DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Harmony on June 09, 2020, 09:48:58 AM

Title: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Harmony on June 09, 2020, 09:48:58 AM
I wanted to splinter off the police brutality thread - hope the mods won't mind.

On that thread, I asked a question and this was one of the replies:
Is it unwoke of me to ask if anyone posting here with any regularity is a person of color?

Not sure if it counts, but I am Hispanic, most of my life I've been in a predominantly Black/Hispanic community.

This reply really stuck with me.  Because of course it counts!  Now I realize that this board and progressive music as a whole is mighty white and mighty male - so maybe this isn't the right place for me to post this topic.  Maybe it isn't my place.

But then I thought, maybe it is the place.  Why shouldn't we have these discussions?  Why shouldn't we make an effort to listen to POC here and out there *gestures wildly in all directions*?

Has anyone heard this yet?  Kimberly Latrice Jones is her name.  I thought this might be a good place to start.  If you are going to comment, please watch the entire thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLDmB0ve62s
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: bosk1 on June 09, 2020, 09:51:24 AM
Nothing substantive to add yet, but just to chime in on the "appropriateness" of the thread, since you asked:  No problem with it whatsoever.  As far as I'm concerned, this precisely fits what the P/R forum is designed for.  As with any other subject, provided the discussion remains respectful, have at it!
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: Vmadera00 on June 09, 2020, 12:24:27 PM
Really strong Video Harmony.

I saw this yesterday. It's Neil deGrasse Tyson talking. The video it's a bit long but well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0p0DzZVzI
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: Harmony on June 09, 2020, 05:03:47 PM
Yeah, I thought so too, Vmadera00.  I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.  Which I find curious considering the lively discussion going on in the other thread a few days back.  That said, I'm hoping the silence is = listening.

I actually read a transcript of that NDT clip.  It was long!  Even though his spoken word reading sounds like he's reading a story to his nephew, I prefer it.  Thanks for adding it. 
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: XeRocks81 on June 09, 2020, 05:19:48 PM
isn't it messed that first time I ever heard of the Tulsa massacre was when I watched the first episode of Watchmen on HBO last october where they reenacted part of it?    And now Rosewood, I just had to go to wikipedia because I had never heard of that either.
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: RuRoRul on June 09, 2020, 05:49:03 PM
Yeah, I thought so too, Vmadera00.  I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.  Which I find curious considering the lively discussion going on in the other thread a few days back.  That said, I'm hoping the silence is = listening.
I'm an infrequent poster but still read P/R here semi-regularly as it's a good source of some respectful discussion in a relatively chilled out atmosphere, so I suppose I can vouch for not posting in a thread doesn't mean I'm not interested in following.

For this thread though, I don't know if it's a factor at all but I'll weigh in and say that I was unsure *exactly* what sort of thread you were going for from the OP The title and the idea of spinning off from police brutality suggest it being a good general thread for any discussion the issue of racism. But the note that this forum skews white and male (which I believe is true) and the part about making an effort to hear from POC here made me think it was maybe intended more as a springboard mainly for people with a different perspective and perhaps more direct impact of racism in their life to share their experiences. Plus "ensure you've watched this entire video before posting" seems like a high barrier to entry further suggesting maybe it's not intended for just any old post about the topic of racism.

Just to be clear, I think both threads ("Catch-all thread for any discussion on the issue of racism" or "Place to share personal experience of how racism has impacted you") would be good ideas. But I wasn't 100% sure which one you intended it to be, and if it was the latter then the same crew of P/R regulars immediately posting their thoughts and continuing the discussion from there might sort of turn it into the former. I can't speak for anyone else so maybe that's not even a factor, but just a thought I had viewing this thread that it wouldn't surprise me if people were hanging back waiting for others to sort of set the tone of the thread before weighing in.

Edit: I saw the video in the OP before, it was very powerful and certainly helps get across some of the perspective on those very involved in the protests and the significance of the history on why these issues get the reaction they do. Also I found the part about the social contract and why the brutality at the hands of the police merits such a strong reaction (more so than perhaps boiling it down to "how many people are really killed a year?" might suggest) very interesting, but to be hoenst that part of the discussion is more about the specifics of police brutality and these current protests than about the general subject of racism.
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: Harmony on June 09, 2020, 06:22:13 PM
isn't it messed that first time I ever heard of the Tulsa massacre was when I watched the first episode of Watchmen on HBO last october where they reenacted part of it?    And now Rosewood, I just had to go to wikipedia because I had never heard of that either.

Yes.  Same here.  I know many people don't read the comments on links and youtubes, but if you happened to read any of the comments on the youtube thread, this same thing was being said over and over.  "You mean I had to learn about Mesopotamia but I never even heard about Rosewood?" 



For this thread though, I don't know if it's a factor at all but I'll weigh in and say that I was unsure *exactly* what sort of thread you were going for from the OP The title and the idea of spinning off from police brutality suggest it being a good general thread for any discussion the issue of racism. But the note that this forum skews white and male (which I believe is true) and the part about making an effort to hear from POC here made me think it was maybe intended more as a springboard mainly for people with a different perspective and perhaps more direct impact of racism in their life to share their experiences. Plus "ensure you've watched this entire video before posting" seems like a high barrier to entry further suggesting maybe it's not intended for just any old post about the topic of racism.

Thanks for weighing in and you make good points.  I don't really want to limit this thread in any way and had (maybe erroneously) assumed most would've been reading the Police Brutality thread and seen the posts touching on the need for a discussion about privilege and/or racism.  That's what I wanted this to be.  I guess I should retitle it a bit for clarity.

I only wanted the clip to be viewed on entirely before posting about the clip and what she said.  I literally just read a discussion on another platform where people turned this clip off halfway through thinking it was about the looting and vandalism.  And while it touched on that, it was about much more.  So turning off halfway through would've missed the point - like the one Xe mentioned up above.  I've also seen (not here) comments along the line of, "Why is she so angry?  Why can't she just calmly discuss?" and I think these comments may also miss the point and IMO would be a form of microaggression that many black people are sick and tired of, frankly.

I honestly wish we had more of a diverse culture here.  I want nothing more than to have POC on this board speak up and participate.  But we are here, who we are.  So my ambivalence around making the thread is because I honestly feel like it isn't my place to talk about something that I personally don't experience.  But NOT talking about it doesn't seem to be the answer either.

So let's just talk about it and see where it will go.

FTR, Ms. Jones' passionate words make me think about racism differently than I ever have before.  Her words may in fact be the most profound words I've ever heard on the subject ever.  I mean, I have what I now see as a basic understanding of racism.  But it's more basic than I'd care to admit.   :-\
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: lordxizor on June 09, 2020, 06:35:16 PM
I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.
I just saw this thread and watched the video, but here's why I likely won't be participating much here. I simply don't know what to say. The woman made some very powerful points and drove home how the deck has been stacked against black people for hundreds of years. I can't argue with that. I cannot even fathom what we can do from here. Give black people a wad of cash? Buy them all homes? I've heard plenty of ideas tossed around over the years and none of them seem like they'd really change anything in the long run. People are notoriously bad at managing a sudden inflow of money.

I'm tempted to nitpick a few things she said that I don't agree with, but I know that's part of the problem with things like this. We throw out the whole argument because we disagree with 10% of it. So I'm not going to go there.

I'll follow the thread and chime in when it seems appropriate, but I have no idea what substance I can add.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Harmony on June 09, 2020, 06:49:53 PM
I appreciate your honesty.  And I also don't know what to do from here and that's frustrating.  The discussion on reparations alone could probably take up pages.

So what can we do?  We can vote, sure.  What else?

Have you ever been in a group of people and heard racists labels or jokes?  I know I have.  Have I always stood up and said anything?  No.  But that is one very small thing that I will be doing.  Calling it out.  And before someone helpfully admonishes me about free speech, I'm not saying that people can't tell jokes or use racist words.  I'm saying I will speak up and then I will walk away.  People can talk shit all they want.  I don't have to be around them or it going forward.  Family members included.  And they will be made to know exactly why I will no longer be having any kind of relationship with them.  If they wish to change, I'll reconsider.  If they don't, I'm out.

It is fucking 2020.  It's time to make a stand.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 09, 2020, 07:08:44 PM
I appreciate your honesty.  And I also don't know what to do from here and that's frustrating.  The discussion on reparations alone could probably take up pages.

So what can we do?  We can vote, sure.  What else?
I honestly don't know who to vote for that would help. I'm initially tempted to think that Democrats in general are better for black Americans, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat. I want to give black Americans a hand up out of poverty so they can then maintain their own level of success, not just continually keep them on welfare. Democrats haven't been able to achieve that on a large scale. So voting doesn't really help me feel all that much better either.

Have you ever been in a group of people and heard racists labels or jokes?  I know I have.  Have I always stood up and said anything?  No.  But that is one very small thing that I will be doing.  Calling it out.  And before someone helpfully admonishes me about free speech, I'm not saying that people can't tell jokes or use racist words.  I'm saying I will speak up and then I will walk away.  People can talk shit all they want.  I don't have to be around them or it going forward.  Family members included.  And they will be made to know exactly why I will no longer be having any kind of relationship with them.  If they wish to change, I'll reconsider.  If they don't, I'm out.

It is fucking 2020.  It's time to make a stand.
This is a good point. Standing up to casual racism is a start.
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: KevShmev on June 09, 2020, 07:29:29 PM
I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.
I just saw this thread and watched the video, but here's why I likely won't be participating much here. I simply don't know what to say. The woman made some very powerful points and drove home how the deck has been stacked against black people for hundreds of years. I can't argue with that. I cannot even fathom what we can do from here. Give black people a wad of cash? Buy them all homes? I've heard plenty of ideas tossed around over the years and none of them seem like they'd really change anything in the long run. People are notoriously bad at managing a sudden inflow of money.

I'm tempted to nitpick a few things she said that I don't agree with, but I know that's part of the problem with things like this. We throw out the whole argument because we disagree with 10% of it. So I'm not going to go there.

I'll follow the thread and chime in when it seems appropriate, but I have no idea what substance I can add.

This sums up my position as well, and you said it way better than I would have.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: RuRoRul on June 09, 2020, 08:50:25 PM
Thanks for weighing in and you make good points.  I don't really want to limit this thread in any way and had (maybe erroneously) assumed most would've been reading the Police Brutality thread and seen the posts touching on the need for a discussion about privilege and/or racism.  That's what I wanted this to be.  I guess I should retitle it a bit for clarity.

I only wanted the clip to be viewed on entirely before posting about the clip and what she said.  I literally just read a discussion on another platform where people turned this clip off halfway through thinking it was about the looting and vandalism.  And while it touched on that, it was about much more.  So turning off halfway through would've missed the point - like the one Xe mentioned up above.  I've also seen (not here) comments along the line of, "Why is she so angry?  Why can't she just calmly discuss?" and I think these comments may also miss the point and IMO would be a form of microaggression that many black people are sick and tired of, frankly.

