Katsumichann.... whorenickels

[Guy]

I didn't see any of WN show but I did see the Olivia Nazi show and it was so ridiculous it was quite clearly not Olivia being racist. The room chat on the other hand was disgusting, all the MFC racists came out for it. There were so many comments about killing Jews all sorts of other things and none of that can be claimed as "Art". The chat was extremely hostile and flamey and I think MFC should have been waiting with the banhammer for all those members.

I'd bet WN show probably went the same way, even if she wasn't saying anything racist herself the chat would have been full of it and that's the stuff I think MFC should be banning if it's in their community guidelines.

You don't think that Jewish and LGBT members were offended by what Olivia did or that African American members were offended by what WN did?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I didn't see any of WN show but I did see the Olivia Nazi show and it was so ridiculous it was quite clearly not Olivia being racist. The room chat on the other hand was disgusting, all the MFC racists came out for it. There were so many comments about killing Jews all sorts of other things and none of that can be claimed as "Art". The chat was extremely hostile and flamey and I think MFC should have been waiting with the banhammer for all those members.

I'd bet WN show probably went the same way, even if she wasn't saying anything racist herself the chat would have been full of it and that's the stuff I think MFC should be banning if it's in their community guidelines.

Hear hear! I couldn't sit through the whole InternetPoPo show, but the time I was in there I did see a couple of comments that went over the line imo, satirical or not. But many seem content to just demonize WhoreNickels and leave it at that.

You can't just go after the terrorist; you have to go after their support network as well. Otherwise you're gonna wake up one day and find a mushroom cloud with an image of WhoreNickels in blackface on the side of it above your city.

 

[Mila_]

I didn't see any of WN show but I did see the Olivia Nazi show and it was so ridiculous it was quite clearly not Olivia being racist. The room chat on the other hand was disgusting, all the MFC racists came out for it. There were so many comments about killing Jews all sorts of other things and none of that can be claimed as "Art". The chat was extremely hostile and flamey and I think MFC should have been waiting with the banhammer for all those members.

I'd bet WN show probably went the same way, even if she wasn't saying anything racist herself the chat would have been full of it and that's the stuff I think MFC should be banning if it's in their community guidelines.

Where you also there months before when she did her burqa show on 9/11? I was in her room during both shows.

Are you sure her nazi show was innocent? I was there and I never thought her show was "ridiculous" nothing she said or did helped understand the skit as a joke. There were no words spoken other than the speech, no physical comedy in it, no "ministry of silly walks" thing going. I still don't know if she is or isn't a nazi supporter and I am inclined to think she is because she never bothered doing anything to show that she wasn't, even after getting shut down by MFC.

Now, I was also in her room during her 9/11 statement show. People told her that she shouldn't dress up in a burqa on 9/11 out of respect for the victims and she got upset and gave a 20 minute heartfelt speech defending islam, calling it a religion of peace and blaming the terrorist attacks on "islamophobia". She also banned anyone who disagreed with her. Did she do anything similar months later when people in her chatroom said jews needed to be dealt with? She didn't open her mouth, she let them go on and on. She didn't ban anyone. That speaks volumes about her.

Now obviously I am jewish and this hits close to home for me which is why it is more difficult for me to remain neutral when it comes to Olivia and her nazi show. I suspect if I was black or a policeman I would be upset over WNs show too. But I think I can still see a big difference between the two of them, perhaps because WN sees herself as a comedian and acts like one, while Olivia thought of herself as an artist and also acted like her shows were political statements. In the case of WN she gives no fucks and she will dress up as Trump, Hillary, Bernie, and mock them all equally. Olivia chooses a side and campaigns for it. So I take her shit more seriously.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Now that "a spokesperson for MFC" has publicly responded to the issue (well, one of the issues), I would like to get some ACF opinions on something.

Olivia did her whole Nazi show thing, and they suspended her until she removed the flag and changed her show. Granted, she complied within just a few minutes, but it still happened. They didn't just roll their eyes and claim that it's cool cause it's satire. Besides the obvious fact that the death tolls vary greatly between the two implied situations, I can't see much difference in the two shows.

And while some people love to claim that MFC is just looking the other way if the model is garnering lots of tips, that's just simply not logical in these instances. Olivia had to have made multiple thousands of dollars during her bit. She was insanely popular. They shut her down during her show. WN probably only made multiple hundred, possibly a thousand (don't quote me on that, cause I obviously wasn't there to witness it) simply due to her not having such a large following as Olivia. So why would they allow one and not the other when they're both similar shows in 'satire?'

