Black people prosecuted for racism against blacks in Brazil - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#13960147
Now this is trully funny, it seems like a joke but it is not.
Actually, this is the only possible outcome when a society tries so much to instigate "political correct thinking" among its inhabitans.
They obviously end up forbidded to do just about everything, since everything can "hurt" everyone.

Just like that movie called "The Island" showed, behind the beautiful and "humane" façade political correct groups are trully authoritarian.
The singer appeared on TV today saying: "I can't believe this! I'm shocked! I'm black myself! How can I be racist against my own kind?"
______________________________________________________________________________



Singer is asked to provide an explanation for his “Kong” video that was condemned as racist and sexist

In a development that members of the Black Movement are calling a "victory", a decision of the Federal Public Minister answered the request of the Ombudsman of the group SEPPIR, which upheld complaints from various entities about a music video that compares black people to monkeys.

The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) instituted administrative proceedings in Attorney General's Office in Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, so that the singer Alexandre Pires provide clarifications about the video “Kong” which was denounced for its racist and sexist content. The summons of the artist was prompted by a request for action sent by the Ombudsman's Secretariat for Policies to Promote Racial Equality (SEPPIR) to the Federal Public Ministery.

In addition to the prosecutor, the court reported the Sony Music label, the Police Department and the Federal Ombudsman's Secretariat of Policies for Women (SPM). The latter, because of the exposure of women in the ad, reinforcing the stereotype of a sex symbol. In December, Sony Music was also named in a similar suit for the release of a song deemed to be derogatory against black women.


Scene from "Kong" video
Image

According to the Ombudsman of Seppir, Carlos Alberto Jr., the MP was requested because of complaints from several entities including the Virtual Observatory on Racism, which accuses the posting of the video on YouTube of having “racist and sexist content, compromising the struggles of the black movement in overcoming racism, and women in overcoming sexism. Combining artists and athletes, the video uses clichés and stereotypes against black people.”


In their case, the ombudsman of Seppir notes: “to show black people dressed as monkeys” the singer in question contributes to the historical permanence of racism and eugenics practices of the inferiority of the black population, given that the majority of complaints made the National Ombudsman of Racial Equality are offensescomparing black people to “monkeys”. In it interesting to note that Pires is the third Brazilian singer of African descent (along with Tiririca and Luis Caldas) to be named in actions brought forward by activists of the Brazilian Black Movement in the past five months for promoting derogatory images or content about black people. The message here seems clear: Racist messages and images won't be tolerated by non-blacks or black artists themselves.

http://www.blackwomenofbrazil.com/2012/04/alexandre-pires-is-asked-to-provide.html
#13962595
Soulflytribe wrote:Actually, this is the only possible outcome when a society tries so much to instigate "political correct thinking" among its inhabitans.
They obviously end up forbidded to do just about everything, since everything can "hurt" everyone.

Just like that movie called "The Island" showed, behind the beautiful and "humane" façade political correct groups are trully authoritarian.



A common political rallying cry of the left is 'intorance for the intorerant'. This is a very odd view to hold. To forefill their idea, they must in the end be intorerant of themselves.

Of course it will never happen that way. To understand the authoritarianism of the anti-racists, lefties etc, we need to step back and look at what modern social rights moverments are: a good cause.

Good causes have a tendancy to become not so good causes in practice. One need only look at Christianity to see the truth in this proposition. Though Christianity started out as a popular cause for those left out, in time it became a system of legitimation for the establishment, featuring such 'love' based phenonoma as the Spanish Inquisition. Clearly all that is decared to be good causes aren't always good causes or remain so.

I would even go so far as to propose a law that states: "all good causes will be subverted by those of ill intent that require a vaneer of morality to cover their quest for power".

Now, back to the contempory social-liberals/ anti-racists/pseudo-humanists/etc. The drive aganist prejudice is a good cause. It is based on liberal thinking, no supprisingly as that is the most widely accepted ideology in the west today. Were it the case that some other ideology held sway in the west, then I would expect the mroalism of those seeking power to reflect that system of belief, whatever it may have been. As it is power that these people seek, it should not be a supprise that they methods would be authoritarian. In the end they become the dominate group generating prejudice, that is to say, they become that which they otsensibly are opposing.

Now, does this mean that people of good will must give up hope of a more cooperative world? Should we give in the cynisism and defeat? I say no. Have a think about this:

it is divesity in beliefs that create the variation that will fuel innovation, not just techinical innovation, but artistic, cultural and policitcal too. However, diversity of beliefs by itself leads to fragmentation into competing tribes holding one belief or another, attempting to assert their way of seeing things as the only way to see things. Conflict results from diversity on its own. If, however, we add the idea of tolerance for people who think differenly from ourselves, diversity can be prevented from generating conflict and instead yield that enviroment of dynamic thought.

Diversity without tolerance leads to conflict. Tolerance and diversity must go together to maintain cooperation (and thus wealth generation). The story of the wars of the reformantion are my favourity example of whyt tolerance between those with different beliefs is so important. The Catholic and Protesant factions spent a few generations fiighting eachother in a brutal series of wars that left central european devastated and impoverashed. In the end, both factions were exhausted and the people had lost the appetite for fighting. Only by accepting that the other group having a different system of belief was less important than being able to trust each other and cooperate, did trade and food production end poverty in that period.

And there it is: tolerance is valuing cooperation above insisting everyone else believe what each of us might hold to be true. Yet, authoritarian applications of power don't leave much room for tolerance. Indeed they create the enviroment of competing beliefs being in conflict. A one time it may be that the social liberal/anti racists are in power. But there is no garentee they will hold power. As in the wars of the reformation, their oppenents will take power at some point and persecute them and their followers. And then the power changes again, and again, and soforth, degenerating into perpetual conflict....well until the land is lain waste and exhaustion forces the survives to start cooperating.

But how can we challenge prejuduce like racism if we can nnot ethically impliament state power in an authoritarian manner? It is a starnge thing that the most ardent opposers to racism and similar anti social beliefs, are those who became the worst of the worst, then changed them minds to become the staunchest opposers to anti social, conflict causing systems of belief. Malcom X, Nelson Mandela, and some white dudes in the 1960's civil rights era (I know they existed but I am not having much success searching for evidence of them), were the 'prodigal sons' who turned against a culture of racism. As they had been through it, and learn't how to reject it, they are the best people for inspiring the masses to embrace tolerance. I assert there is no need for the authoritaian anti-racists, who are only power mongers hyjacking the current good cause to legitimate their personal clami the power ans status.
#13962717
A common political rallying cry of the left is 'intorance for the intorerant'. This is a very odd view to hold. To forefill their idea, they must in the end be intorerant of themselves.


It's not intolerance itself that many on the left are against but intolerance of certain things, and in fact much of the left is built on intolerance: intolerance of suffering, injustice, property, patriarchy and idiotic libertarians.

The 70 investigations are ongoing, not something[…]

Dunno, when I hear him speak, the vibe I get from[…]

Here in Arizona as we slowly approach the next el[…]

@Potemkin wrote: Popular entertainment panders[…]