Limits to Identification insanity?

[nikolai_42]

Just a thought I had...and I suspect it isn't an original one, but since insanity is the rule of the day :

If people are allowed to self identify as whatever gender they feel like, why can't all those who are getting lambasted for "blackfacing" say they were identifying with being black? Gender and skin color are both biological realities that have less tangible "feelings" associated with them, so if a man can undergo reassignment surgery and "become" a woman, dress as a woman etc... because he feels like a woman, why shouldn't that apply to race (and skin color) as well? Elizabeth Warren could use that to clear up her issues pretty quickly. Who cares what the DNA test says. If XX and XY mean nothing...why should any other gene (including the one that supposedly codes for homosexual tendencies)?

How quickly rebellion against God's created order devolves to utter nonsense.

 

[ok doser]

perhaps you're referring to the current controversy swirling around ralph northam - i wish that just once somebody who found themselves in such a controversy would man up and stop being wishy-washy and apologetic

just once i'd love to hear somebody own it, hold a press conference and say "Yep, that was me in black face - i was a dopey kid and i thought it was hilarious at the time. So did all my classmates. So did Flip Wilson. You're offended by it today, thirty-five years later? Go suck an egg."

 

[Town Heretic]

Just a thought I had...and I suspect it isn't an original one, but since insanity is the rule of the day : If people are allowed to self identify as whatever gender they feel like, why can't all those who are getting lambasted for "blackfacing" say they were identifying with being black?

Because no one caught in blackface was actually identifying that way, which is why the current democratic governor of Virginia was also comfortable (as of 84) standing by a guy in a Klan outfit.

How quickly rebellion against God's created order devolves to utter nonsense.

When you don't believe in objective moral reality everything is on the table.

I moved this next bit because it seemed out of place to me.

Elizabeth Warren could use that to clear up her issues pretty quickly.

She doesn't have issues. The right has issues with Elizabeth Warren, so whatever they can throw against the wall will be thrown. I think it's a waste of credibility, as she isn't going to win the White House for reasons unrelated to her reliance on family lore that worked her no particular advantage.

 

[nikolai_42]

perhaps you're referring to the current controversy swirling around ralph northam - i wish that just once somebody who found themselves in such a controversy would man up and stop being wishy-washy and apologetic

just once i'd love to hear somebody own it, hold a press conference and say "Yep, that was me in black face - i was a dopey kid and i thought it was hilarious at the time. So did all my classmates. So did Flip Wilson. You're offended by it today, thirty-five years later? Go suck an egg."

There have been a number of cases recently with which I have only a passing familiarity. But there's even an popular old movie (1940's - I think it was Holiday Inn but can't be certain offhand) that had an actor in blackface. My point, though, is more fundamental than just these cases. It's how ridiculous things are (insanity is a better word, I think). The inconsistencies are glaring. And when you have such a hyper-individualization that occurs with choosing one's gender, how does that square with a modern black man or woman crying oppression when their forefathers would have been glad simply to have freedom? Pushing the envelope on individual freedom and corporate guilt (or corporate responsibility) at the same time seems to me to be evidence of something radically wrong. I don't deny that racism exists and I don't deny that some people have serious issues with regard to sex identity (from birth) - but serious racism is nothing like what it was and is not occurring on a corporate (group, community etc...) level anymore.

 

[nikolai_42]

Because no one caught in blackface was actually identifying that way, which is why the current democratic governor of Virginia was also comfortable (as of 84) standing by a guy in a Klan outfit.

My thought in that particular case would be to wonder why it isn't okay to say he was trying to identify with the oppression of the black man. Again (and I responded to OK's post but after you had posted) I'm thinking more fundamentally than on a case-by-case basis. The political climate is putting self-identification near the top of the list of priorities to advance. One might say that people would realize that the governor would "clearly" be trying to excuse the inexcusable (or something along those lines) but again...it wasn't even a decade ago when gender was not a fluid thing. So by analogy (and by the reasoning that the gender-fluid movement seems to use) what's the difference here? Why should we be able to say "but he's not black and never could relate - this is just self-serving" when that's basically what we are saying about gender now?

When you don't believe in objective moral reality everything is on the table.

I moved this next bit because it seemed out of place to me.

She doesn't have issues. The right has issues with Elizabeth Warren, so whatever they can throw against the wall will be thrown. I think it's a waste of credibility, as she isn't going to win the White House for reasons unrelated to her reliance on family lore that worked her no particular advantage.

I realize her situation isn't quite the same, but again...it's the principle I'm thinking about. What is keeping her from simply saying that she identified with the native American heritage (wasn't it her grandmother who said she wished she had the high cheekbones)?

 

[ok doser]

the flaw in your reasoning, nikolai, is that you expect rationally and logic from the left

 

[Stripe]

RDJ in the past decade was in blackface for almost an entire film.

Perhaps in 30 years he will face pressure to apologize. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

he'll have to apologize for pretending to be an australian first

 

[Stripe]

he'll have to apologize for pretending to be an australian first

You mean he went full retard?

 

[nikolai_42]

the flaw in your reasoning, nikolai, is that you expect rationally and logic from the left

I expect consistency from everyone. This is an undercurrent of anarchical thought that troubles me.

 

[Clete]

perhaps you're referring to the current controversy swirling around ralph northam - i wish that just once somebody who found themselves in such a controversy would man up and stop being wishy-washy and apologetic

just once i'd love to hear somebody own it, hold a press conference and say "Yep, that was me in black face - i was a dopey kid and i thought it was hilarious at the time. So did all my classmates. So did Flip Wilson. You're offended by it today, thirty-five years later? Go suck an egg."

The ONLY reason anyone knows anything about that photo is because the governor was stupid enough to say on camera that he thought it was okay to kill a baby that had survived an abortion.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ted Danson blackfaced on stage with Whoopi Goldberg back when he was her boyfriend and she thought he was hilarious. So much for the racism of it