I'm not 100% why MFC reacted the way they did to Olivia. However, if I had been in charge I would have shut her down in a second. What Olivia did was in complete violation of Germany and Austria law which bans the public use of Nazi symbols. If MFC had let her continue broadcast they risked being jailed, fined and permanently banned by the German government, and also any German model would have not longer been allowed to work for MFC. So while Olivia was very popular the revenue of Germany is bigger than Olivia.
I know as WWII buff that Germany takes this law very seriously. I recently purchased a WWII computer game, there are portraits of all the leaders and flags are used to identify things. The German version of the game Hitler's portraits don't exist, all references to the SS and swastika have been removed. The company that makes the game is Swedish, but they'll ban anybody on their forum from whatever country who upload Nazi symbols since a German citizen could potentially see them. So for instance, if I upload a screencap of Olivia show, I'm banned.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I'm not 100% why MFC reacted the way they did to Olivia. However, if I had been in charge I would have shut her down in a second. What Olivia did was in complete violation of Germany and Austria law which bans the public use of Nazi symbols. If MFC had let her continue broadcast they risked being jailed, fined and permanently banned by the German government, and also any German model would have not longer been allowed to work for MFC. So while Olivia was very popular the revenue of Germany is bigger than Olivia.
I know as WWII buff that Germany takes this law very seriously. I recently purchased a WWII computer game, there are portraits of all the leaders and flags are used to identify things. The German version of the game Hitler's portraits don't exist, all references to the SS and swastika have been removed. The company that makes the game is Swedish, but they'll ban anybody on their forum from whatever country who upload Nazi symbols since a German citizen could potentially see them. So for instance, if I upload a screencap of Olivia show, I'm banned.

I wonder how the show would have been received if Olivia had kept the color schemes but swapped out the actual Nazi symbols.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I wonder how the show would have been received if Olivia had kept the color schemes but swapped out the actual Nazi symbols.

Well she had Hitler speeches going on in the background, at least the part I watched, so that would have caused a big problem.

 

[fandango]

Where you also there months before when she did her burqa show on 9/11? I was in her room during both shows.

Are you sure her nazi show was innocent? I was there and I never thought her show was "ridiculous" nothing she said or did helped understand the skit as a joke. There were no words spoken other than the speech, no physical comedy in it, no "ministry of silly walks" thing going. I still don't know if she is or isn't a nazi supporter and I am inclined to think she is because she never bothered doing anything to show that she wasn't, even after getting shut down by MFC.

Now, I was also in her room during her 9/11 statement show. People told her that she shouldn't dress up in a burqa on 9/11 out of respect for the victims and she got upset and gave a 20 minute heartfelt speech defending islam, calling it a religion of peace and blaming the terrorist attacks on "islamophobia". She also banned anyone who disagreed with her. Did she do anything similar months later when people in her chatroom said jews needed to be dealt with? She didn't open her mouth, she let them go on and on. She didn't ban anyone. That speaks volumes about her.

Now obviously I am jewish and this hits close to home for me which is why it is more difficult for me to remain neutral when it comes to Olivia and her nazi show. I suspect if I was black or a policeman I would be upset over WNs show too. But I think I can still see a big difference between the two of them, perhaps because WN sees herself as a comedian and acts like one, while Olivia thought of herself as an artist and also acted like her shows were political statements. In the case of WN she gives no fucks and she will dress up as Trump, Hillary, Bernie, and mock them all equally. Olivia chooses a side and campaigns for it. So I take her shit more seriously.

I didn't see any of her 9/11 show and I didn't stay for all of the Nazi show but for the 20-30 mins of it that I did see was just her dancing around topless in the uniform at the podium with the flag behind her which was pretty close to the ministry of silly walks, thats why I thought it was ridiculous and just some kind of parody. I dont speak german but apparently the speech also had nothing to do with Nazism and more to do with some kind of token war and her wanting to win Miss MFC or something like that. The show was certainly in bad taste but from everything I've been told and seen once you look past the Nazi paraphernalia suggests she's not a racist. I do agree that she definitely should have said something to the room about the chat and been banning people for what they were saying though, especially as like you say she did it before.