I honestly wish we had more of a diverse culture here.  I want nothing more than to have POC on this board speak up and participate.  But we are here, who we are.  So my ambivalence around making the thread is because I honestly feel like it isn't my place to talk about something that I personally don't experience.  But NOT talking about it doesn't seem to be the answer either.

So let's just talk about it and see where it will go.

FTR, Ms. Jones' passionate words make me think about racism differently than I ever have before.  Her words may in fact be the most profound words I've ever heard on the subject ever.  I mean, I have what I now see as a basic understanding of racism.  But it's more basic than I'd care to admit.   :-\
Yes, similarly I feel I'm probably not the best person to talk about racism. I am basically that stereotypical white male demographic of this forum and don't have much of the perspective of being a minority. My parents and grandparents and probably further back than that were all white natives to the (majority white) country I live in and were born probably within a couple of hour's drive of the city I live in now. And while racism can be a problem anywhere, and there are certainly issues with racism in my country, I daresay we don't have the same history and level of racial tension as in the USA or some other countries, so it does not really feel like such a significant part of the national conversation as it appears to be in some places. So while I have my thoughts - and don't get me wrong I'm not one of those who believe that I have "no right" to talk about anything just because I am not as affected by it -  they really are the thoughts of someone who has the privilege of being able to talk about racism mainly as an abstract, intellectual topic, rather than the many people who experience it much more viscerally every day.

But, as you said we are who we are here. And ironic as it might be to start a conversation about racism with "Let's first hear from... the white males!", I think within the context of this forum it's inevitable that we're going to get a bit of that if we really want to hear people's viewpoints. For myself, as described above I definitely don't have that much deep or personal experience with racism to draw from, but with that in mind there were a couple of general thoughts I had on racism and privilege over the past few weeks and in fact when reading hreads here.

First, on privilege. Or, let's say it - white privilege. It's a bit of a loaded term for many people now, and it's boiling down some very complex factors into a couple of words so of course there's lots you can pick apart. I think we all know the general gist of it. The video in the OP, while it was about black people's experience, gets across the idea of why there's a systematic benefit to white people in the US compared to black people, even once the laws say that they are ostensibly equal, that doesn't just erase the history that brought us to this point.

But, for those of us in the supposedly "privileged" categories - whether it's white, male, whatever - I think there's always that question of "OK, what are we supposed to do with that?" Or even just an instinctive pushback against the idea. "You're privileged." Who is really going to like being told that? Especially when everyone's individual experience is their own and they might not feel particularly privileged at all, or especially when it may feel like people are using it as an accusation against your success, your abilities, or your character. Your successes aren't fully your own, you didn't really get where you are on your own - what you've done, the obstacles you've overcome and things you've done with your life, are all partly due to the privilege of your race.

I'm in no way comparing being sometimes told "white privilege exists" to the oppression suffered by black people - this is not a "white people are the true victims!" rant. But, if we're going to have the conversation about the idea of privilege and understand it better, I think it's important that we acknowledge and understand why, in that conversation, the people being told about their supposed privilege might have a big fucking problem with it. I mean, I lean pretty heavily progressive (especially relative to the US) and am definitely in the category that would easily side with those fighting against systematic racism and inequality, but I can't say I could never sympathise with those who feel like they are being lectured about white privilege. No one handed me anything because I was white, not once did I feel like I got special treatment for being white, being white didn't help me get qualifications or a job. If I hadn't worked hard or used my abilities well I would have failed and being white wouldn't help me. And being white never helped the people I know worse off than me who don't have a decent job or are struggling to pay the bills. So what does that "privilege" really mean to me? If being "accepted" into the social movement means accepting that supposedly I am a lesser person because my achievements and happiness are down to white privilege, why should I bother?

Now I understand that's really not what the idea of privilege is supposed to be about. But believe me, I can certainly see how many people interpret it that way, and I know if I too can easily sympathise with their feelings it's going to be very easy for a lot more people to do so. Especially when in the modern world, there are millions of black people who have been successful in America, there are plenty of places for minorities in education, companies can't simply discriminate based on race, and there are lots of programs and initiatves specifically helping people who might be disadvantaged because of their race. I think a lot of people today will happily accept the idea that they'd have had it easier than others for being a white male - if they lived in the '50s. But insist that white privilege is just as big a deal today, insinuate that this privilege plays a significant role in their life, and you will lose them. And I think that conversation about privilege can often come across like that, rather than in a way that will actually make people stop and consider the complexity of the issue. Perhaps that's no surprise, after all people standing up against the very real racism that still exists today, as well as the systemic societal inequalities that linger from a history of racial injustice, they have bigger issues to worry about than whether their wording might make some white guy a bit grumpy because he feels he's being lectured or his achievements are being minimised.

But, I think while the word "privilege" feels a bit loaded when being thrown around, most of us probably can acknowledge and understand it. For me, when thinking of the idea of "my privilege", it makes sense to me that rather than being directly positive, it's more the absence of a negative - or even a potential negative. To me, it's basically what I was talking about at the beginning of this post - I don't have any real experience of suffering from racism. I've never had to worry much about it. I can't specifically point to a time being white or a native of the country I live in has earned me special treatment - and I suspect that's the same for 99% of the people in my position. But I also can't specifically point to a time where I was victimized or discriminated against because of my race. I'm able able to go about my life not thinking about racism unless I want to. Now, not having to think about racism as much doesn't pay the bills. Or help me with anything I need to get done in a day. But, I know that to some that idea of "not really having to worry much about racism" would seem like bliss. I have the privilege to be able to say "racism isn't that big a deal for me", when a lot of people don't have that option because they are forced to deal with it, from the most minor instance like an extra glance, to the most extreme like the possibility the colour of your skin might be a factor in you getting killed.

Of course, as with all important issues it's a bit more complicated. It's not as straight forward as "being black is a bit worse in every situation". We can easily identify scenarios where being black might be a positive or being white might be a negative. And no matter what race someone is they could still be the victim of racially motivated violence. But you only have to go back to what was discussed earlier, about the history of race in the USA and the effect that has had on the system as it stands today, to see that by and large it's black people and other minorities that don't have that privilege of not experiencing as much racism or systematic inequality. So many people of colour are able to share their experience of how racism has directly impacted them in their life - despite the word suggesting that it's something that puts someone in a really beneficial or advantageous position, I think that the "privilege" that some of us (including myself) have is just being hear those experiences and think "I'm glad I didn't have to deal with all that."
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on June 09, 2020, 09:40:12 PM
I watched the video. I don't want to pick out the parts I had problems with because I do not want that to overshadow the parts I do. But for sake of "having a conversation" I will submit for discussion:

1) In her breakdown of "three types of people: protesters, rioters, and looters" I would add there are subsets of looters a) the pissed off people she focused on b) the organized groups who seize the opportunity to systematically loot, and c) the individuals who want free stuff.

2) I heard a clip on the radio today of a woman of color talking about how her store was destroyed by looters. I did not get her name and cannot find it for reference, I apologize. The most moving part of what she said through her tears "We [her family] are trying to build something, and you [the looters] tore it down. I am trying to make something of myself and provide for my family. And what did you accomplish? Nothing but taking it all away from me."

I will push back a little bit on the notion that we are preventing people of color from obtaining anything thus they must take it by stealing. I don't think that is exactly what she said, and through her anger I cannot confirm that is exactly what she meant. But when it comes to looting, rarely do I see people walking out of stores carrying diapers, or bread and milk, because they are "food insecure." I cannot get fully get behind the notion that "the system is keeping me from earning enough to by that big TV I want, so I am just going to take it." She says she doesn't care about Target, and when talking about the company or the brand, I get it. But what about your brothers and sisters (both nationally, and culturally) who work there? Their jobs just got destroyed, their livelihoods in jeopardy. As the old lady from the clip I heard (but cannot locate) you don't build something by destroying it.

My wife and I talked about this a few days ago, and in a moment of frustration, she said she sometimes thinks I see myself as an "entitled white man." She took it back, and felt bad about saying it. In the context of the conversation, it didn't bother me, because we ended up at a better place than when we started. Days later, it did bug me, because for all my faults, and there are plenty, considering myself entitled wasn't something that had crossed my mind. I have been thinking a lot about it since, and haven't had the heart (and by heart I mean balls) to revisit it with her and ask her specifically what makes her think that.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 10, 2020, 05:47:44 AM

2) I heard a clip on the radio today of a woman of color talking about how her store was destroyed by looters. I did not get her name and cannot find it for reference, I apologize. The most moving part of what she said through her tears "We [her family] are trying to build something, and you [the looters] tore it down. I am trying to make something of myself and provide for my family. And what did you accomplish? Nothing but taking it all away from me."


Have you ever seen this clip from the 1992 riots in LA? Reminds me a lot of that. Freaking sad, man. I'd be gutted if I saw so much of my life just stripped from me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxK8VzylOrQ

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Elite on June 10, 2020, 06:02:19 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 10, 2020, 06:18:05 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
It absolutely is. Whether the Democratic party is actually actively trying to keep black people poor, I can't say (and I kind of doubt), but there are people who think they are (conservatives of course). But it certainly helps the Democrats stay in power when more people are dependent on government aid.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 10, 2020, 06:21:02 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
It absolutely is. Whether the Democratic party is actually actively trying to keep black people poor, I can't say (and I kind of doubt), but there are people who think they are (conservatives of course).


 What are democrats doing that keeps black people poor, and what are the republicans doing to try and stop that?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 10, 2020, 06:24:33 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
It absolutely is. Whether the Democratic party is actually actively trying to keep black people poor, I can't say (and I kind of doubt), but there are people who think they are (conservatives of course).


 What are democrats doing that keeps black people poor, and what are the republicans doing to try and stop that?
I just said I doubt they're actively doing anything to keep them poor and never claimed Republicans are doing anything to stop it. You'd have to look for conservative opinions on the matter. But I know these opinions exist and it's not just a tiny fringe element that believes it.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 10, 2020, 06:28:29 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
It absolutely is. Whether the Democratic party is actually actively trying to keep black people poor, I can't say (and I kind of doubt), but there are people who think they are (conservatives of course).


 What are democrats doing that keeps black people poor, and what are the republicans doing to try and stop that?
I just said I doubt they're actively doing anything to keep them poor and never claimed Republicans are doing anything to stop it. You'd have to look for conservative opinions on the matter. But I know these opinions exist and it's not just a tiny fringe element that believes it.


My bad, I read "I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor" and thought something else.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 10, 2020, 06:29:50 AM
I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor so they're dependent on the government and thus more likely to vote Democrat.

