Sign at George Floyd Square gives list of special orders for white visitors

[Curious George]

One addressing everyone....or no one.

Pen it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Cool, you found one rich black person who thinks race is irrelevant to people's lives. And so...?

Morgan asks not to call him a black person and he won't call you a white person.

Besides, he's God. God is supposed to be rich. ;0]

 

[Revoltingest]

You can keep calling something racist but that doesn't make it so. It's literally anti-racist.

Your repeating the same argument doesn't make it so either.
Using racism in pursuit of anti-racism is a very bad idea.

As I said, as a white person I don't see how it's hostile.

I know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pen it.

Please be friendly & respectful to others,
especially people of different stripes.

 

[Left Coast]

Your repeating the same argument doesn't make it so either.

It does if the argument follows, lol. So you can either actually address the argument or keep simply insisting that any message to white people, regardless of context, is racism.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does if the argument follows, lol. So you can either actually address the argument or keep simply insisting that any message to white people, regardless of context, is racism.

Tis well trodden ground.
Time to agree to disagree.

 

[Curious George]

Please be friendly & respectful to others,
especially people of different stripes.

I agree that such a sign would be far less inflammatory than the one posted. Though I think it sounds a little cliche. A little bumper-sticker-esque. It reminds me of the "practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty." Such sentiments resonate with some who tend to wax philosophical and are overlooked by many. Do you really think that your sentence is more thought provoking than the sign in question? Or is it that you find the sign in question so distasteful that literally any "nice" statement would serve to replace it?

 

[Left Coast]

Morgan asks not to call him a black person and he won't call you a white person.

Besides, he's God. God is supposed to be rich. ;0]

He probably wouldn't like it if I called him rich, either. Hollywood types disconnected from little people's reality - how cliché!

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that such a sign would be far less inflammatory than the one posted. Though I think it sounds a little cliche.

Signs tend to be cliche.
But now you must write a better one.
The gauntlet has been thrown down!

 

[Twilight Hue]

It does if the argument follows, lol. So you can either actually address the argument or keep simply insisting that any message to white people, regardless of context, is racism.

It's racism in this case. It's using physical characteristics to identify a specific group of people and associating ones skin color with behavior.

One would think or hope by now the lesson would have been learned that a persons skin color dosent determine bad behavior.

There's absolutely no need or call to specify skin color unless the mentality exists that because simply on a basis one is white, then they are far more prone to be unruly and disruptive because their skin is white.

 

[Left Coast]

It's racism in this case. It's using physical characteristics to identify a specific group of people and associating ones skin color with behavior.
One would think or hope by now the lesson that a persons skin color dosent determine bad behavior.

There's absolutely no need or call to specify skin color unless the mentality exists that because simply on a basis one is white, then they are far more prone to be unruly and disruptive because their skin is white.

This has been answered already. White people carry privilege to which they are routinely blind by virtue of their whiteness (not inherently/genetically -- culturally). The sign simply asks us to be mindful of it when entering a space created for recognition of white oppression of black people. Again - that isn't racism. It is - again - literally anti-racism. I can only walk you through the logic of this so many times.

 

[Curious George]

Signs tend to be cliche.
But now you must write a better one.
The gauntlet has been thrown down!

I try not to fancy myself a wordsmith, lest I descend to bickering. I simply thought that most might believe a better sign could be written. I wonder what the authors intentions were. Then I wondered whether we could address those intentions in a better way.

I don't think the "that's racist!" narrative is very productive. I would hope that the author did not have nefarious or offensive intentions and chose the wording they did out of a need to convey a point, regardless of offense that may or may not be taken.

I think some here have pointed out the problems with the authors words, but I wonder can such sentiments as the author was attempting to convey, be done so in a better fashion. I also think others have defended the author's words, but I wonder whether they would have chosen the same.

When looking at writing, I think it is important to think about intended audience, setting, purpose and word choice. If nothing else, the author's words incited dialogue. And perhaps, that was the intent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This has been answered already. White people carry privilege to which they are routinely blind by virtue of their whiteness (not inherently/genetically -- culturally). The sign simply asks us to be mindful of it when entering a space created for recognition of white oppression of black people. Again - that isn't racism. It is - again - literally anti-racism. I can only walk you through the logic of this so many times.

No it's not logical whatsoever.

It's associating white peoples skin along with
Ex officer Chauvin plain and simple.