I am half black and in the eyes of the police I'm full black so the WN issue hits close to home to me too. In the UK our police don't have guns so I've never had to fear they will kill me but I've been stopped and harrassed by them more times then I can count and while I've never been beaten by the police I know exactly how it feels to be targeted by them just for the colour of your skin and not for having ever commited any sort of crime. So yeah I thought her show was also in bad taste but I didn't see it so couldn't comment on whether or not it's racist or I feel she's a racist. I don't know if she was aiming at mocking the police for beating black people or mocking black people for getting beaten which is a huge distinction and I don't want to jump to a conclusion just based off a screenshot on twitter.

You don't think that Jewish and LGBT members were offended by what Olivia did or that African American members were offended by what WN did?

So what if they were? No one has a right to not be offended. Lots of people say and do things that offend me, doesn't mean I think they should be banned or silenced from whatever platform they're on.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The main take away from this in my opinion is that MFC has clearly stated that they see their models as Artists, which as the article notes, provides them with a very strong set of rights when it comes to protecting their speech. This is pretty canny, as it gives them (MFC) a platform to challenge censorship laws in any area that attempt to lock the site, and other adult sites out. It places a lot of legal precedent on their side.

....
WN offended a lot of people and models. But there are no shortage of people that are offended by the base nudity that almost all models display daily on MFC, let alone all the other things that are done on live cams. The same rules that protect that, also protect WN. Artistic free speech is a BIG umbrella. Cutting holes in it seems foolish, and it is why it's been upheld so many times.

Now, all that said, there is a case to be made as to the atmosphere that a set of speech rules creates, and are the to the benefit or detriment of a community. And there is the area worth debating. Have MFC's choices created a place that has advanced it's models ability to earn, and earn safely, or not? THAT is a question only the models can answer.

I think this is really important. What happens on MFC daily is highly offensive to a large group of people, and not just religiously people, or certain feminist groups. I bet if you showed a video of a young woman DPing herself with large toys, while people gave her money and urged her to put it in deeper, with a steady stream of pornographic GIF in chat, a majority of Americans would find it somewhat offensive, and sizeable amount would find it highly offensive. Those number would rise in many parts of the world, and probably only in most of Europe would you be able to find group where a majority didn't find it offensive.

Personally, I'm done being offended on behalf of some other group. I'm not black, or gay, or trans,or deaf, or bipolar so I don't pretend to know what will or won't be offensive. I do know enough of these groups to know that they are not a monolithic group, just because something is offensive to A black person doesn't mean to most black people, much less all black people. If gay person tells me, I found this offensive, and I think most every gay person would be offended, I'm going to be inclined to believe them. But when some young straight guy states authoritatively that this is offensives to gays, my reaction is going to how the fuck do you know? just because you took some class?.

It seems me in most of these discussions, we have a lot people being offended on behalf of others. Now when the behavior of one model, affects or potentially affects the safety or earning ability of others like Olivias did that's a different discussion. So if a bunch of black models said, because of what WN did I'm getting a big increase in racist comments, and some scary threats, or a bunch of black members said, I'm not buying in more tokens at this racist site, those seems like a perfectly legit ament reason to ban WN.

 

[Osmia]

Money--pure economic self-interest--is the only lens through which MFC's selective responses to Olivia and WN makes sense. Trying to view it as a moral issue, or more precisely, trying to hold MFC to a moral standard, overlooks what really influences MFC's decision making. MFC is a business, the type of business that makes decisions based solely on how their bottom line will be affected. Admittedly, I prefer dealing with, and investing in, companies that show a bit more social responsibility. Realistically, though, an entity like MFC is about all one can reasonably hope for as a for-profit business. They presumably pay their taxes, they try to obey the law (e.g., pulling Olivia off the air briefly due to anti-Nazi laws in Europe) because running afoul of the law is bad for business. As MFC users/customers, our options for influencing them are to accept them for what they are and continue doing business with them (MFC makes money), or take our business elsewhere (MFC loses money).

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I always get annoyed when people say something isn't art because it offends them or they don't like it. It's pretty obvious that, regardless of your personal opinions, both WN and Olivia's shows were performance art.

I also find it silly that models say these shows are lazy, while they talk about how hard being a camgirl is, even when you're just masturbating (which, it is). Speaking from experience doing performance art shows, a ton of work goes into them behind the scenes. The fact that you don't like their content does not negate the effort that went into it.

 

[Guy]

Well she had Hitler speeches going on in the background, at least the part I watched, so that would have caused a big problem.

