1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterNo, I'm not white.
Are you white? Seriously, racism is so backwards now that blacks and women have more rights than white men - especially true with college and admissions.
BTW:I find your "little joe" stuff offensive.
OMG! They are not giving blacks and women rights now, are they?
=
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitWould you find the United "Negro" College Fund name offensive too?
No, I'm not white.
OMG! They are not giving blacks and women rights now, are they?
=
P-
O how about those All-black schools in Louisiana?
What about Tuskegee Institute?
The only reason i said a black kid was because he was unique in a sense. The "beat up" part might be my fault, because i was trying to add a bit humor into it, but i too find it immature.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitWomen and minorities have more rights than anybody else - that's backwards.
No, I'm not white.
OMG! They are not giving blacks and women rights now, are they?
=
P-
Idiot proofing...
Everybody should have EQUAL rights, not more rights to make up for the lack of rights they had 50-100 years ago.
Whilst you can argue that there was some inherent racism in the title of this thread because it seems to say that not only is it surprising that a child is beating Kasparov but it is even more surprising because the child is black. And this will have been the reason a black child was chosen to play this role as it sets out to challenge these perceptions. The child is not portrayed as stupid.
My concern with all the policing of terminology and wanton accusations of racism leveled at people whose views we don't fully understand is that it marginalises more serious issues of racism. The world of political correctness seems to say that if we all walk round in a comfortable middle class bubble and all agree not to say any bad words then all is right with the world. I agree with ridding our language of derogatory racism and with making racism socially unacceptable but examining peoples utterances to find something that might possibly have a racist interpretation is a waste of time and doesn't solve any problems.
Originally posted by cmsMasteri agree here..seems like places trying to make it like a balance beam, loading up the opposite side and it will be even...
Women and minorities have more rights than anybody else - that's backwards.
Idiot proofing...
Everybody should have EQUAL rights, not more rights to make up for the lack of rights they had 50-100 years ago.
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterhaving equal rights, and taking measures to enforce them are two separate things. having equal rights doesn't mean everybody are treated equally, it simply means they should be treated equally. and until statistics show that equality actually has been achieved, there needs to be active measures towards it.
Women and minorities have more rights than anybody else - that's backwards.
Idiot proofing...
Everybody should have EQUAL rights, not more rights to make up for the lack of rights they had 50-100 years ago.
how many women in the u.s. congress?
and about what somebody said about the black kid being singled out because the color of his skin, well... if the room had been filled with black men, and there was a white kid in the focus, it would've been perfectly normal to call him "little white kid", right?
to anybody who's done any photographing, commercials etc. it's obvious that the kid was black for visual reasons. they needed to get the opponent to stand out from the others, so they made everyone else an old white guy, and the only important opponent a kid, and black. just to guide the viewer's eye in a crowded room. contrast. it's in the 101 on your basic sensory psychology, they eye is drawn to exceptions.
not to mention that the setting obviously plays with the idea of black pieces vs. white pieces without any childish racial contexts, and historical paintings (which is why the kid wasn't dressed in red or something like that). they also needed to sell the product, which is shown to be so powerful and easy to use that even a little kid can beat garry kasparov using it.
to anybody who's done any photographing, commercials etc. it's obvious that the kid was black for visual reasons.But surely the play on social stereo types was the primary idea and the visuals will have been subservient to this.
The choice of a black kid was central to the story for a whole range of reasons. A desire to associate the product with people who believe in racial equality and to challenge the perceptions of those who don't. Following the implausibility of a child beating Gary Kasparov ahead of a field of apparently intelligent older men we discover the child is cheating - but cheating in a very intelligent way. The product empowers the individual. I would argue that all the messages communicated by this commercial are intentional and were discussed and planned in every detail very carefully beforehand.
I wonder if the commercial ever played in Russia - a place where I have been quite shocked by the level of racial intolerance. Of course I fully appreciate this may just be due to my limited experience of Russia and Russians and there will be many exceptions...so feel free to correct me if this perception is wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by EmLaskerI'm glad you didn't do this on purpose, I'll take your word for it.
Would you find the United "Negro" College Fund name offensive too?
O how about those All-black schools in Louisiana?
What about Tuskegee Institute?
The only reason i said a black kid was because he was unique in a sense. The "beat up" part might be my fault, because i was trying to add a bit humor into it, but i too find it immature.
I do not find 'negro fund' offensive, since they do a lot for the black community, and I would most likely guess it is run by blacks. If they wanted to change the name, they could. I wouldn't use the use that term, most often I don't even bother to say someone's race unless it is the only way I can describe someone... like saying "I would moste likely guess it is run by blacks." (as above)
Also, the title wouldn't have put me off at all, but seeing the comments posted under the video at youboob made the whole thing a bus-crash in my mind.
P-
Originally posted by adramforallSpace aliens are tak'n mer job!
Has anyone considered the sexuality of the child, his parents, etc.
Imagine the outcry if it was a little black homosexual boy who was born to a white sperm donor and he was also a test tube baby that had beat Kasparov.
Bluddy political correctness has ruined the world.
P-
Originally posted by PalynkaI think this title is an offense to little girls everywhere. Why does it have to be a boy? They must be saying that girls can't play chess!
I think this title is an offense to little kids everywhere. If he had been an average sized kid he wouldn't have identified as a normal sized kid, now would he?
By the way, is it just me or does that kid in the video look really pissed off?
Originally posted by YUG0slavHe's got his game face on, and it turns into a smile when Gary gets a chair and begins to ponder the position.
I think this title is an offense to little girls everywhere. Why does it have to be a boy? They must be saying that girls can't play chess!
By the way, is it just me or does that kid in the video look really pissed off?
P-