I can see SNL doing a parody on this video. I’m sure it would be hysterical.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The premise itself is offensive and hypocritical. The underlying assumption here that it's accurate and acceptable to attribute behavior/ideology to a group based on race/gender.

It seems to me that you either (a) believe in judging people as individuals, based on their words/actions, or (b) you believe in judging people based on their group "identity".

As a matter of principle, most don't tolerate judging people based on identity--it's anathema to our ideals.

So why then is it acceptable when it comes to white men?

Sincere question--I've never understood how people could justify this apparent inconsistency as a matter of principle.

First, the video is not a serious political tract but is light-hearted and humorous. It is really aimed at our dominant culture, but identifies white men because of the inordinate role they play in that culture. The video acknowledges that many white men already follow the proposed resolutions. That reflects the understanding that people are individuals, not groups.

Seriously, all of you are going to have heart attacks if you let things like this bother you. You would be much better off, regardless of your race or gender, by giving consideration to the message of the video rather than doing your best to be offended by it.

It seems to me that you don't really contest that the principle is wrong, but instead are arguing that (1) it's not really about white men, (2) it's humorous, so we shouldn't take it seriously, and (3) we shouldn't be so offended by it.

That's essentially what people say to justify telling off-color, racist, or sexist jokes. "Relax, it's just a joke. It's not about YOU. Don't take it so personally!"

I'm not offended by the content--no heart attack here. I AM offended by the principle, and you should be too.

Why? Because it's wrong, and because if we accept it when directed at white men, it makes it harder to decry when directed at others. To use the common term these days, it "legitimizes" the behavior. Indeed, it encourages the proliferation of that behavior.

In my estimation, that's the last thing we need.

The difference between this list of resolutions and similar lists directed at minorities is that the lists aimed at minorities generally exploit their disadvantaged position in society. Do your own thought experiment and try to come up with resolutions for black people. What do you come up with? I would not be surprised if they were things like "don't riot when one of your thug friends get shot running from the police". The MTV list, in contrast, is basically a list of ways to be more tolerant. It is notable that in my first post -- which was the first response of this thread -- I asked which specific resolution was offensive. The only resolution identified was identified by a poster who said she is a black woman. None of the white posters have identified a specific resolution that they found offensive. Rather, several have said that the entire idea of a list aimed at white men -- even if the list was entirely made up of inoffensive items -- was offensive. I find that idea to be ridiculous and an indication of people who are looking to be offended and probably could benefit from the resolutions offered.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how people would feel if MTV provided New Years resolutions for black people? or Hispanic people? or Jewish people? or Muslim people?

MTV wouldn't do this for black people. BET would and probably should. And I'm black, so I shouldn't offend anyone.

Way OT but this was my response before I corrected autocorrect: MTV wouldn't do th S for black pepper.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like MTV pulled the video. when I checked it out it had an ever worse dislike to like ratio than abc's gamergate video

Lol, when an enterprise like MTV News on YouTube has turned out to be such an utter failure, you have to wonder about the back end meetings that must be taking place to discuss how to move forward, because they obviously have a very problematic understanding of their target audience.

Looks like MTV pulled the video. when I checked it out it had an ever worse dislike to like ratio than abc's gamergate video

Anonymous wrote:And people are always saying that it is Trump who has caused this divided America, now he's supposed to fix it. This didn't start with Trump, it's been happening for several years. Americans seem to be diving into this kind of divisive, stereotyping, labeling behavior with both feet, simultaneously moaning about it and praising it.

They might be useful ideas for anyone, but when you target them at a specific group of Americans, that point is completely lost. Just as if they gave these same "tips" to any other specific group, say Latinos. Would every other group think, "hmmm...they may as well be talking to me, too." Not likely, but even if they did, all groups of people would be shocked that MTV went there with just Latinos.

As for getting all worked up or causing one's own heart attack, that could be said to almost everyone in this country right now, no? Take the temperature of this forum and tell me people aren't all worked up about this thing or that.

This is why you need to pack it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The premise itself is offensive and hypocritical. The underlying assumption here that it's accurate and acceptable to attribute behavior/ideology to a group based on race/gender.

It seems to me that you either (a) believe in judging people as individuals, based on their words/actions, or (b) you believe in judging people based on their group "identity".

As a matter of principle, most don't tolerate judging people based on identity--it's anathema to our ideals.

So why then is it acceptable when it comes to white men?

Sincere question--I've never understood how people could justify this apparent inconsistency as a matter of principle.