Is this really a thing?
It absolutely is. Whether the Democratic party is actually actively trying to keep black people poor, I can't say (and I kind of doubt), but there are people who think they are (conservatives of course).


 What are democrats doing that keeps black people poor, and what are the republicans doing to try and stop that?
I just said I doubt they're actively doing anything to keep them poor and never claimed Republicans are doing anything to stop it. You'd have to look for conservative opinions on the matter. But I know these opinions exist and it's not just a tiny fringe element that believes it.


My bad, I read "I think Democrats have a vested interest in keeping black people poor" and thought something else.



Perhaps my initial post was unclear... I believe that Democrats do better when more people are dependent on government aid, which a large chunk of POC are. I don't think this is a controversial opinion, since people in need will almost always vote for those who will keep or raise their aid. I didn't mean to imply from the beginning that Democrats are actively trying to keep black people poor, though there are many who do and have recently heard many people on Facebook commenting on the racial stuff about racist Democrats trying to keep blacks poor.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on June 10, 2020, 06:31:41 AM
I dunno.

I do better when people have mental health issues, but I definitely don't have a vested interest in making sure people have mental health issues.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 10, 2020, 06:39:35 AM
I dunno.

I do better when people have mental health issues, but I definitely don't have a vested interest in making sure people have mental health issues.
You do though. If no one had mental health issues, you wouldn't have a job. So you do have a vested interest in people having mental health issues. That doesn't mean you hope people have mental health issues or are going to somehow make people have mental heath issues. It just means you're personally financially better off if people do have mental health issues. You also have a vested interest in helping your patients overcome their issues, since they would in theory give your name to others having issues you could help with.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on June 10, 2020, 06:43:05 AM
I dunno.

I do better when people have mental health issues, but I definitely don't have a vested interest in making sure people have mental health issues.
You do though. If no one had mental health issues, you wouldn't have a job. So you do have a vested interest in people having mental health issues. That doesn't mean you hope people have mental health issues or are going to somehow make people have mental heath issues. It just means you're personally financially better off if people do have mental health issues. You also have a vested interest in helping your patients overcome their issues, since they would in theory give your name to others having issues you could help with.

I have a vested interest in MAKING SURE PEOPLE HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES?

I put the emphasized in caps. I have a financial stake in them already having them, but not in MAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM.

There is a huge difference there.

Edit: Here's the difference in how I'm interpreting what you're saying. The world will ALWAYS have mental health issues, so I don't need a vested interest in making sure people have them. Similar to medical doctors. The world will always need them. They don't need to make sure people stay unhealthy at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most doctors, if given the choice, would rather find a new career in a world that no longer has health issues than make sure people still depend on them.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 10, 2020, 07:01:51 AM
I dunno.

I do better when people have mental health issues, but I definitely don't have a vested interest in making sure people have mental health issues.
You do though. If no one had mental health issues, you wouldn't have a job. So you do have a vested interest in people having mental health issues. That doesn't mean you hope people have mental health issues or are going to somehow make people have mental heath issues. It just means you're personally financially better off if people do have mental health issues. You also have a vested interest in helping your patients overcome their issues, since they would in theory give your name to others having issues you could help with.

I have a vested interest in MAKING SURE PEOPLE HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES?

I put the emphasized in caps. I have a financial stake in them already having them, but not in MAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM.

There is a huge difference there.

Edit: Here's the difference in how I'm interpreting what you're saying. The world will ALWAYS have mental health issues, so I don't need a vested interest in making sure people have them. Similar to medical doctors. The world will always need them. They don't need to make sure people stay unhealthy at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most doctors, if given the choice, would rather find a new career in a world that no longer has health issues than make sure people still depend on them.
Maybe we're just interpreting the phrase "vested interest" differently. I believe, based on my understanding of the phrase, that you have a vested interest in mental health issues being prevalent since you are financially better off if they are. That in no way implies that you wouldn't push the magic "make all mental health issues go away" button if there was one. You seem like an honorable person and you would rather find a new career than continue to let people suffer (like the vast majority of doctors and therapists). But I don't interpret "vested interest" based on your moral character, just your financial reality. I have a vested interest in oil companies being successful, since I own stock in them through some of the index funds I own, yet I would rather they all went out of business because we found clean energy alternatives.

Anyway... I think we've drug this thread down long enough. I think you all get the point I was trying to make about the Democrats.... that they are more likely to gain or stay in power if there are more people dependent on government money to live since they are the party most likely to raise or keep benefits and the Republicans are more likely to cut them. And that there are people (not me) that think the Democrats deliberately keep people poor so that they stay on government benefits.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Vmadera00 on June 10, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
Going to comment on 2 points made here. Not going to quote anyone to keep the post clean.

1) Re: what government (won't say democrats as I don't think they are fully responsible for this) does to keep poor communities poor. The main thing I can think of is education. I went to school for that and even got my certification to teach in NY state. There are a lot of issues with the education system, but the main one for me is the way funds are distributed. In short, the worst your school performs as a whole, the less funds you receive. The less funds you receive, the harder it is to provide proper education for kids. This was affecting mainly poor performing school, which were usually located in poor communities. This has caused a lot of school to do what some call "teach to the test", and if your student still fails, you find a way to pass them. The more students you graduate, the more money you will receive. Not sure if this is still the case, but when I was involved in education that's what was happening. I've seen kids today graduating high school with a GPA below 55. Now, I could go on and on about education and standards, but that would be a whole different thread.

2) Re: what Adami said. I agree with him. I currently work for a social service non-profit organization. We thrive because there is a demand for us in a low income community of The Bronx (We provide pantry, cooked food, mail service, showers (mainly for homeless people) and a couple of more services). Most of our clients would be considered  poor by national standards (making less than $12k a year). They need us for certain basic necessities. Even though it's great we can provide that, I would much rather we didn't have to. We are here because there IS a demand, but it would be much better if there wasn't.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 10, 2020, 08:40:25 AM
Going to comment on 2 points made here. Not going to quote anyone to keep the post clean.

1) Re: what government (won't say democrats as I don't think they are fully responsible for this) does to keep poor communities poor. The main thing I can think of is education. I went to school for that and even got my certification to teach in NY state. There are a lot of issues with the education system, but the main one for me is the way funds are distributed. In short, the worst your school performs as a whole, the less funds you receive. The less funds you receive, the harder it is to provide proper education for kids. This was affecting mainly poor performing school, which were usually located in poor communities. This has caused a lot of school to do what some call "teach to the test", and if your student still fails, you find a way to pass them. The more students you graduate, the more money you will receive. Not sure if this is still the case, but when I was involved in education that's what was happening. I've seen kids today graduating high school with a GPA below 55. Now, I could go on and on about education and standards, but that would be a whole different thread.


That's not always the case.


https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/high-public-school-spending-dc-hasnt-produced-desired-outcomes

Quote
Spending by Washington, D.C., public schools can be difficult to pin down.

Estimates suggest spending is somewhere between $27,000 and $29,000 per child per year, which is roughly double the national average. Assuming $27,000 per student per year, D.C. taxpayers spend about $350,000 on a student from kindergarten through graduation. In eighth-grade math, for example, D.C. students scored 16 points below the national average. In reading, D.C. students were 19 points behind their peers across the country. Proficiency levels in reading and math also leave much to be desired. Among fourth-graders, 32 percent scored proficient or better in math, and 29 percent scored proficient in reading. Just 20 percent of eighth-graders tested proficient or better in reading, and just 21 percent in math.

That’s right: Just two out of 10 eighth-graders in D.C. public schools can read or do math proficiently.


Sounds like the problem is in the home, not in the funding.
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: Stadler on June 10, 2020, 08:47:01 AM
I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.
I just saw this thread and watched the video, but here's why I likely won't be participating much here. I simply don't know what to say. The woman made some very powerful points and drove home how the deck has been stacked against black people for hundreds of years. I can't argue with that. I cannot even fathom what we can do from here. Give black people a wad of cash? Buy them all homes? I've heard plenty of ideas tossed around over the years and none of them seem like they'd really change anything in the long run. People are notoriously bad at managing a sudden inflow of money.

I'm tempted to nitpick a few things she said that I don't agree with, but I know that's part of the problem with things like this. We throw out the whole argument because we disagree with 10% of it. So I'm not going to go there.

I'll follow the thread and chime in when it seems appropriate, but I have no idea what substance I can add.

This sums up my position as well, and you said it way better than I would have.

I'm in this boat, too.  It's not a lack of interest, it's that we've hit a dead end.   There's no "right" reply to the video. Sure it was powerful, and about as emotionally resonant as you can get.  But "emotionally resonant" doesn't automatically mean "objectively correct", and in fact, in most cases, they are inversely correlated.    You either accept it or be subject to judgement and scrutiny.  I know Harmony didn't mean it in this context, but it's a good word to make the point:  it's not a "discussion" when the standard reply is "you can't ever know", and the responses are judged as "microaggression".   Our perceptions - on either side, agreed upon or not - are either valid or they're not.   You can't unilaterally deem one side's perceptions more valid on their face and expect the subsequent discussion to be productive.

So I read, with interest, and move on. 
Title: Re: Racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 10, 2020, 09:08:48 AM
I guess others aren't wanting to touch it.
I just saw this thread and watched the video, but here's why I likely won't be participating much here. I simply don't know what to say. The woman made some very powerful points and drove home how the deck has been stacked against black people for hundreds of years. I can't argue with that. I cannot even fathom what we can do from here. Give black people a wad of cash? Buy them all homes? I've heard plenty of ideas tossed around over the years and none of them seem like they'd really change anything in the long run. People are notoriously bad at managing a sudden inflow of money.

I'm tempted to nitpick a few things she said that I don't agree with, but I know that's part of the problem with things like this. We throw out the whole argument because we disagree with 10% of it. So I'm not going to go there.

I'll follow the thread and chime in when it seems appropriate, but I have no idea what substance I can add.

This sums up my position as well, and you said it way better than I would have.

I'm in this boat, too.  It's not a lack of interest, it's that we've hit a dead end.   There's no "right" reply to the video. Sure it was powerful, and about as emotionally resonant as you can get.  But "emotionally resonant" doesn't automatically mean "objectively correct", and in fact, in most cases, they are inversely correlated.    You either accept it or be subject to judgement and scrutiny.  I know Harmony didn't mean it in this context, but it's a good word to make the point:  it's not a "discussion" when the standard reply is "you can't ever know", and the responses are judged as "microaggression".   Our perceptions - on either side, agreed upon or not - are either valid or they're not.   You can't unilaterally deem one side's perceptions more valid on their face and expect the subsequent discussion to be productive.


