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.

Haven't read all comments but wow is this just historically inaccurate. Hello, slavery? The economic engine of our country for hundred of years. Hello, immigrants? Hello, we totally stole from native americans to fuel growth. And where are women in all of this? Sitting around fanning themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

you have internet access - by some places in the world I've been to you are priviledged

Thanks for making my point by being so damned patronizing. I hope they repost the video so you can watch and fully absorb the message that it is conveying. Maybe you can watch it a couple times so it can sink in.

and thanks for giving me a good laugh pp (honestly not sure if you're trolling of serious). I do hope they re-post it so I can bash it in the comments section like 99% of the other people who watched it

I think that person's trolling.

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

When privileged people wake up, they at least prepare themselves for the day and make a decent appearance. Those girls in the commercial looked as if they hadn't washed their hair in days much less brushed it. And their clothes were wrinkled and messy. If you want to be taken seriously, at least try to be well geoomed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

you have internet access - by some places in the world I've been to you are priviledged

Thanks for making my point by being so damned patronizing. I hope they repost the video so you can watch and fully absorb the message that it is conveying. Maybe you can watch it a couple times so it can sink in.

and thanks for giving me a good laugh pp (honestly not sure if you're trolling of serious). I do hope they re-post it so I can bash it in the comments section like 99% of the other people who watched it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

you have internet access - by some places in the world I've been to you are priviledged

Thanks for making my point by being so damned patronizing. I hope they repost the video so you can watch and fully absorb the message that it is conveying. Maybe you can watch it a couple times so it can sink in.

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

Wake up to what? What about that video was going to bring about meaningful change?

What were white men supposed to take away from that video? On one hand, the video tells them to change their racist ways. On the other hand, the video tells them to not be too into "black" things- saying woke, for example. So I guess the only acceptable thing for them to do is to acknowledge they're oppressive losers. Why does anyone think this is a good strategy? Why do people think this will lead to positive outcomes for marginalized groups?

And why, specifically, are white men targeted for being told to not say "woke" and not to manspread? White women don't say woke? I know that's not true, I read Jezebel. Black men don't manspread? I ride the train every day, my space invaded by thighs of all ethnicities and colors.

I know people say the video was supposed to be lighthearted, but I don't buy that. As a millennial living in a liberal city, I see this kind of... discourse all over media popular for my generation and IRL. I think it's toxic, and not in an "oh poor white men and their feelz" way. It's just that far too often it seems to be about roasting someone for inherited offenses, but there's no actual solution for how the people can improve... other than to conform completely to every liberal belief. But I don't think people want actually solutions. They just want a target for their ire.

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

Do you really think a smarmy, sanctimonious, and patronizing video featuring holier-than-thous is going to do it?

Anonymous wrote:Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

you have internet access - by some places in the world I've been to you are priviledged

Privileged people seriously need to wake up.

It's a shame that video was taken down.

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/MTVNews/status/810960588973035520/video/1

This shows that they haven't learned anything from the election. Not sure when they will be a bit introspective.

Someone got pissed off!

https://mobile.twitter.com/MTVNews/status/810960588973035520/video/1

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
You can search Twitter using the search box below or return to the homepage.

Anonymous wrote:MTV has apparently pulled the add. I think lobs are starting to wake up.

maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep doubling down. They've been running a lot of these type videos recently

Anonymous wrote:The comments below the video are uniformly negative. People are declaring that this kind of stuff will GUARANTEE trump a second term. http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/12/21/mtvs-white-guy-resolutions-2017-might-just-earn-trump-second-term

The power of butthurt.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

So your argument is that it's acceptable and productive to stereotype privileged groups?

Call out "white men" and what do you accomplish?

1. You make the targeted group defensive and angry, even those who might otherwise be sympathetic to the substantive points made. You could make the very same point without the group association and produce a MUCH more effective result.

2. You commit the moral and logical wrong of attributing individual behavior to a group (some white men do xxx, therefore all white men do xxx) and from the group back to each individual (since all white men do xxx, you as a white man are likely to do xxx). That "logic" is the very engine that drives all racism and sexism.

You (generally, not you personally), in other words, perpetuate the poisonous thinking that lies at the heart of the very thing that you purport to decry.

With all due respect, it seems neither productive nor acceptable to me.

+1 It's kind of like people lecturing AAs about "personal responsibility"

MTV has apparently pulled the add. I think lobs are starting to wake up.

jsteele wrote:

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.

So your argument is that it's acceptable and productive to stereotype privileged groups?

Call out "white men" and what do you accomplish?

1. You make the targeted group defensive and angry, even those who might otherwise be sympathetic to the substantive points made. You could make the very same point without the group association and produce a MUCH more effective result.

2. You commit the moral and logical wrong of attributing individual behavior to a group (some white men do xxx, therefore all white men do xxx) and from the group back to each individual (since all white men do xxx, you as a white man are likely to do xxx). That "logic" is the very engine that drives all racism and sexism.

You (generally, not you personally), in other words, perpetuate the poisonous thinking that lies at the heart of the very thing that you purport to decry.

With all due respect, it seems neither productive nor acceptable to me.