Serious question -- are you as resolutely anti-stereotyping when it comes to all minority groups? Or just white men? The problem is that most white americans do indulge in some kind of sterotyping; it becomes extremely painful when applied to them for the first time. I have very mixed feelings about this as a tactic, so I'm not making any judgments, just observations.

10:59 here. A fair question/point.

The answer is "yes"--I resolutely oppose stereotyping based on identity across the board. I deeply believe in the principle of judging people as individuals, both as a matter of morality and of practicality. Judging based on group identity has led to many of history's grimmest moments and is damaging to the fabric of our society and country.

That said, you're certainly right that we *all* engage in some stereotyping conscious or otherwise, so I certainly am not claiming perfection. (I irrationally but firmly believe that all MVA employees are devil-worshipers, for example).

Lastly, for me, the "pain" here is not about being stereotyped as a white man. It's not the specifics here that bother me, rather it's the fact that this sort of thing legitimizes the idea of stereotyping in general.

To me, that's both unprincipled and counterproductive.

Fair enough. So how to do you respond to minority groups who say that "we are ALREADY judged and harmed based on our identity; therefore, asserting our identity is a way to protect ourselves"? Eg, organizing for social and economic changes for certain racial or ethnic groups that are historically disadvantaged.

Point well-taken. That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? How do we acknowledge and, to the extent possible repair, the damage done by America's failures to live by these ideals, and to do so without throwing the ideals out the window?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about/discussing this issue (my spouse is Native and deeply involved in a number of related political movements).

My belief is that historically oppressed groups *should* absolutely organize for change, but should base their arguments/demands on the principle of equality and individual rights. In other words, fight against the hypocrisy of racism/stereotyping and seek remedies that don't conflict with the core principle of individuality.

For example, I believe that it would be much more productive to fight for equality (and overall improvement) in public school financing than for affirmative action programs.

Similarly, I'd argue that BLM would have been better served by adopting the motto, "Black Lives Matter. All Lives Matter." Why? Because this would have both pointed out the injustice AND asserted the underlying principle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The general notion that "white men" are responsive for all of the country's problems is obnoxious. That is the group that built this country, for the most part. It's just such a whiny cry-baby attitude. I don't think these people realize that most of the country doesn't take them seriously.

Slaves physically built this country.

We all built this country.

And people are always saying that it is Trump who has caused this divided America, now he's supposed to fix it. This didn't start with Trump, it's been happening for several years. Americans seem to be diving into this kind of divisive, stereotyping, labeling behavior with both feet, simultaneously moaning about it and praising it.

They might be useful ideas for anyone, but when you target them at a specific group of Americans, that point is completely lost. Just as if they gave these same "tips" to any other specific group, say Latinos. Would every other group think, "hmmm...they may as well be talking to me, too." Not likely, but even if they did, all groups of people would be shocked that MTV went there with just Latinos.

As for getting all worked up or causing one's own heart attack, that could be said to almost everyone in this country right now, no? Take the temperature of this forum and tell me people aren't all worked up about this thing or that.

Anonymous wrote:LOL. "But as Reason columnist Andrea O'Sullivan (nee Castillo) put it, "Are the Trump people behind this?" The MTV video bespeaks a mind-set that is less interested in real change than it is in distancing itself from any sort of critical examination of why progressive ideas are so incredibly unpopular."

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/20/mtvs-white-guy-resolution-2017-might-jus

Do incredibly unpopular that GRC received 3 million more votes than the Tangerine Baboon.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The premise itself is offensive and hypocritical. The underlying assumption here that it's accurate and acceptable to attribute behavior/ideology to a group based on race/gender.

It seems to me that you either (a) believe in judging people as individuals, based on their words/actions, or (b) you believe in judging people based on their group "identity".

As a matter of principle, most don't tolerate judging people based on identity--it's anathema to our ideals.

So why then is it acceptable when it comes to white men?

Sincere question--I've never understood how people could justify this apparent inconsistency as a matter of principle.

First, the video is not a serious political tract but is light-hearted and humorous. It is really aimed at our dominant culture, but identifies white men because of the inordinate role they play in that culture. The video acknowledges that many white men already follow the proposed resolutions. That reflects the understanding that people are individuals, not groups.

Seriously, all of you are going to have heart attacks if you let things like this bother you. You would be much better off, regardless of your race or gender, by giving consideration to the message of the video rather than doing your best to be offended by it.

It seems to me that you don't really contest that the principle is wrong, but instead are arguing that (1) it's not really about white men, (2) it's humorous, so we shouldn't take it seriously, and (3) we shouldn't be so offended by it.

That's essentially what people say to justify telling off-color, racist, or sexist jokes. "Relax, it's just a joke. It's not about YOU. Don't take it so personally!"

