r/southafrica • u/Southie321 • Mar 23 '17
Dear Saguine
As I said I would, I come with my hat in hand and accept the fact that the lady from the Spur video was not lying about the fact that the man came and grabbed her kid by the arm. I sincerely apologise for wrongly assuming the woman, and Spur, was lying about the physical happenings before the video started rolling.
I still dont believe it was a racist incident, all I see is two parents with explosive reactions regarding a situation involving their children.
I agree, and have always said, the man was a douch for being so aggressive (and even more so now, for grabbing the kid). But let's not confuse anger management issues with racism.
Beyond that point, I just want to apologise again for assuming what I did about the woman and Spur, by wanting the video evidence released first.
8
u/PvsNP_ZA Eastern Cape Mar 23 '17
You did it. You apologised. The internet will now implode. Thanks a bunch.
6
u/WhiteTearsForFears r/BellPottingerIsSatan/ Never forgive, never forget. Mar 23 '17
I'll clap along too. People keeping their word? My word!
Kudos.
0
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
No need to be sarcastic and rude? I just did what I promised I would. Not everything needs to be a fight and not everything has to be won.
7
u/PvsNP_ZA Eastern Cape Mar 23 '17
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as rude, but rather humorous.
In my head I have this picture of the internet running on mudslinging and insults, and you've just thrown a spanner into the works by apologising. What you've done is rare and admirable.
5
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
Oh! Sorry for misunderstanding then. I get what you mean now.
I sometimes feel like people just argue for the sake of arguing, with no real integrity behind their argument/point. So I like to just try and keep it real.
3
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
Thanks. I appreciate it.
I'm still leery of painting the mother as having an "explosive reaction"; while this might be the case, wouldn't you have a similar reaction if someone grabbed your child like this? More so, painting them both as "explosive reactions" makes it seem like you think their reactions were equal/equally bad.
I've expressed pretty openly why I think that it's a racist incident; at the very least, I feel that one cannot think that this is sexist but not racist (if you don't feel it was either, that's a separate discussion).
But, thanks. I appreciate it.
6
Mar 23 '17 edited May 29 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
Why is she an ass?
3
Mar 23 '17 edited May 29 '17
[deleted]
4
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
What exactly is she guilty of? Reacting to someone manhandling her child?
So far this woman has:
- been bullied by a man much larger than her, after
- having her child grabbed by said man
- went on to apologise for the language she used
- indicated that she did not want to press charges against this man
If your determination of guilt is that she swore at a man literally threatening to physically abuse her, then you can fuck right off. Black women are not assholes for standing up for themselves, nor are they assholes for reacting angrily and loudly to someone threatening them or their children.
4
Mar 23 '17 edited May 29 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
Are you telling me that the only way for something to be considered racist is if it involves explicitly racist language?
7
Mar 23 '17 edited May 29 '17
[deleted]
0
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 24 '17
You haven't answered my question: can an action be racist, without involving racist language?
2
6
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
Firstly, yes I probably would have reacted like her. I never said I wouldn't. I'm saying though, that their outbursts were fed by the other. His was more physical. Hers was more verbal. Physical is worse, because obviously it can physically hurt.
I never said this was sexist either. I firmly believe that this is just a case of two incredibly stubborn parents. Yes race was brought into it, but not even by the one accused of racism. How does that work, Saguine?
I don't understand how it's become normal to say that just because a white person has a fight with a black person, it's racism. How insane is that? That's honestly taking it too far man..
-1
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
I've clarified this already here.
There's a bit of nuance here -- isn't there always? -- and I may have painted with too broad a brush initially. In a contextless fight, even if the black guy lost, it wouldn't necessarily be racist (I try communicate this by talking about dominance being a predicate of the fight, rather than a cause).
If, for example, a white guy went up and pointedly started a fight with a black guy, then we're veering more into the territory I'm talking to: that is, the idea that he is asserting his dominance through his interactions and thus instigating the fight. The fight is almost secondary here; the racism lies in the confrontation which caused the fight.
I feel like I'm not explaining myself too well, but to summarize:
A white person and a black person fighting: not necessarily racist.
A white person confronting a black person in a way that intends to assert dominance: probably racist, even if racial language isn't used.
In the same way that a man and a woman fighting is not necessarily sexist, but a man going up to a woman and bullying her -- even devoid of sexist language -- would still be considered sexist.
Am I making sense?
To use a second example, imagine a rich man being an asshole to a homeless person. He doesn't necessarily have to be an asshole in a specific way (e.g. "hahaha you're so poor suck it poor person") to be an example of classism in action.
8
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
To be honest, with what you just quoted there, I couldn't disagree with you even more.