All of this.....and with attention to the bolded. I typed out a reply yesterday to the video and there's just no way to discuss the couple points I disagree with her about without coming off as a complete unsympathetic a$$hole so I'm just choosing not to discuss. lordxizor and Bill conveyed my general sentiment so, that'll be that.


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 10, 2020, 09:15:30 AM
I dunno.

I do better when people have mental health issues, but I definitely don't have a vested interest in making sure people have mental health issues.
You do though. If no one had mental health issues, you wouldn't have a job. So you do have a vested interest in people having mental health issues. That doesn't mean you hope people have mental health issues or are going to somehow make people have mental heath issues. It just means you're personally financially better off if people do have mental health issues. You also have a vested interest in helping your patients overcome their issues, since they would in theory give your name to others having issues you could help with.

This is to both of you:  you might not ACTIVELY endeavor to have more people "poor"/"with mental health issues" (not in quotes as a direct quote, but a codification of ideas), but there's an element of "to a hammer, everything is a nail".   It's a concern with any identity politics issue; the focusing on the identity irreparably colors the subsequent analysis.  We don't KNOW for a fact that George died in whole or in part because he was black.   We know that he was black, that he died, and it was at the hands of a white man.  The presumption now is that it was a racially motivated "crime" (only in quotes to respect my profession; I may believe him guilty, but I don't get to say that until he pleads out or a jury of his peers finds him so), yet at the end of the day, we have no idea.  For all we know, if it wasn't George it was the next guy, white or black.  Or maybe George - when they were working security together - made a crack about "Asian women", or even Chauvin's wife specifically (she was a beauty pageant contestant/winner).  "Volume" makes for attention, and attention makes for action.  There needs to be a critical mass of events for this to get on the national conscience; we've seen that with guns, with #MeToo, with immigration...   there is a vested interest in having more "volume" to move the needle.

I was actually thinking about this earlier this week; I went to pick up my stepson at his dad's and saw a couple walking on the side of the road.  At this point, 48 hours later, I can't tell you what color shirt they were wearing or anything like that; I noticed they were of color and that's what I remember.  And I had a real crisis of emotion: on one hand, I saw them for who they are.  But on the other, I was conflicted.  Am I racist because I noticed they were of color, or that's all I remember?   Is it of benefit to them as people, as humans, as citizens, to have noted that?   Because that never used to be the case.  I didn't note their skin color because it mattered TO ME, I noted it because it seems to matter TO OTHERS.   Noting skin color used to be for me, like noting the color of someone's shirt, or the styling of their hair, one of many small variables, and we move on.  I don't remember Kim H--- from my dorm as "the black girl from the second floor".  I remember her as the kind woman that single-handedly got me through English (in exchange for help on math) and who was an average kisser.   Now, we seem to have forced this observation to the forefront.    I waved at that couple, as I always do (I'm a waver; drives my kids crazy. I'll even wave at cars that pass me of the same make and model).   But I felt self-conscious about it.  Do they view it as a threat? Patronizing? A human gesture?   Did they even give it a second thought? 

I realize this is all on me, individually, but that's the point.   Is that truly a better state of affairs?   Is that the intended outcome?  And INB4 the "entitlement"/"privilege" accusations; there's no "complaint" here; it's an observation only, and one that goes to the notion of some having a vested interest in there being a problem to solve. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on June 10, 2020, 09:31:17 AM
"Experts" would say you have always noticed peoples' skin color, you were just not conscious of it.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 10, 2020, 09:36:10 AM
Going to comment on 2 points made here. Not going to quote anyone to keep the post clean.

1) Re: what government (won't say democrats as I don't think they are fully responsible for this) does to keep poor communities poor. The main thing I can think of is education. I went to school for that and even got my certification to teach in NY state. There are a lot of issues with the education system, but the main one for me is the way funds are distributed. In short, the worst your school performs as a whole, the less funds you receive. The less funds you receive, the harder it is to provide proper education for kids. This was affecting mainly poor performing school, which were usually located in poor communities. This has caused a lot of school to do what some call "teach to the test", and if your student still fails, you find a way to pass them. The more students you graduate, the more money you will receive. Not sure if this is still the case, but when I was involved in education that's what was happening. I've seen kids today graduating high school with a GPA below 55. Now, I could go on and on about education and standards, but that would be a whole different thread.

2) Re: what Adami said. I agree with him. I currently work for a social service non-profit organization. We thrive because there is a demand for us in a low income community of The Bronx (We provide pantry, cooked food, mail service, showers (mainly for homeless people) and a couple of more services). Most of our clients would be considered  poor by national standards (making less than $12k a year). They need us for certain basic necessities. Even though it's great we can provide that, I would much rather we didn't have to. We are here because there IS a demand, but it would be much better if there wasn't.

Are you familiar with the book "Dumbing Down Our Kids", by Charles Sykes?  It's dated now, but it has some resonant ideas that I know for a fact are relevant today.  "Dollars spend" and "performance" is not really correlated in my experience.  I think Chino is on to something, though; education begins in the home.  Now, no doubt some of that is economically driven, but if there is an emphasis on education in the home it goes a long way to education results. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: bosk1 on June 10, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
Have you ever been in a group of people and heard racists labels or jokes?  I know I have.  Have I always stood up and said anything?  No.  But that is one very small thing that I will be doing.  Calling it out.  And before someone helpfully admonishes me about free speech, I'm not saying that people can't tell jokes or use racist words.  I'm saying I will speak up and then I will walk away.  People can talk shit all they want.  I don't have to be around them or it going forward.  Family members included.  And they will be made to know exactly why I will no longer be having any kind of relationship with them.  If they wish to change, I'll reconsider.  If they don't, I'm out.

It is fucking 2020.  It's time to make a stand.

Serious question, Harmony:  Respectfully, is this the best approach for what you are trying to accomplish (referring primarily to the bolded).  Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but here is how I read it:  "When I hear something I believe is racist, I will immediately call it out.  If I do not see an immediate change of heart, I will sever all ties [family, friend, acquaintance, whatever]."  I fully agree with, support, and commend for the first sentence.  But I am questioning whether the second is productive and effective.  To me, cutting ties ends all discussion.  And isn't discussion itself the most vitally important vehicle for the change you want to see?  Granted, not everyone will be willing to discuss at a level you would prefer, and of those that do, not everyone will see the need to make any changes.  But some might.  How does one win hearts and minds by severing the ties that might allow that dialog to occur in the first place?  And, in my experience, even if the immediate, outward message is "I'm not interested in discussing that," or "I'm not willing to change," or "I'm not willing to consider that point," when you have a relationship, you are in a position to discuss, and more often than not, things sink in that neither the speaker nor the hearer immediately recognize as sinking in. 

This isn't meant to call you out, but as a broader principle, I think the approach you mentioned is counterproductive and part of the problem in discussing big issues in general.  I think we have to get past that in order to solve problems.  When we shut down discussion, we hamstring the most powerful tool to progress: the ability to discuss and reach consensus.  A friend of mine recently made this observation [paraphrase]:  "Over the last couple of generations, we have taught and been taught that it is best to 'respect others' by avoiding political and religious discussion so as not to offend them.  This is a grave mistake.  Instead, we should have put more time and energy into teaching each other how to discuss sensitive topics with this we disagree with so that we can all better understand one another."  I think that is powerfully profound.

Anyhow, that's my two cents on the issue.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.  And maybe I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say.  But even if I did, I think it's always a good idea to put this idea out there anyway, just because there will always be people who disagree with us--some for good reason that we may or may not be able to see; some for bad reasons; some for neutral reasons.  In my opinion, if we cut ourselves off from those we disagree with, we can never find any common ground with them and function as a society, and we would then be undercutting the very foundations of diversity we as a society claim to be striving for. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on June 10, 2020, 10:04:44 AM
there’s nothing wrong per se with what Bosk wrote, he’s right that we should be open in that way.  The problem is that for black people’s interactions with police it’s literally a life or death situation and it can’t be treated in such a detached philosophical way. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Harmony on June 10, 2020, 10:10:37 AM
Serious question, Harmony:  Respectfully, is this the best approach for what you are trying to accomplish (referring primarily to the bolded).  Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but here is how I read it:  "When I hear something I believe is racist, I will immediately call it out.  If I do not see an immediate change of heart, I will sever all ties [family, friend, acquaintance, whatever]."  I fully agree with, support, and commend for the first sentence.  But I am questioning whether the second is productive and effective. 

I'm in my 50s.  How many of these conversations do I need to have and get nowhere that would satisfy you?  With respect, you don't know my family and the years of having these conversations.  Years of trying to be an example.  Years of trying to be forgiving and understanding.

I'm not doing it any more.  I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your requirements.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: bosk1 on June 10, 2020, 10:22:08 AM
Not sure why you made it personal.  It's not about "satisfying" ME.  To me, it's about...not sure how to best word it because it's a fuzzy concept...growing in a way that only comes from interacting with others, friend, enemy, and neutral alike.  When we interact with those we disagree with, even if (and, IMO, especially if) we disagree with them, it promotes growth.  Sometimes, that growth is with us, and we realize that WE were the ones whose perspective was somewhat off and can be adjusted.  Sometimes, that growth is by eventually having the other person come to that realization.  Other times, it is just from the mutual acknowledgement that other people look at the world differently than we do, and even if they are wrong, that's ok.

And you're right--I don't know your family or situation.  But do I need to in order to discuss the point?  Not saying it isn't important to stand in your shoes.  I feel your frustration.  I'm just posing my own thoughts on what you posted.

I'll just conclude with this:  "How many of these conversations do I need to have and get nowhere . . . ?"  I'm in my 50s too.  And my answer is still:  "As many as I can until my last dying breath."  In my opinion and observation, we don't truly know when and how much progress is being made, even when it looks like we may be getting nowhere. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Harmony on June 10, 2020, 10:43:01 AM
Not sure why you made it personal.  It's not about "satisfying" ME.  To me, it's about...not sure how to best word it because it's a fuzzy concept...growing in a way that only comes from interacting with others, friend, enemy, and neutral alike.  When we interact with those we disagree with, even if (and, IMO, especially if) we disagree with them, it promotes growth.  Sometimes, that growth is with us, and we realize that WE were the ones whose perspective was somewhat off and can be adjusted.  Sometimes, that growth is by eventually having the other person come to that realization.  Other times, it is just from the mutual acknowledgement that other people look at the world differently than we do, and even if they are wrong, that's ok.

And you're right--I don't know your family or situation.  But do I need to in order to discuss the point?  Not saying it isn't important to stand in your shoes.  I feel your frustration.  I'm just posing my own thoughts on what you posted.

I'll just conclude with this:  "How many of these conversations do I need to have and get nowhere . . . ?"  I'm in my 50s too.  And my answer is still:  "As many as I can until my last dying breath."  In my opinion and observation, we don't truly know when and how much progress is being made, even when it looks like we may be getting nowhere.