If she had Hitler speeches in the background she was most certainly glorifying Nazism.

 

[Gen]

I always get annoyed when people say something isn't art because it offends them or they don't like it. It's pretty obvious that, regardless of your personal opinions, both WN and Olivia's shows were performance art.

I also find it silly that models say these shows are lazy, while they talk about how hard being a camgirl is, even when you're just masturbating (which, it is). Speaking from experience doing performance art shows, a ton of work goes into them behind the scenes. The fact that you don't like their content does not negate the effort that went into it.

I know it's delving into a bigger discussion but does that mean all camshows are art? Like if I sit online for an hour, dance around a little, dildo myself and log off - was that art? Does it become art if I say so? If I got online in blackface with no further commentary on race or anything else, is that art? Is it satire if I declare it is? And what difference does it make if it is or isn't art? Like is saying "beat people of colour" defensible if it is art, but fair game if it's not?

I'm not trying to be contrary or disagree with you specifically (or even talk about WhoreNickels specially), I'm just genuinely curious because it's something I can't define and I'm curious how other people do.

 

[Kokoro]

I also find it silly that models say these shows are lazy, while they talk about how hard being a camgirl is, even when you're just masturbating (which, it is).

There is no denying that WN, Olivia, or anyone else who does these types of show put in a lot of work to take a cheap shot at someone or a specific group of people. The way she does her satire is lazy. She may call herself a satire artist, but she's not a very good one in all honesty. On thing I've noticed is that people will push things as far as they can and when people get butthurt over it they'll say "woah chill out it's only satire how can you not understand that?" The other day I was on Facebook reading the comments section for an article about Dani Mathers body shaming a woman at a gym. Someone commented "well she is fat" and after a bunch of angry people commented, op commented "it's only satire. everyone needs to chill out and understand that I'm not trying to offend but make a joke." I am all for satire and extremely controversial humor, but what WN is doing is really crappy satire. Like she tried but it just was blatantly offensive and nothing else.

 

[Ms_Diane]

This conversation has got my head going in a lot of different directions! I am going to try and be concise.

I keep thinking how it is a slippery and irresponsible slope to use art as a reason to allow racist content.

Why can't there be a policy that states, No racism, including racist art? If it's a no racism policy, then shouldn't that include art that is racist anyway? (I know MFC won't actually do this, as their response clearly shows.) But I think a good question to ask is, why does art get to be the reason someone gets away with being racist?

The other thing to remember is that many models who are POC have spoken up and called the WN show racist. It would have been cool if that AVN article had taken the opportunity to seek out some POC models and include that perspective - I don't think any of the models they quoted were. But we are grown ups and don't really need a person of colour to inform us when something is racist, do we?

I also just don't buy the satire argument. Even if we give WN the benefit of the doubt and accept that she did intend to do satire, it really flopped! So, if one's attempt at satire fails, is it still satire or does it become what it was trying to make fun of? In this case, racism. And I think yes it just becomes racism. Maybe you can still try and call it art, but then it is just racist art.

One more thought about allowing racist art to have a platform. I think it is just another expression of racism and hate, and calling it art should not give it anymore weight in allowing it to be seen and heard. It is really not about disagreeing, or not liking something, it's about standing up against racism in a community you are part of and there is a big difference.

 

[Mila_]

This conversation has got my head going in a lot of different directions! I am going to try and be concise.

I keep thinking how it is a slippery and irresponsible slope to use art as a reason to allow racist content.

Why can't there be a policy that states, No racism, including racist art? If it's a no racism policy, then shouldn't that include art that is racist anyway? (I know MFC won't actually do this, as their response clearly shows.) But I think a good question to ask is, why does art get to be the reason someone gets away with being racist?

The other thing to remember is that many models who are POC have spoken up and called the WN show racist. It would have been cool if that AVN article had taken the opportunity to seek out some POC models and include that perspective - I don't think any of the models they quoted were. But we are grown ups and don't really need a person of colour to inform us when something is racist, do we?

I also just don't buy the satire argument. Even if we give WN the benefit of the doubt and accept that she did intend to do satire, it really flopped! So, if one's attempt at satire fails, is it still satire or does it become what it was trying to make fun of? In this case, racism. And I think yes it just becomes racism. Maybe you can still try and call it art, but then it is just racist art.

One more thought about allowing racist art to have a platform. I think it is just another expression of racism and hate, and calling it art should not give it anymore weight in allowing it to be seen and heard. It is really not about disagreeing, or not liking something, it's about standing up against racism in a community you are part of and there is a big difference.