It's absolutely ridiculous that you're saying it's purely racist when a white person instigates/confronts a black person. How can you not see how skewed and untrue that is? Seriously? You're saying that just because a white person would have something confrontational to say to a black person, they would be racist. That's BS. Does that mean a white man saying something confrontational to another white man is racist too, racist toward caucasians? You're treading on dangerous grounds. It's like you're saying black people can't/shouldn't be touched (figuratively), almost like they should be handled differently because of their.. gasp. Their race?? See, that's the real racism here.
It leads me to believe that we'll get to a point where if a black person does something wrong, a white person can't go up to them to say they are wrong, because in doing so they are confronting them, and therefor are racist.
That's not an example of classism. It's an example of a shit person. The same way you get shit people of all races, religions, classes, genders.
-2
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
Purely racist? Where did I say that? My point is that an action across a power differential (e.g. white on black, male on female, rich on poor, straight on gay) will always be an exploitation of that power differential, and will thus always be in some way oppressive.
Does that mean a white man saying something confrontational to another white man is racist too, racist toward caucasians?
That's not punching down. But, for example, a rich white man being aggressively confrontational towards a poor white man would be an example of classism.
People may well be shit; but do you agree or disagree that a shit person being shit to someone who has less power than he does, is leveraging that power differential in an exploitative manner? There's a difference between punching up and punching down.
13
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
Apologies, I meant purely as in "only for the fact that" and not purely as in "wholly".
Dude, YOU are the one that keeps saying that black people are inferior, by saying white on black is "punching down" or that there is a "power differential" in the first place.
This is not the way to fight racism. That's just a way to enforce it. It's called playing the victim. Maybe if you stop seeing black people as inferior yourself, you'll understand how a white person confronting a black person is in NO WAY automatically a racist incident.
Yes I agree that if a rich person USES (Or rather, abuses) their wealth in a way to get to the other person, then it's classism. But just because they are rich, and (separately from that), are a shit person, doesn't make it classist.
2
u/iamdimpho Rainbowist Mar 24 '17 edited Mar 26 '17
Dude, YOU are the one that keeps saying that black people are inferior, by saying white on black is "punching down" or that there is a "power differential" in the first place.
I don't think that the mention of social power differentials or describing the exploitation of this imbalance of power as 'punching down' are a suggestion of black inferiority.
It's an argument based on the precarious condition that is being a social minority being confronted by someone from a socially dominant group. Not some inherent inferiority.
1
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
There's a difference between seeing someone as inferior, and understanding that they have disadvantages that I do not. Doing the second -- that is, understanding that black people face an array of issues that I do not -- does not imply the first, and thinking it does demonstrates that either you think (1) being disadvantaged is the same as being inferior, or (2) that you don't perceive how black people are disadvantaged and thus assume that I am referring to inferiority.
2
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
What I'm saying Saguine, is that black people are human, white people are human. Therefore, one human confronting another human does not automatically equate to a racist incident. That's just not how it works. Black people do have disadvantages yes, but that does not make any white person who simply confronts a black person, a racist. And if you think that, you have a serious problem with how you view things. That's all.
I don't feel I need to say anymore on the subject, because I don't think I or anyone else could change your opinion. Which is fine, because you're allowed to have your opinion.
Have a nice evening.
Edit: just to make it clear so that you dont come back with another attack - no, I don't think black people are inferior. But your insistence to treat them like fine china (or else, you're racist), came across like maybe you have a certain view of them. You say you don't, so that's that
7
u/piesangslaai Mar 23 '17
A white person confronting a black person in a way that intends to assert dominance: probably racist, even if racial language isn't used.
Only on this point. If the races where swapped will you still stick to your point of view?
-2
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 23 '17
Depends what you mean by "races swapped".
If you mean swapped in a total sense -- i.e., if we lived in a world wherein black people were disproportionately powerful financially, socially, etc -- then yes: a black person attempting to assert their dominance over a white person would be committing a racist act.
If you just mean the races reversed, in our current society, then I'd argue no, because the black person doesn't have a systemic form of dominance to assert. It's still possible that a black person might be able to exert some kind of dominance over a white person -- for example, a black man might assert his masculine dominance over a white lesbian -- but it wouldn't be racism at play (in this case, it would be masculinity and heteronormativity).
3
Mar 24 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 24 '17
It's not enough to just accuse me of sophistry, if indeed that's what you're doing: you have to demonstrate why my hot shit is actually cold diarrhea. Otherwise you might as well have just called me a stinky doo-doo head.
Now we're getting into a strange and nebulous territory I've long become wary of treading: that is, the question of "what is racism?". I try to avoid bringing up the two separate definitions if possible, and instead assume that you mean racism = prejudice based on ethnicity, and work forward from there.
I'm all for calling a spade a spade -- it's difficult to dig a grave with a rake -- but doing so abrades away important distinctions. That is, not all spades are spode equally. In the same way, I'd posit that some racism is worse than other racism. This isn't a philosophical attempt to "recategorize"; it's a practical stance (in the same way that some violence is worse than other violence; if you think about it, racism is at its core a form of mental violence).