I made it personal because you did.  You even admitted that you didn't know my family or my situation so please don't talk to me like you do.  Fair enough?

"As many as I can until my last dying breath."  Great.  That is YOU.  I'm not telling you that you shouldn't do this.  I'm saying, I'm done doing it.  And that is ME.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: bosk1 on June 10, 2020, 10:48:13 AM
Well, perhaps off topic a bit then, but I guess I am sorta starting to see why maybe some of those conversations don't get anywhere.  There may be a slight possibility that it isn't for the reasons you think.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 10, 2020, 10:48:47 AM
Not sure why you made it personal.  It's not about "satisfying" ME.  To me, it's about...not sure how to best word it because it's a fuzzy concept...growing in a way that only comes from interacting with others, friend, enemy, and neutral alike.  When we interact with those we disagree with, even if (and, IMO, especially if) we disagree with them, it promotes growth.  Sometimes, that growth is with us, and we realize that WE were the ones whose perspective was somewhat off and can be adjusted.  Sometimes, that growth is by eventually having the other person come to that realization.  Other times, it is just from the mutual acknowledgement that other people look at the world differently than we do, and even if they are wrong, that's ok.

And you're right--I don't know your family or situation.  But do I need to in order to discuss the point?  Not saying it isn't important to stand in your shoes.  I feel your frustration.  I'm just posing my own thoughts on what you posted.

I'll just conclude with this:  "How many of these conversations do I need to have and get nowhere . . . ?"  I'm in my 50s too.  And my answer is still:  "As many as I can until my last dying breath."  In my opinion and observation, we don't truly know when and how much progress is being made, even when it looks like we may be getting nowhere.

I made it personal because you did.  You even admitted that you didn't know my family or my situation so please don't talk to me like you do.  Fair enough?

"As many as I can until my last dying breath."  Great.  That is YOU.  I'm not telling you that you shouldn't do this.  I'm saying, I'm done doing it.  And that is ME.

Harmony.....with respect.....I didn't read Bosk's initial post/response as any type of personal 'attack' or anything on you and in fact I think he went out of his way to make sure to make the point that he wasn't doing so? I think you may have read it wrong. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Harmony on June 10, 2020, 10:50:43 AM
Well, perhaps off topic a bit then, but I guess I am sorta starting to see why maybe some of those conversations don't get anywhere.  There may be a slight possibility that it isn't for the reasons you think.

Taking this to PM
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 10, 2020, 11:26:16 AM
I'd like some of our professionals to weigh in, particularly Adami, but I'm reading more and more that the bullying, combative nature of battling racism doesn't work, despite some high-profile, isolated successes.  Changing minds on a person-to-person basis, is rooted in education, inclusivity, and not making the discussion a character assassination.  That takes work and patience no doubt, but if this is the issue that we all say it is, if it's worth blowing up fundamental aspects of our society (in additional literally blowing up buildings, businesses and people) I would think that the "cost" of patience and effort would be worth it.  (Note: this has nothing to do with Harmony's family; this has more to do with the general societal approach of outcasting those we view as bigots). 

This is one of several articles laying out what I'm talking about (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resilience-bullying/201812/bottom-approach-reducing-racism) (and it has the added benefit of addressing the "top down" approach that has been favored, and which has not only failed, but may be making the issue worse.

Here are two other interesting articles (albeit only tangentially related to the actual discussion; they serve more as background):
The concept of "ingroups" and "outgroups" (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6083/825)
Is "race" even necessary (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/philosophy-dispatches/201209/the-roots-racism)?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on June 10, 2020, 12:25:42 PM
Read that first article, and agreed with almost all of it. Don't have the mental capacity to read the other two (sorry, cramming for a huge test in a few weeks and my brain pretty weak)

But yes, Studly is right. Being combative (generally) doesn't work. It makes people double down on their beliefs.

The contact hypothesis which was alluded to in the first article is correct as well. The more contact everyone has with superordinate goals and an emphasis on teamwork, that does way more than lectures or training.

Which is one reason I tend to scoff at the idea of wanting to just train the cops to be less racist. They don't need training on that, people have told them it's bad. It just doesn't work. You don't generally logic someone into being less racist. You CAN logic them into noticing things they didn't notice before though, which is always helpful. AND why it's good not take a combative approach.

For instance, like most people (maybe even in here) until some years ago, I would use the word Gyp or Gypped to describe being stilted or cheated. I just had no idea it was a racial slur against the Roma people. As soon as someone, kindly, pointed it out, I was aware and stopped. But if that person had attacked me, insulted me, and yelled at me, who knows?

That said, Harmony has a point that it usually doesn't work anyway. Logically talking to someone, especially of your same whatever doesn't result in a ton. It can, but not too terribly often. Experience does it best, and even then.....some people are just doing to be dicks.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever version of in-group/out-group bias you want to discuss will always exist because that's just how we've demonstrated to naturally be since recorded history began and I doubt it will change. We're not all going to stop having in-group/out-group biases. We can change it, limit it, but we'll never eliminate it.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 10, 2020, 05:20:30 PM
Serious question, Harmony:  Respectfully, is this the best approach for what you are trying to accomplish (referring primarily to the bolded).  Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but here is how I read it:  "When I hear something I believe is racist, I will immediately call it out.  If I do not see an immediate change of heart, I will sever all ties [family, friend, acquaintance, whatever]."  I fully agree with, support, and commend for the first sentence.  But I am questioning whether the second is productive and effective. 

I'm in my 50s.  How many of these conversations do I need to have and get nowhere that would satisfy you?  With respect, you don't know my family and the years of having these conversations.  Years of trying to be an example.  Years of trying to be forgiving and understanding.

I'm not doing it any more.  I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your requirements.





I feel bad Harmony took offence to Bosk's post. I thought it was very respectful. Unfortunately it wasn't clear from her earlier post that she had struggled with members of her family for some time with this. I really didn't feel Bosk made it personal at all. I'm sorry she took it that way.



This ended pretty badly because she was a real contributor here it seemed. Hopefully she'll reconsider at some point.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: KevShmev on June 10, 2020, 06:00:09 PM
I also thought bosk1's post was more than reasonable, but we all react to things differently.  Hopefully, they hashed it out over PM's and all is good.  :tup :tup
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: bosk1 on June 10, 2020, 06:00:36 PM
Yeah, not sure how I could have made it any more respectful than that, and attempted to explain as much via PM.  Oh well.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on June 11, 2020, 11:28:51 AM
I guess I can put this in here...

One aspect that I hardly hear talked about, how one sided we (people of color) are with political parties. You have our own people assuming we're not with the people, we work with the white man and are traitors to our people, if we choose to go Republican, Independent isn't as bad since you're not part of a central group entity.

We have people who tend to not entirely agree with the Democrat ideology, and would be good in office. But, they're held back from the votes if they don't run Democrat. You see, the reasons I stated above are why they don't run as a Republican, and run against the current Democrat in office and have a chance of actually winning.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 11, 2020, 09:53:42 PM
Just saw that she bailed. That's a damn shame. She was more valuable here than she probably realized.

Yeah, not sure how I could have made it any more respectful than that, and attempted to explain as much via PM.  Oh well.  :dunno:
Like others have said, I thought she overreacted to your point, and I was actually of a similar mindset. Having said that, this was the umpteenth time y'all have had issues, and up until the final straw I thought she was largely in the right. While I'm certain you don't see it this way, I thought you were often on her case unnecessarily, and I'm not the slightest bit surprised that she approached your post from a very defensive mindset. She was right to. You mentioned a pattern in the drink thread, and to paraphrase what you said a few posts back, There may be a slight possibility that it isn't the one you think. By way of constructive advice, I would recommend that you consider the various people who won't post here because they can't get along with you. They're not irrational and they're not dipshits. They're very reasonable people who find you too difficult to get on with to bother. I don't seem to have their problem, you and I tend to get along fine, but I can't help notice that there does seem to be a significant issue and a recurring theme here, and it's not simply people rage quitting because they don't like having their opinions questioned.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: bosk1 on June 12, 2020, 09:57:09 AM
I don't think it's productive to go line by line, but suffice it to say:  I agree with some, and disagree with some, and, as is often the case, you make some very good points.  I'll mostly leave it at that.  However, although I dislike talking about someone who isn't here, a couple of things in general relating to this issue:
1.  Strong opinions breed strong opposing views.  There's nothing wrong with that (provided they are worded appropriately, of course).  And she typically presents VERY strong opinions (which she would no doubt agree with if she were here).
2.  This was anything but a strong opposing view, and was incredibly mild and respectful (moreso than a good portion of P/R, wouldn't you agree?).

I'm not accusing anyone of being "irrational" or "dipshits."  But that also doesn't mean they are right.  Harmony brought up Dave Manchester a couple of times in the discussion.  I don't know/understand why he left.  But it wasn't over any interaction with me, as far as I know.  He did PM me just before leaving, but I did not understand what he was getting at, or why he was upset, and when I asked for clarification, he declined to provide that.  And that's fine.  That is his right.  But what I do know is that I had not had any interaction with him prior to that during that timeframe.  And as far as I know, I don't really recall any specific interaction with him since he's been here.  More often than not, if he was posting in P/R, I disagreed with what he was saying.  But I rarely if ever responded to anything he wrote, so...  :dunno:  Not sure what the tie-in is there.

But yeah:
That's a damn shame. She was more valuable here than she probably realized.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 12, 2020, 01:05:11 PM
So what does "bailed" mean?  All I saw was she took this issue to PM.  Is there some more grand gesture?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on June 12, 2020, 01:07:30 PM
So what does "bailed" mean?  All I saw was she took this issue to PM.  Is there some more grand gesture?

Drinking thread. Her last post is her saying bye.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 12, 2020, 03:43:39 PM
1.  Strong opinions breed strong opposing views.  There's nothing wrong with that (provided they are worded appropriately, of course).  And she typically presents VERY strong opinions (which she would no doubt agree with if she were here).

So in the interest of fairness I went back and read a bunch of her posts. I didn't recall her being particularly strongly opinionated, and what I read kind of put her in the middle of the pack here insofar as strong opinions go. She's a far cry from me, that's for sure. And I bring this up because, to be honest, that you saw her as having such strong opinions might be part of the problem here.