If it was as you say, that sign wouldn't have specified white people in such general broad terms and would have just simply asked for respect and decorum without the need to add white people to it.

I can only point out the racism with that so many times.

 

[Left Coast]

No it's not logical whatsoever.

It's associating white peoples skin along with
Ex officer Chauvin plain and simple.

No I'm sorry, it is not. The sign does not accuse all white people of murder.

If it was as you say, that sign wouldn't have specified white people in such general broad terms and would have just simply asked for respect and decorum without the need to add white people to it.

I can only point out the racism with that so many times.

Your belief that a message directed at a racial group is always and only racist, regardless of its context or content, again belies the fact that you don't actually know what racism is. Or know what it is and are straining to find some false equivalence.

Either way, I think we've both said our piece here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I try not to fancy myself a wordsmith....

That's exactly how a wordsmith would write, lest I.....

I don't think the "that's racist!" narrative is very productive.

Rather than a narrative, it's an initial claim to be explored.

I would hope that the author did not have nefarious or offensive intentions and chose the wording they did out of a need to convey a point, regardless of offense that may or may not be taken.

One should always consider if one's intent matches
the inferences of one's sign. If not, it fails.

When looking at writing, I think it is important to think about intended audience, setting, purpose and word choice. If nothing else, the author's words incited dialogue. And perhaps, that was the intent.

A bumper sticker, "I brake for negroes" would
also incite dialog. But Mr Van will never sport it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I'm sorry, it is not. The sign does not accuse all white people of murder.



Your belief that a message directed at a racial group is always and only racist, regardless of its context or content, again belies the fact that you don't actually know what racism is. Or know what it is and are straining to find some false equivalence.

Either way, I think we've both said our piece here.

Words can have multiple meanings. The left has tried to redefine racism and then pretend that is the only correct and official definition of racism. Language does not work that way. I can understand the motivations behind putting up that sign, but it was poorly done. If anything it will aggravate those that it intends to reach out to. They made the same error that many racists make, which is a bit ironic.

Instead of using far left abuses of such terms as "center", " energy" etc. they should have tried to speak to their target audience in their own language, or at the very least instead of using liberalese they should have used plain English.

 

[Left Coast]

Words can have multiple meanings. The left has tried to redefine racism and then pretend that is the only correct and official definition of racism. Language does not work that way. I can understand the motivations behind putting up that sign, but it was poorly done. If anything it will aggravate those that it intends to reach out to. They made the same error that many racists make, which is a bit ironic.

Instead of using far left abuses of such terms as "center", " energy" etc. they should have tried to speak to their target audience in their own language, or at the very least instead of using liberalese they should have used plain English.

I think you are incorrectly assuming the intended audience. The message is as much for white liberals as anyone else (I mentioned this earlier in this thread). It's not a sign for white supremacists, who wouldn't care what the sign said no matter how sensitive to white folks' feelings the sign was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are incorrectly assuming the intended audience. The message is as much for white liberals as anyone else (I mentioned this earlier in this thread). It's not a sign for white supremacists, who wouldn't care what the sign said no matter how sensitive to white folks' feelings the sign was.

Okay, you do have a point there. This sign would appeal to white liberals. It is in their language. Unfortunately it is still counterproductive when it comes to the average citizen. They should be broadening their target audience. They unfortunately narrowed it to the point of being largely ineffective or even countereffective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No guilt is assumed by the sign, though. Privilege and lack of awareness are not reasons for guilt. They're reasons to learn. If you are a white person who already knows those things, cool.

It's more a larger trend of white people as a whole being singled out. In the more extreme examples it takes the form of claiming all white people are racist and black people cannot be racist. In more mild forms it's a continuous singling out of white people as if white people are the only ones capable of misbehaving and being racist. It's basically like a race-based version of original sin.
And, yes, it can very much lead to guilt when someone is constantly told they are wrong and misbehaving even if nothing wrong has been done. That's just basic psychology.
On all levels and from all angles it needs to stop.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, you do have a point there. This sign would appeal to white liberals. It is in their language. Unfortunately it is still counterproductive when it comes to the average citizen. They should be broadening their target audience. They unfortunately narrowed it to the point of being largely ineffective or even countereffective.

To liberals, it would be preaching to the choir.
They already see blacks as victims needing their help.
To the others, tis as you say.