I'm not offended by the content--no heart attack here. I AM offended by the principle, and you should be too.

Why? Because it's wrong, and because if we accept it when directed at white men, it makes it harder to decry when directed at others. To use the common term these days, it "legitimizes" the behavior. Indeed, it encourages the proliferation of that behavior.

In my estimation, that's the last thing we need.

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

Thanks MTV. Saves me time but I have a few more to add

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The premise itself is offensive and hypocritical. The underlying assumption here that it's accurate and acceptable to attribute behavior/ideology to a group based on race/gender.

It seems to me that you either (a) believe in judging people as individuals, based on their words/actions, or (b) you believe in judging people based on their group "identity".

As a matter of principle, most don't tolerate judging people based on identity--it's anathema to our ideals.

So why then is it acceptable when it comes to white men?

Sincere question--I've never understood how people could justify this apparent inconsistency as a matter of principle.

First, the video is not a serious political tract but is light-hearted and humorous. It is really aimed at our dominant culture, but identifies white men because of the inordinate role they play in that culture. The video acknowledges that many white men already follow the proposed resolutions. That reflects the understanding that people are individuals, not groups.

Seriously, all of you are going to have heart attacks if you let things like this bother you. You would be much better off, regardless of your race or gender, by giving consideration to the message of the video rather than doing your best to be offended by it.

Basically, you are telling everyone that is offended by this racist video that they don't have a right to be offended?

Talk about not understanding a different perspective.

As others have stated, if this was a video about Asian women who where then offended by it, would you still be telling them not essentially suck it up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war against white men, it's been the mantra for years now and if you have a white son you personally have seen the affects of this on their self esteem. That is, if your being honest. Black people are not the only oppressed group, but you keep carrying this hate in your minds for white men and the dens will not see high office again. White men are what built this country and died in the thousands to fight for property rights in the civil war to free people of ownership, to name just a few things. We seem to forget just how much white men live this country and their fellow countrymen. God I can't wait for Obama to get his decisive lying ass out.

yikes.

+1

I'm a black American who's deeply opposed to the MTV video and other things like it because of people like the first PP quoted. They have a deep victim mentality, paranoia, and fear about their increasingly-worse situation in this nation- their high suicide rates, rising rates of addiction and subsequent deaths, worsening economic and job outlook, and decreasing family stability. Instead of blaming themselves- as these men have previously blamed disadvantaged groups for their own poor situation- they lash out, blaming other groups and societal factors. They have a victim complex. Unfortunately, much of liberal politics reinforces this with drivel like the MTV video- so now not only do they have this internal rage and lack of personal responsibility, they have tangible proof of "others" disparaging them.

This is not a good thing. This is not politically savvy for liberals. It might feel good to do, but you are fueling the hateful "opposition" and giving them evidence they can use to recruit others to extremist views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Which one of those resolutions do you find offensive? They sound like common sense to me.

The premise itself is offensive and hypocritical. The underlying assumption here that it's accurate and acceptable to attribute behavior/ideology to a group based on race/gender.

It seems to me that you either (a) believe in judging people as individuals, based on their words/actions, or (b) you believe in judging people based on their group "identity".

As a matter of principle, most don't tolerate judging people based on identity--it's anathema to our ideals.

So why then is it acceptable when it comes to white men?

Sincere question--I've never understood how people could justify this apparent inconsistency as a matter of principle.

Serious question -- are you as resolutely anti-stereotyping when it comes to all minority groups? Or just white men? The problem is that most white americans do indulge in some kind of sterotyping; it becomes extremely painful when applied to them for the first time. I have very mixed feelings about this as a tactic, so I'm not making any judgments, just observations.

10:59 here. A fair question/point.

The answer is "yes"--I resolutely oppose stereotyping based on identity across the board. I deeply believe in the principle of judging people as individuals, both as a matter of morality and of practicality. Judging based on group identity has led to many of history's grimmest moments and is damaging to the fabric of our society and country.

That said, you're certainly right that we *all* engage in some stereotyping conscious or otherwise, so I certainly am not claiming perfection. (I irrationally but firmly believe that all MVA employees are devil-worshipers, for example).

Lastly, for me, the "pain" here is not about being stereotyped as a white man. It's not the specifics here that bother me, rather it's the fact that this sort of thing legitimizes the idea of stereotyping in general.

To me, that's both unprincipled and counterproductive.

Fair enough. So how to do you respond to minority groups who say that "we are ALREADY judged and harmed based on our identity; therefore, asserting our identity is a way to protect ourselves"? Eg, organizing for social and economic changes for certain racial or ethnic groups that are historically disadvantaged.