Quote
I'm not accusing anyone of being "irrational" or "dipshits."  But that also doesn't mean they are right.  Harmony brought up Dave Manchester a couple of times in the discussion.  I don't know/understand why he left.  But it wasn't over any interaction with me, as far as I know.  He did PM me just before leaving, but I did not understand what he was getting at, or why he was upset, and when I asked for clarification, he declined to provide that.  And that's fine.  That is his right.  But what I do know is that I had not had any interaction with him prior to that during that timeframe.  And as far as I know, I don't really recall any specific interaction with him since he's been here.  More often than not, if he was posting in P/R, I disagreed with what he was saying.  But I rarely if ever responded to anything he wrote, so...  :dunno:  Not sure what the tie-in is there.
I make it a point to never speak for others in interpersonal matters. I'm not qualified to speak as to how they really feel and it'll only make matters worse if I try. All I can really say on the matter is that personal interaction is only part of the equation. There's also simple observation of how things work. You've made a couple of posts around here in the last few days that looked over the line to me. If I were new here and was seeing those types of posts, alongside you acting in a moderator capacity, to be honest it'd concern the hell out of me.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 16, 2020, 08:03:50 PM
I'm not sure whether I should post this here or in the police brutality thread (or at all, but I guess I'm doing it).  But it's related to the video in the OP, and the reactions to it - people not knowing what to say, and so they just move on.

I think maybe now is the time to *not* move on.  I'm not saying that I think everyone needs to go join a protest. But I think that white people (myself included) should take what's going on now as an opportunity to do something.  I think there's a lot that can be done in between marching and protesting and just kind of saying "that's sad, but there's nothing I can do about it."  Maybe that something could be making a donation. Maybe that something could be looking up your local police department's policies to see if they include mandatory body cams and descalation training, and if they don't, writing to urge them to do so.

Maybe that something starts off even more basic.  Maybe it starts off by acknowledging one of the greater points that she was making in that video, beyond just police brutality. That because of what has happened to black people over the years since they were brought to this country, they really aren't, as a whole, starting off on an equal playing field. And maybe that leads you (general you) to stop saying things like "this is a problem with black culture" or "the black community needs to fix these problems."   The black community *is* trying to fix these problems, but maybe we need to realize that the rest of us have a role to play in that too.  Maybe we start with an attitude change, we start by not wondering why they haven't been able to get it together in the 150 years since the end of slavery.  Because it's definitely not that simple.  I know I for one had no clue about the Tulsa and rosewood incidents that she mentioned. And there's a lot more than just those two. There are plenty of other things as well, things that the user contest sanity has written about so well.  (I don't know if he has done so recently, but a while back he had some great posts explaining housing discrimination, segregation, and a lot of elements that got us to where we are today.)  So maybe we start by just thinking about that. Then, maybe if there's time read some books recommended by people of color, like The New Jim Crow.  Maybe we start by not rolling our eyes at terms like systemic racism and microagressions.  If we start with having an open mind, and listening to people of color and not dismissing them and their concerns, it will be no small thing. 

Maybe we consider things like reorganizing our police departments and directing some resources to mental health or other places where they'd be better spent.  I'm not saying run out and do it, but think seriously about it.  Maybe we consider how we can integrate our schools better.  Here's a great piece on that issue that I heard a few years ago:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one)

I read a comment by someone who has been working on these sorts of issues for years, who said something like: "for those who are just getting involved now, you're going to want to fix things overnight. You can't, but please don't get frustrated and walk away in the next couple weeks."

And again, I don't think that necessarily means you have to join a protest. There are a lot of other things that could be done, starting with just taking another look.

Apologies for any typos and for a lack of eloquence trying to convey my thoughts.  I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on June 16, 2020, 08:18:56 PM
that episode of This American Life is great I also highly recommend it.  The audio of the white parents yelling about not wanting the black kids to come to their school is something I'll never forget. I'm sure those people are otherwise pefectly upstanding citizens, it's like they couldn't hear themselves, I don't know how else to describe it.  That's not birmingham in the 60s,  this is Missouri in the 2010s
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 17, 2020, 07:14:36 AM
Is it just me, or do people seem to be overcompensating for Juneteenth this year? I wasn't aware that people even celebrated this holiday. I've seen album releases moved and now multiple companies are giving it as a paid holiday.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 17, 2020, 07:50:20 AM
Maybe I'm just ignorant or something, but I never once heard the phrase "juneteenth" until last week. I thought it was a typo in the title of the first article I saw about it.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 17, 2020, 07:58:14 AM
Maybe I'm just ignorant or something, but I never once heard the phrase "juneteenth" until last week. I thought it was a typo in the title of the first article I saw about it.
I've heard of it before, but kind of assumed it was like Kwanzaa, a black holiday that gets some lip service, but only a handful of people actually actively celebrate.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 17, 2020, 08:43:17 AM
I'm not sure whether I should post this here or in the police brutality thread (or at all, but I guess I'm doing it).  But it's related to the video in the OP, and the reactions to it - people not knowing what to say, and so they just move on.

I think maybe now is the time to *not* move on.  I'm not saying that I think everyone needs to go join a protest. But I think that white people (myself included) should take what's going on now as an opportunity to do something.  I think there's a lot that can be done in between marching and protesting and just kind of saying "that's sad, but there's nothing I can do about it."  Maybe that something could be making a donation. Maybe that something could be looking up your local police department's policies to see if they include mandatory body cams and descalation training, and if they don't, writing to urge them to do so.

Maybe that something starts off even more basic.  Maybe it starts off by acknowledging one of the greater points that she was making in that video, beyond just police brutality. That because of what has happened to black people over the years since they were brought to this country, they really aren't, as a whole, starting off on an equal playing field. And maybe that leads you (general you) to stop saying things like "this is a problem with black culture" or "the black community needs to fix these problems."   The black community *is* trying to fix these problems, but maybe we need to realize that the rest of us have a role to play in that too.  Maybe we start with an attitude change, we start by not wondering why they haven't been able to get it together in the 150 years since the end of slavery.  Because it's definitely not that simple.  I know I for one had no clue about the Tulsa and rosewood incidents that she mentioned. And there's a lot more than just those two. There are plenty of other things as well, things that the user contest sanity has written about so well.  (I don't know if he has done so recently, but a while back he had some great posts explaining housing discrimination, segregation, and a lot of elements that got us to where we are today.)  So maybe we start by just thinking about that. Then, maybe if there's time read some books recommended by people of color, like The New Jim Crow.  Maybe we start by not rolling our eyes at terms like systemic racism and microagressions.  If we start with having an open mind, and listening to people of color and not dismissing them and their concerns, it will be no small thing. 

Maybe we consider things like reorganizing our police departments and directing some resources to mental health or other places where they'd be better spent.  I'm not saying run out and do it, but think seriously about it.  Maybe we consider how we can integrate our schools better.  Here's a great piece on that issue that I heard a few years ago:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one)

I read a comment by someone who has been working on these sorts of issues for years, who said something like: "for those who are just getting involved now, you're going to want to fix things overnight. You can't, but please don't get frustrated and walk away in the next couple weeks."

And again, I don't think that necessarily means you have to join a protest. There are a lot of other things that could be done, starting with just taking another look.

Apologies for any typos and for a lack of eloquence trying to convey my thoughts.  I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

But in any event, you HAVE to buy in.  There's little or no room anywhere in your (well-written, eloquent, well-meaning) post and in many of the opinions surrounding this upheaval for those that don't agree 100% with the movement.   Even though I agree more than not (there is a LOT of room for improvement, but yes, I believe there are things that BOTH sides can do), I know I'm reluctant - in America, circa 2020 - to throw into a movement that so actively embraces the mantra "you're either with us or you're a racist".   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 17, 2020, 10:21:11 AM
That's not what I was implying at all Statler. You *don't* have to agree with everything and not everyone in "the movement" agrees with each other anyway.  I don't think it's even necessarily just one movement.  You (general you) can still find ways to help that are within your means to do so, again even starting just by listening and reading, and not scoffing or being dismissive. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 17, 2020, 10:36:59 AM
Also I'll add - I can only imagine that the fear of being called racist pales in comparison to what a lot of people of color fear, and what they've faced over the years.  We've probably all done or said things that someone considers racist, and probably some of the time, we actually were.  Maybe, most likely, completely unintentionally.  And sometimes we've probably been accused when we didn't deserve it.  But why let that stop us from trying to help right a very serious wrong?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 17, 2020, 11:15:34 AM
Also I'll add - I can only imagine that the fear of being called racist pales in comparison to what a lot of people of color fear, and what they've faced over the years.  We've probably all done or said things that someone considers racist, and probably some of the time, we actually were.  Maybe, most likely, completely unintentionally.  And sometimes we've probably been accused when we didn't deserve it.  But why let that stop us from trying to help right a very serious wrong?

Why make that comparison, though?  To the person in the moment, the perception is what matters. There are a lot of things I can't imagine, and other things that I've experienced that others can't image.  How can we possibly find any standard by which that's a productive conversation?  If you want to ascribe "objective" moralities to things, well, there's a lot of cases of racism (and "MeToo", and homophobia) that were probably not that big a deal in the big picture.  That guy in Colorado; was the world going to end if THAT guy didn't get THAT wedding cake from THAT cake maker?  And yet, we don't diminish that man's experience, and we allow him his day in court.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 17, 2020, 11:18:23 AM
That's not what I was implying at all Statler. You *don't* have to agree with everything and not everyone in "the movement" agrees with each other anyway.  I don't think it's even necessarily just one movement.  You (general you) can still find ways to help that are within your means to do so, again even starting just by listening and reading, and not scoffing or being dismissive.

But you kind of do have to agree.  I've already gotten the "white privilege" card thrown twice (well, once, and once implied), and "dismissive" thrown three times (not all here, but there are some of the same people in the other conversation) and I DO, generally, support the idea of the movement (if not the tactics).   I know you mean well, I do, and I can name things that I COULD do if wanted to move the ball forward; it just so happens that "point out data and provide perspective" is one of them and that's not getting a grand reception.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 17, 2020, 04:20:10 PM
Also I'll add - I can only imagine that the fear of being called racist pales in comparison to what a lot of people of color fear, and what they've faced over the years.  We've probably all done or said things that someone considers racist, and probably some of the time, we actually were.  Maybe, most likely, completely unintentionally.  And sometimes we've probably been accused when we didn't deserve it.  But why let that stop us from trying to help right a very serious wrong?

Why make that comparison, though?  To the person in the moment, the perception is what matters. There are a lot of things I can't imagine, and other things that I've experienced that others can't image.  How can we possibly find any standard by which that's a productive conversation?  If you want to ascribe "objective" moralities to things, well, there's a lot of cases of racism (and "MeToo", and homophobia) that were probably not that big a deal in the big picture.  That guy in Colorado; was the world going to end if THAT guy didn't get THAT wedding cake from THAT cake maker?  And yet, we don't diminish that man's experience, and we allow him his day in court.

I don't diminish that man's experience, and apparently neither do you, but a lot of people do, and did.  There are a lot of things one will never really understand until it happens to them.  But with most of those things, people at least acknowledge it.  Someone loses a parent/child/sibling.  Someone loses their job.  Has to put down their pet.  People who have been lucky enough not to experience that yet don't really get it.  But they don't make light of the situation, they don't tell them to just get over it, they don't tell them it's all in their head or doesn't exist. 