You would have to start by defining what is racism, and that can also be a slippery slope in itself. Most people would agree that racism is judging individuals a priori in a negative light on the basis of their race. For example assuming, the moment you meet him, that Joe is lazy simply because he is black. You don't know Joe, but since he is black you think you know something about his character that is negative. So an example of racist artwork would be a show in which a black character is introduced and he is lazy just because he is black. Or all the other characters consider him to be so.

Then there's people who think racism extends to any sort generalization, positive or negative, you might do about a race. So, it would be racist to think that are differences between races, being good or bad. They think thinking that there are qualities particular to a race is racist. For example, thinking that the chinese are more hard working than caucasians, or the japanese more intelligent, would be just as racist as thinking blacks are lazy. Some of them also think that studying these differences is evil and contributes to the problem. So a scientist who wants to study the differences in IQ between races, for example, would be a racist scientist. The problem here is not about judging or discriminating against individuals, the problem here is with the very idea that there might be actual differences between races, some good some bad. In this light any piece of art that would attempt to describe these differences would be considered racist. And here is where the problem begins. Is... say... Dances with Wolves racist? Should we ban the movie?

And if we continue to go down that path some people think ANY idea you might have about any group of people (race or not) is racist. For example saying that Mexico (a country, not a race) has the worst freeloaders, or that islam (a religion not a race) is at the root of terrorism is racist. Thousands upon thousands of books would be feeding your pyre now. Further down the line the concept of micro-aggressions make even the slightest mention of a difference a big deal. You have people second guessing themselves at every turn. Should we ban all art that includes them? Nazis would pale next to your bonfire if you do.

And what about sexism? If we start banning "racist" art, shouldnt we also ban "sexist" art? Where do we start? Do we ban seduction manuals? Some consider that opening the door for a woman is sexist. Should we do away with romcoms?

Policing thought is never right. You have to let people express their ideas as long as they aren't threatening anyone else with violence or inciting attacks on groups of people. Calling for the death of all white cops is dangerous and should be forbidden, not because its racist but because it is inciting violence, we all saw the outcome of that. Dressing up as a cop is not. Do you see the difference?

 

[Ms_Diane]

I think the notion that "banning" (your word, not mine) racist art would lead to banning things like romcoms, is another way to take away from talking about actual racism.

I'm talking about when workplaces, galleries, companies, schools, governments, etc have policies that do not tolerate racism. I think it is something that most people expect nowadays. I think there are definitions of racism that these policies rely on in order to work. And sometimes stuff happens where they need to further develop their policies, and that is often a result of employees, students, consumers, community members, etc speaking up. But there are existing definitions of racism that are pretty solid!

MFC has a policy like that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they even admitted in their statement that what WN did was racist, but choose to use art as a reason for allowing it. What I was trying to say above is that something being art is not a good reason to allow racist content on their site.

 

[Mila_]

I think the notion that "banning" (your word, not mine) racist art would lead to banning things like romcoms, is another way to take away from talking about actual racism.

I'm talking about when workplaces, galleries, companies, schools, governments, etc have policies that do not tolerate racism. I think it is something that most people expect nowadays. I think there are definitions of racism that these policies rely on in order to work. And sometimes stuff happens where they need to further develop their policies, and that is often a result of employees, students, consumers, community members, etc speaking up. But there are existing definitions of racism that are pretty solid!

MFC has a policy like that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they even admitted in their statement that what WN did was racist, but choose to use art as a reason for allowing it. What I was trying to say above is that something being art is not a good reason to allow racist content on their site.

The laws you are talking about are against discrimination, not against racism. The difference is discrimination is an actual concrete action that can be measured, racism isn't.

Abstract concepts such as "racism" aren't mathematical. There is no universal and unequivocal definition of what racism is. If we go simply by what the dictionary says, WhoreNickels' show wasn't racist:



And since you, and many others, did think her show was racist the only explanation is that there is more than one definition at play. Unlike concrete realities such as an apple, or a chair, where all of us would absolutely agree without a shadow of a doubt that something is or isn't an apple, you can't do the same thing with abstract concepts.

This is what I was trying to convey to you. That in the same way you think "using art as an excuse to allow racism" (or one definition of) is a "slippery and irresponsible slope", banning things that offend you is too. If you allow every definition of racism going around to dictate what should and should not be allowed you will end up banning romcoms.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Regarding art I always get reminded of the elephant poop and porn magazine butts/pussys on the virgin mary painting thing.

