For what I see it, the blackface is a historical troll. We, the sophisticated leftist liberal intellectuals should just ignore it and not feed it. Those who remember the blackface minstrel shows know the racist connotations attached to a face painted black and will just vote with their wallets.

I am not saying it is not ridiculous, because it is. History of mankind tends to be.

They are voting with their wallets. They informed the company of what gripes they had, and the company responded. This is the positive example of that idea at work. What is wrong with this?