I'm making the comparison because you seem to be saying (and I apologise if I've misinterpreted you) that you may not want to help, to participate, because someone in "the movement" has or may in the future call you racist.  What about the vast majority who haven't done that?  Maybe your actions might help the person who called you racist, but if it also helps a lot more, then so what? 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 17, 2020, 04:35:30 PM
That's not what I was implying at all Statler. You *don't* have to agree with everything and not everyone in "the movement" agrees with each other anyway.  I don't think it's even necessarily just one movement.  You (general you) can still find ways to help that are within your means to do so, again even starting just by listening and reading, and not scoffing or being dismissive.

But you kind of do have to agree.  I've already gotten the "white privilege" card thrown twice (well, once, and once implied), and "dismissive" thrown three times (not all here, but there are some of the same people in the other conversation) and I DO, generally, support the idea of the movement (if not the tactics).   I know you mean well, I do, and I can name things that I COULD do if wanted to move the ball forward; it just so happens that "point out data and provide perspective" is one of them and that's not getting a grand reception.

Well, maybe because it's not actually helping.  If someone has their facts objectively wrong, by all means, let them know.  (There's always a time and place for that though). But if the perspective is to put white privilege in quotes or talk about it being a card, similar to the race card, I would say that's not helpful and that's where maybe it would be a good time to listen and read and rethink things.  An example is the link I posted about schools.  I used to be of the opinion that anyone could do well, unless perhaps they had certain conditions, if they just worked hard at school.  Even if the school wasn't so great.  But it's not nearly that simple.  It doesn't diminish me - it doesn't take away from the fact that I worked really hard, I earned those grades, etc.  But the environment in which I was able to do it was certainly a privilege.  It's not to say that I don't deserve to be where I am today, but maybe to say that others aren't starting out with equal footing, or even footing that's in the same ballpark.  Maybe I personally didn't cause this; I didn't.  It was those in power over decades and centuries.  But now it's going to take all of us or hopefully most of us to right those wrongs.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 17, 2020, 05:48:12 PM
I have never in my life heard of Juneteenth.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 17, 2020, 06:42:51 PM
Must be a regional thing. Juneteenth has been a thing for as long as I can remember. And aside from the Trump scheduling his pep rally on the day, I'm not sure that I've heard anything more about it this year than in the past. There might be a few more people getting into it up North in light of recent events, so white folk are just more aware of it than in the past.

And credit where due, Trump postponing his pep rally by a day because of it is probably the most aware thing he's ever done. I'm not sure he was even being criticized for it, though that's probably why he rescheduled rather than digging in his elevated heels.


edit: Definitely a regional thing. A Texas thing, in fact. It's just been spreading outward.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 17, 2020, 07:01:49 PM
Yeah I googled it and it mentions an event in Texas.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on June 17, 2020, 07:09:54 PM
it celebrates the end of slavery in Texas right? It was the most isolated state of the confederacy so slavery kept going there a while even if the war was over in the east, as far as i understand
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on June 17, 2020, 10:29:57 PM
Maybe we consider things like reorganizing our police departments and directing some resources to mental health or other places where they'd be better spent.  I'm not saying run out and do it, but think seriously about it.  Maybe we consider how we can integrate our schools better.  Here's a great piece on that issue that I heard a few years ago:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one)

I will look at this later, but I am hesitant to get too invested in anything from this author based on what I've read about her historical inaccuracies in other works.

I have never in my life heard of Juneteenth.

I feel like I've heard of it before this past week, but not positive I could have told you what it was. Totally a regional thing.

Now I see lots of companies are giving their employees that day off (or extra pay for working that day) as "an opportunity to continue to learn, connect with each other and reflect on how we can move forward and achieve permanent and lasting change.” What's the over/under on how many years it takes for this holiday to become a day of sales at furniture stores, hot dog eating contests, and all-day sports viewing?  (that's a shot at American culture, not the day itself)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 18, 2020, 08:46:47 AM
Also I'll add - I can only imagine that the fear of being called racist pales in comparison to what a lot of people of color fear, and what they've faced over the years.  We've probably all done or said things that someone considers racist, and probably some of the time, we actually were.  Maybe, most likely, completely unintentionally.  And sometimes we've probably been accused when we didn't deserve it.  But why let that stop us from trying to help right a very serious wrong?

Why make that comparison, though?  To the person in the moment, the perception is what matters. There are a lot of things I can't imagine, and other things that I've experienced that others can't image.  How can we possibly find any standard by which that's a productive conversation?  If you want to ascribe "objective" moralities to things, well, there's a lot of cases of racism (and "MeToo", and homophobia) that were probably not that big a deal in the big picture.  That guy in Colorado; was the world going to end if THAT guy didn't get THAT wedding cake from THAT cake maker?  And yet, we don't diminish that man's experience, and we allow him his day in court.

I don't diminish that man's experience, and apparently neither do you, but a lot of people do, and did.  There are a lot of things one will never really understand until it happens to them.  But with most of those things, people at least acknowledge it.  Someone loses a parent/child/sibling.  Someone loses their job.  Has to put down their pet.  People who have been lucky enough not to experience that yet don't really get it.  But they don't make light of the situation, they don't tell them to just get over it, they don't tell them it's all in their head or doesn't exist. 

I'm making the comparison because you seem to be saying (and I apologise if I've misinterpreted you) that you may not want to help, to participate, because someone in "the movement" has or may in the future call you racist.  What about the vast majority who haven't done that?  Maybe your actions might help the person who called you racist, but if it also helps a lot more, then so what?

But you hit on the problem:  too often "understanding" is a placeholder for "agreeing with".  I UNDERSTAND that guy that wanted that cake, I do not DIMINISH his feelings for wanting that cake and not getting it, but here's the thing: he isn't ENTITLED to that cake.   There are a LOT of things - from not getting a job, from being broken up with by a boy/girl, from watching your team lose, from feeling like if you were a different color you might have had a different set of options in life - that we can have COMPASSION for, but that doesn't mean we have to AGREE with it.

And increasingly, these conversations, with the "you're with us or against us", and especially "silence is consent" are of that nature.

And if you want something more substantive than "cakes", take guns.  I was born, raised and lived until maturity in the next town over from Sandy Hook.  My aunt used to live a 1/4 mile from the school (I would ride my bike there when we visited; she was right next to a town garage and they had a huge sandpile; nirvana for a kid).  The Sandy Hook kids went to MY middle school as their temp school (another school I used to ride my bike to).  The priest that did the national eulogy - Father Bob - was my parish priest in high school.  My old roommate and co-worker lost his neice in the shooting, and a guy I played hockey with up to college lost his son.    It is HOME.   It is CLOSE.   It's hard to deal with even years later.   Yet I watch Chris Murphy, my state Senator, crying and pimping for his gun laws and I'm out.  I do not agree that those are the solution to a kid like Adam Lanza.   I do not believe that feel-good panacea of "bump stocks" is going to make a dent in this problem.   Even that is considered blasphemy by some - many, including several people here - even though I have the numbers to back me up (they've all been posted here over the years numerous times).

Respectfully, you don't have it quite right; I don't see a space - yet - to help or participate, because the options available right now (it will change) are nostly those that I don't agree with.  And I worry that by not agreeing with the tactics that some DO consider me a racist.   I'm worried about being called a racist because a) I know what's in my heart, and b) it's a difficult thing to come back from.  I know for a fact if anyone got any reasonable feeling that I was I would lose my job.   I may lose my license (I'm in a rather blue state, one whose previous governor had a "thing" called "Connecticut Fair", which basically was the Democrat identity politics platform, no judgment).  It doesn't bother me on a practical level, because a), but it bothers me deeply on a philosophical level because it implicitly governs thought, and I really have a problem with that. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 18, 2020, 09:13:30 AM
That's not what I was implying at all Statler. You *don't* have to agree with everything and not everyone in "the movement" agrees with each other anyway.  I don't think it's even necessarily just one movement.  You (general you) can still find ways to help that are within your means to do so, again even starting just by listening and reading, and not scoffing or being dismissive.

But you kind of do have to agree.  I've already gotten the "white privilege" card thrown twice (well, once, and once implied), and "dismissive" thrown three times (not all here, but there are some of the same people in the other conversation) and I DO, generally, support the idea of the movement (if not the tactics).   I know you mean well, I do, and I can name things that I COULD do if wanted to move the ball forward; it just so happens that "point out data and provide perspective" is one of them and that's not getting a grand reception.

Well, maybe because it's not actually helping.  If someone has their facts objectively wrong, by all means, let them know.  (There's always a time and place for that though). But if the perspective is to put white privilege in quotes or talk about it being a card, similar to the race card, I would say that's not helpful and that's where maybe it would be a good time to listen and read and rethink things.  An example is the link I posted about schools.  I used to be of the opinion that anyone could do well, unless perhaps they had certain conditions, if they just worked hard at school.  Even if the school wasn't so great.  But it's not nearly that simple.  It doesn't diminish me - it doesn't take away from the fact that I worked really hard, I earned those grades, etc.  But the environment in which I was able to do it was certainly a privilege.  It's not to say that I don't deserve to be where I am today, but maybe to say that others aren't starting out with equal footing, or even footing that's in the same ballpark.  Maybe I personally didn't cause this; I didn't.  It was those in power over decades and centuries.  But now it's going to take all of us or hopefully most of us to right those wrongs.

Never say never, but in my mind, pointing out facts and data is never ultimately a bad thing.   It might be insensitive in the moment, but to say it's "not helping", well, I can't get my arms around that.   

Two points:  one, the "quotes" aren't to completely dismiss the entire concept of white privilege - it exists in some forms.   It is, though, to point out that just because someone says it doesn't make it so.   It's not automatic, and it's not a failsafe.  I apologize, but I don't see me stopping that, at least here, because it IS a card at times, to be thrown when the rest of the argument fails.   The fact of the matter is, we are all HUMANS at heart.  Imperfect, fallible and prone to mistakes and failures.   Just like not every single person that voted for Trump is a white nationalist racist, or an honest American looking for a new fresh face, so not every single kid dealing drugs in Father Panik Village is a budding Rhodes scholar, or a hopeless cracked out degenerate.   So each set of circumstances should be at least superficially assessed on its merits.   It's why I have zero problem with any of those police facing charges; they will have their day in court, with due process and a fair chance of appeal.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jammindude on June 18, 2020, 06:35:52 PM
This seemed like the best thread to say this in...but I was today years old when I found out there was anyone at all on the face of planet earth who thought that Mrs. Butterworth was black.