It was displayed at several galleries around the world and it caused quite the commotion when Rudy Giuliani (former mayor of NYC) tried to get it banned from the Brooklyn museum. The museum was taken to court and protected under the 1st Amendment. The painting sells for millions of dollars.

That case sets the precedent that a similar painting of say idk... Muhammad covered in magazine cutouts of butts, pussys, and live animal dung would be protected to be displayed in a museum....

How do you think something like that would go over at a time like this? People would lose their minds.
But, to have true fairness, it would have to be allowed.

 

[yummybrownfox]

Calling for the death of all white cops is dangerous and should be forbidden, not because its racist but because it is inciting violence, we all saw the outcome of that. Dressing up as a cop is not.

You should finish that sentence..."...and telling members to tip to beat - or not beat - a Black person." Sure sounds racist (and encouraging violence) to me...

 

[AmberCutie]

This is what I was trying to convey to you. That in the same way you think "using art as an excuse to allow racism" (or one definition of) is a "slippery and irresponsible slope", banning things that offend you is too. If you allow every definition of racism going around to dictate what should and should not be allowed you will end up banning romcoms.

I think that's the biggest thing to take away from MFC's response to this event; it would seem MFC is trying to protect/create their platform in such a way that models may have a lot of freedom to entertain and perform to whatever extent they feel comfortable. (And to whatever extent is not actually illegal, as has been noted about Olivia's Nazi show being illegal in other countries thus creating a legal issue if MFC let it continue.)

 

[Mila_]

You left out the (dressing up as a cop) "And telling members they can tip to beat - or not beat - a Black person" part. Yes, that's racist. It saddens me that you're on here saying otherwise.

Yeah, you are right, I should have included that part in the equation, it makes her show more shitty I agree with you on that. But the point stands that she wasn't calling for attacks on blacks.

This is an example of a racist comment that should be banned *because* it is calling for death and violence of others simply on the basis of their race:



These tweets during the Dallas Police Massacre weren't racist but should also be banned because they were calling for attacks and violence on others:




But these examples are all from BLM activists so nobody considers them racist or troublesome.

It's easy to see that as distasteful and shitty as WN popo show was, it wasn't on the same level.

 

[AmberCutie]

I think that's the biggest thing to take away from MFC's response to this event

But if you'd rather strike/boycott and quit working on MFC, I suppose that's fine too, but you're probably only hurting yourself in the long run...

 

[yummybrownfox]

But these examples are all from BLM activists so nobody considers them racist or troublesome.

It's easy to see that as distasteful and shitty as WN popo show was, it wasn't on the same level.

Of course people consider those above remarks racist and troublesome. But don't try to tell me that all of the Black Lives Matters folks are that way. You conveniently went looking for the bad apples of the bunch just to prove your point. I've shared lots of Black Lives Matter posts on Facebook lately, and wouldn't condone remarks like that. I'm also sick of having to explain "Black Lives Matter" to all of the White people who keep whining "But...but...but ALL lives matter!" Oh? ALL lives matter? What a sweet, yet naive sentiment.

And WN's behavior shouldn't have to be "on the same level" in order for action to be taken.

 

[Mila_]

Of course people consider those above remarks racist and troublesome. But don't try to tell me that all of the Black Lives Matters folks are that way. You conveniently went looking for the bad apples of the bunch just to prove your point. I've shared lots of Black Lives Matter posts on Facebook lately, and wouldn't condone remarks like that. I'm also sick of having to explain to the "But...but...ALL Lives Matter!" people the meaning of "Black Lives Matter."

Her behavior shouldn't have to be "on the same level" in order for action to be taken.

I am not defending or condemning BLM in this thread that is not the topic we are discussing now. It was just an example I chose because I had it open in another browser tab to illustrate my point: that there is a difference between calling for an attack on another group (race based or not) and simply doing something that someone might consider racist. I could have used examples of muslim imams calling for the destruction of america too, mobs of communists beating down a right-wing politician in Spain, or any other example. I just happened to have the BLM video at hand.

Edit: @Songbird_Shelly I understand that you are upset over the WNs show, you are right to be. I dont think it was a nice show and the fact that it touches you personally amplifies the feeling (and makes MFCs reaction more difficult to accept) I get that. My problem isn't with you or the people who felt wronged by her. PumpkinSpice must also feel shitty over her PS show, and she has a right to be.