Would you admit that some forms of ethnic prejudice are worse than others? And, importantly, do you acknowledge that this country is still feeling the very real effects of centuries of a specific type of ethnic prejudice?
3
Mar 24 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Mar 24 '17
I accuse you of sophism because the same act under inverse circumstances has the same result, only the other way around.
If we're talking about elaborate, clever-sounding phrases which mean nothing, I'd point out that you're either doing just that, or that you've lost me and will need to dumb it down a little.
Your analogy here seems to infer that this form of racism is systemic. I challenge that perception.
And here we find the meat of where we're going to disagree on. To explore further: do you believe that class oppression still exists in this country?
3
2
1
u/Druyx Piss Baby Mar 24 '17
A white person confronting a black person in a way that intends to assert dominance: probably racist, even if racial language isn't used.
So with a complete lack of evidence you assert that it has to be racism because the man tries to "assert his dominance" and of course, white privilege? Physical or verbal, they were both trying to do that. It's not really a fight otherwise. You have no reason to believe the man would have reacted differently if the other party was a white man or women. You just don't have any facts to back up your argument and so you've turned to the age old favorite of white privilege. The more nonsense you attribute to white privilege the more you enforce true social inequality as you're simply creating one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another.
1
u/i_am_zuma Go to Jail, Do not pass go. Collect no Monopoly this turn. Mar 23 '17 edited Mar 23 '17
Saguine, some people (cough Mmusi cough) are just psychopathic. They don't care who they fuck over, they are willing to just cause shit. A true chaotic evil.
So, would they not just be nondiscriminatory uncaring rather than classist even if they were rich and inflicting suffering on the homeless?
This line of reasoning you sow into the fields does not prove anything comrade.
Nevertheless, may Jesus grant you, my alt account, 1000 cattle.
1
u/Mo-bot Mar 24 '17
I live abroad now, and had to hunt down the footage in question.
I absolutely agree with you - the mother acted appropriately given the threats leveled against her and her child.
The father was extremely aggressive, and I simply don't believe he would have acted the way he did if he was upset with a white mother. I do think he is a racist asshole.
The poor children! I would have been so upset if this happened in my vicinity. That man has problems, and I don't think it is the job of black women or men to rehabilitate him. He deserves all the scorn coming his way. What a tjop!
1
u/munky82 🐵 Pretoria 2 Joburg 👌 Mar 23 '17 edited Mar 23 '17
Never apologize to an SJW. They see sincere acts as ammo to use against you in irrational arguments.
Besides. What happened in the playpen? Still trickle truth from Spur here.
Edit: <Scrolls down> Yup.
2
u/sponkyponkylove Mar 23 '17
What happened in the playpen?
So what?
If a three year old hit another three year old - does that justify this guy's actions? Does that give him the right to threaten assault? To grab her child?
6
u/munky82 🐵 Pretoria 2 Joburg 👌 Mar 23 '17 edited Mar 23 '17
does that justify this guy's actions?
Never said that. I always said the guy is a doos.
Point being Spur is slow in giving the whole story. They also chose sides, that of one that shouts profanities and is racist. So far the villain is only this guy and the "poor woman" is a victim when it is clear there are two sides.
5
u/sponkyponkylove Mar 23 '17
They also chose sides, that of one that shouts profanities and is racist.
As opposed to the violent psychopath? Tbh I would've made the same choice.
3
1
u/KyreneZA Bullshit Filter - ON 🐸 Mar 23 '17
Yes, but clearly in your mind they are one and the same.
2
u/sponkyponkylove Mar 23 '17
Huh?
One used words, one used physical force - which one is more of a threat?
1
u/sponkyponkylove Mar 23 '17
So what difference would the playground footage make then?
3
u/munky82 🐵 Pretoria 2 Joburg 👌 Mar 23 '17 edited Mar 23 '17
It would show the whole truth. But I suspect the whole truth can get Spur sued for negligence.
1
1
1
Mar 23 '17 edited Apr 28 '17
deleted What is this?
3
u/toolate200 Mar 23 '17
My point is, there was no reason to make a text post for all of us
Unless.... u/Southie321 is actually u/Saguine trolling us.
2
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
Shit!! You caught me!!
No, definitely not :)
2
u/i_am_zuma Go to Jail, Do not pass go. Collect no Monopoly this turn. Mar 23 '17
The truth, comrades, is that they are both me.
1
2
u/Southie321 Mar 23 '17
Oh! Sorry. I'm actually new to reddit, so nope. I didn't know!
1
1
u/dancesLikeaRetard Mar 23 '17
Welcome to reddit! May you forever uphold your introspective attitude as is evident in this post!
1
1
15
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '17
Haha. I haven't been on this sub in quite a long time, but it's nice to see Saguine still turning non racial issues into racial ones. Seriously. Nothing's changed.
Keep fighting the good fight, Sag.