 

[Ms_Diane]

The laws you are talking about are against discrimination, not against racism. The difference is discrimination is an actual concrete action that can be measured, racism isn't.

Abstract concepts such as "racism" aren't mathematical. There is no universal and unequivocal definition of what racism is. If we go simply by what the dictionary says, WhoreNickels' show wasn't racist:

And since you, and many others, did think her show was racist the only explanation is that there is more than one definition at play. Unlike concrete realities such as an apple, or a chair, where all of us would absolutely agree without a shadow of a doubt that something is or isn't an apple, you can't do the same thing with abstract concepts.

This is what I was trying to convey to you. That in the same way you think "using art as an excuse to allow racism" (or one definition of) is a "slippery and irresponsible slope", banning things that offend you is too. If you allow every definition of racism going around to dictate what should and should not be allowed you will end up banning romcoms.

I am not talking about discrimination laws. I am talking about policies that companies and organizations have that help them deal with issues of racism. MFC has a policy like this, and as Amber said above they have decided how they are going to use it.

I think that policies can help in deciphering what is racist and what is not in the context of specific organizations and companies. I am not arguing that there has to be one definition of racism. As I said before, "I think there are definitions of racism that these policies rely on in order to work."

 

[Guy]

But if you'd rather strike/boycott and quit working on MFC, I suppose that's fine too, but you're probably only hurting yourself in the long run...

That's that necessarily true. A model who quits MFC can always join another camsite.

 

[Guy]

But if you'd rather strike/boycott and quit working on MFC, I suppose that's fine too, but you're probably only hurting yourself in the long run...

EDIT: That's not necessarily true. A model that quits MFC can always join another camsite.

 

[JoleneBrody]

But these examples are all from BLM activists so nobody considers them racist or troublesome.
.

Highly disagree. Completely removed from hack Olivia knockoff conversation, but from all I've seen from BLM leaders since the beginning they in no way, shape or form support the murder of anyone. Police officer or not. BLM leaders have made it very clear that they were horrified with the actions of the police murders but just as the majority of cops are good, the majority of BLM protestors including their leaders are peaceful and have firmly spoken against these violent actions.

It boggles my mind when I see the same people so quick to shout "not all cops" jump so quickly to "all BLM protestors" not saying that's what you did mila, this is just something I've been thinking about so I'm going off on thoughts now...
Why do so many feel like they have to pick a side? My uncle is a great cop and a good man, but the system is still fucked and needs to be fixed. My uncle being a good man doesn't change that and he knows it too! He's a good cop but the greater system is garbage.
My city Las Vegas dropped the fraternity bs and addressed their racial profiling issue years ago, they changed their entire training structure and now have a more productive force with something like 40% less shootings. It was not terribly difficult, they just had to admit they had a problem first... Ya know

 

[Mila_]

Highly disagree. Completely removed from hack Olivia knockoff conversation, but from all I've seen from BLM leaders since the beginning they in no way, shape or form support the murder of anyone. Police officer or not. BLM leaders have made it very clear that they were horrified with the actions of the police murders but just as the majority of cops are good, the majority of BLM protestors including their leaders are peaceful and have firmly spoken against these violent actions.

It boggles my mind when I see the same people so quick to shout "not all cops" jump so quickly to "all BLM protestors" not saying that's what you did mila, this is just something I've been thinking about so I'm going off on thoughts now...
Why do so many feel like they have to pick a side? My uncle is a great cop and a good man, but the system is still fucked and needs to be fixed. My uncle being a good man doesn't change that and he knows it too! He's a good cop but the greater system is garbage.
My city Las Vegas dropped the fraternity bs and addressed their racial profiling issue years ago, they changed their entire training structure and now have a more productive force with something like 40% less shootings. It was not terribly difficult, they just had to admit they had a problem first... Ya know

Please explain this to me then Jolene:



Explain this too:



How about this:



I never said all BLM supporters feel this way but there are 100s of examples like this, which does mean something. It means at least several segments of this group are criminally violent. Truth is the violent rhetoric of BLM is at the root of this. No two ways about it. You don't get to promote violence and racial hatred towards other groups and then wash your hands when your supporters act on it.

 

[Guy]

Please explain this to me then Jolene:

Were those really BLM protesters? Sounds more like what protesters from the New Black Panther Party or another black separatist group would chant.