I even looked up the origins which state that she has always been undefined. But the commercials from the 70s made her sound more like Mrs Claus than any “mammy” stereotype.

I’m usually pretty open to the ideas of changing cultures and sensitivities, but this feels more like revisionist history.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on June 18, 2020, 06:57:14 PM
Isn't it Aunt Jemima they're going after and not Mean Butterworth?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 18, 2020, 08:10:53 PM
Also I'll add - I can only imagine that the fear of being called racist pales in comparison to what a lot of people of color fear, and what they've faced over the years.  We've probably all done or said things that someone considers racist, and probably some of the time, we actually were.  Maybe, most likely, completely unintentionally.  And sometimes we've probably been accused when we didn't deserve it.  But why let that stop us from trying to help right a very serious wrong?

Why make that comparison, though?  To the person in the moment, the perception is what matters. There are a lot of things I can't imagine, and other things that I've experienced that others can't image.  How can we possibly find any standard by which that's a productive conversation?  If you want to ascribe "objective" moralities to things, well, there's a lot of cases of racism (and "MeToo", and homophobia) that were probably not that big a deal in the big picture.  That guy in Colorado; was the world going to end if THAT guy didn't get THAT wedding cake from THAT cake maker?  And yet, we don't diminish that man's experience, and we allow him his day in court.

I don't diminish that man's experience, and apparently neither do you, but a lot of people do, and did.  There are a lot of things one will never really understand until it happens to them.  But with most of those things, people at least acknowledge it.  Someone loses a parent/child/sibling.  Someone loses their job.  Has to put down their pet.  People who have been lucky enough not to experience that yet don't really get it.  But they don't make light of the situation, they don't tell them to just get over it, they don't tell them it's all in their head or doesn't exist. 

I'm making the comparison because you seem to be saying (and I apologise if I've misinterpreted you) that you may not want to help, to participate, because someone in "the movement" has or may in the future call you racist.  What about the vast majority who haven't done that?  Maybe your actions might help the person who called you racist, but if it also helps a lot more, then so what?

Respectfully, you don't have it quite right; I don't see a space - yet - to help or participate, because the options available right now (it will change) are nostly those that I don't agree with.  And I worry that by not agreeing with the tactics that some DO consider me a racist.   I'm worried about being called a racist because a) I know what's in my heart, and b) it's a difficult thing to come back from.  I know for a fact if anyone got any reasonable feeling that I was I would lose my job.   I may lose my license (I'm in a rather blue state, one whose previous governor had a "thing" called "Connecticut Fair", which basically was the Democrat identity politics platform, no judgment).  It doesn't bother me on a practical level, because a), but it bothers me deeply on a philosophical level because it implicitly governs thought, and I really have a problem with that.

Stadler, we've talked about the Colorado cake lots and lots on the MP forum and I don't really want to revisit that at this moment.  Maybe at some point, I don't know, but it isn't really the issue that I'm trying to discuss here.  Neither is Chris Murphy. 

So I'll just weigh in on the quoted paragraphs.  You don't have to engage in any tactics you don't agree with, or support something you don't believe in.  Nothing that I've suggested is something that would get you fired.  Some of what I'm suggesting is just listening and reading.  So there definitely is room to get involved somehow.  It doesn't have to be big and grand.  And just to be clear, I didn't post this with you (or any one specific person) in mind.

Quote
Never say never, but in my mind, pointing out facts and data is never ultimately a bad thing.   It might be insensitive in the moment, but to say it's "not helping", well, I can't get my arms around that.   

Two points:  one, the "quotes" aren't to completely dismiss the entire concept of white privilege - it exists in some forms.   It is, though, to point out that just because someone says it doesn't make it so.   It's not automatic, and it's not a failsafe.  I apologize, but I don't see me stopping that, at least here, because it IS a card at times, to be thrown when the rest of the argument fails.   The fact of the matter is, we are all HUMANS at heart.  Imperfect, fallible and prone to mistakes and failures.   Just like not every single person that voted for Trump is a white nationalist racist, or an honest American looking for a new fresh face, so not every single kid dealing drugs in Father Panik Village is a budding Rhodes scholar, or a hopeless cracked out degenerate.   So each set of circumstances should be at least superficially assessed on its merits.   It's why I have zero problem with any of those police facing charges; they will have their day in court, with due process and a fair chance of appeal.

Yes, we're all human, we all make mistakes, etc etc.  None of that has much to do with my posts.
By using the quotes and constantly bringing up what people have done to you, or accused you of, you're being dismissive of the bigger picture.  There will always be people who'll take advantage of whatever they can for their own gain.  Someone who knows that you aren't being racist but knows that they will gain by making it seem as though you are. But the number of people who engage in that kind of malicious behavior is a drop in the bucket compared to people who actually have to deal with racism.  Using the quotes and focusing on how someone might possibly harm you in some way loses sight of larger problem.

I'm saying - let's take a step back right now and listen.  I had a call at work just today where employees of color were talking about George Floyd and what they face in general.  From regular individual contributors to executives.  What they face time and time again is more than I think most of us realize.  There were a couple white parents who talked about how they didn't realize or think about all this stuff until they saw how their mixed race kids were getting treated.  People talking about what they don't do or let their kids do that I don't think twice about doing.

Maybe we're not all going to agree on the solutions to these problems, but we've got to be able to see they exist in the first place.  And see that these race issues aren't just about the obvious over the top bigots, but that there are systemic and structural issues that are as much of a problem - probably more of a problem.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 18, 2020, 08:30:48 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on June 18, 2020, 09:01:05 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 19, 2020, 05:49:35 AM

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

I'm up in the air with this one. If someone's family was able to amass a fortune off of slave trading/work so big that they still benefit from that wealth generations later, I think it'd be nice if that person acknowledged that and in some way helped the community that's still in the shitter because of their ancestors.

That's entirely up to the individual though. I'm not advocating for any kind of mandate or a 'you right the wrong tax'.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jammindude on June 19, 2020, 05:49:48 AM
Isn't it Aunt Jemima they're going after and not Mean Butterworth?

Yes, but in the wake of that decision, other brands are following suit. Uncle Ben’s rice, the Cream of Wheat mascot, and Mrs Butterworth was on the list.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Stadler, we've talked about the Colorado cake lots and lots on the MP forum and I don't really want to revisit that at this moment.  Maybe at some point, I don't know, but it isn't really the issue that I'm trying to discuss here.  Neither is Chris Murphy. 

So I'll just weigh in on the quoted paragraphs.  You don't have to engage in any tactics you don't agree with, or support something you don't believe in.  Nothing that I've suggested is something that would get you fired.  Some of what I'm suggesting is just listening and reading.  So there definitely is room to get involved somehow.  It doesn't have to be big and grand.  And just to be clear, I didn't post this with you (or any one specific person) in mind.

I will be honest with you; respectful, but honest: I would say that I need not do ANYTHING to prove my bona fides in terms of my ideals and principles, but if you ONLY mean "reading and listening", I'm all in and I have been for most of my life.  I do not come to my position from ignorance.  I'm aware of Tulsa, I've read authors like Zinn, Coates and others that have a... less than "white privileged" viewpoint on things.   Fundamental to my points, though, is a threshold question: are we going to work within the system or not?   Are we okay with the general premise set forth by T.J., Johnny Boy, Benny and Alex (et. al) back in the late 1700's, or are we looking to revamp the entire footprint of the country?  I work on the assumption that we're good with the basic structure.  If you're not, this is a VERY different conversation. 

As for the first paragraph, I believe them inseparable.   It's painfully obvious that to many, the message and the medium are the same (or at least interrelated).  Emotional pleas with little or no factual substance have traction on both sides, out of proportion to their ultimate efficiency or effectiveness as solutions.  What is FUNDAMENTALLY different between throwing a brick through a window to be heard - then playing on moral obligations to excuse the behavior and elicit support - and standing in front of a crew of moms and dads that lost their toddlers, crying, and playing on moral obligations to excuse the behavior and elicit support?   

Quote
Yes, we're all human, we all make mistakes, etc etc.  None of that has much to do with my posts.
By using the quotes and constantly bringing up what people have done to you, or accused you of, you're being dismissive of the bigger picture.  There will always be people who'll take advantage of whatever they can for their own gain.  Someone who knows that you aren't being racist but knows that they will gain by making it seem as though you are. But the number of people who engage in that kind of malicious behavior is a drop in the bucket compared to people who actually have to deal with racism.  Using the quotes and focusing on how someone might possibly harm you in some way loses sight of larger problem.

I disagree.  Respectfully, I disagree.  I don't bring it up because of "me", I bring it up as exemplar of the bigger discussion.  If you'd prefer I'll use examples from Don Lemon, and others, that make the same argument on the regular.   I see little danger of "losing sight of the larger problem"; just the opposite.  I see it as clarifying and crystalizing the larger problem. 

Quote
I'm saying - let's take a step back right now and listen.  I had a call at work just today where employees of color were talking about George Floyd and what they face in general.  From regular individual contributors to executives.  What they face time and time again is more than I think most of us realize.  There were a couple white parents who talked about how they didn't realize or think about all this stuff until they saw how their mixed race kids were getting treated.  People talking about what they don't do or let their kids do that I don't think twice about doing.

Maybe we're not all going to agree on the solutions to these problems, but we've got to be able to see they exist in the first place.  And see that these race issues aren't just about the obvious over the top bigots, but that there are systemic and structural issues that are as much of a problem - probably more of a problem.

I think you're blurring lines.  I can listen, I can input, I can "realize", I can do all those things ("I" used broadly), but that's simply not enough for most folks.   And you say it's enough for you, but the "whoa, I didn't realize!" part just smacks of "well, the BLM movement is 100% correct and it's just a matter of educating those ignorant white folk and we'll be fine!".  It's almost begging the question, because of the way it expects the answer.  Who says I don't see the problems?  I have a friend - a close friend; I've known him since I was 17, and while I'm too old for "best friends", if I had one phone call, he's probably it - who has a police record because, in my opinion, when the girl on the dance floor felt that (unwanted) hand on her ass, he was the closest black man to her.   This is a man with a master's degree, served his country in the Navy, and lives in a relatively affluent and "blue" section of a very blue state (and is a pretty fine opera singer to boot), and yet...  So there's my token "story".   I go back to something I've said a number of times in the Trump/Election threads.  The trick to getting minds changed is to NOT lead with "you're stupid/ignorant/racist/I'm going to kill you".    I've posted the links to research that is leaning towards INCLUSIVENESS as a solution to these problems.  But we can't GET to inclusiveness if the argument is still "if you don't agree with me, it's on YOU because you clearly do not understand."

It's possible that not all of the "problems faced" are inherently because they are African American.  How do you parse out what is?   More importantly, how do you have the conversation about that, when the framework assumes that one side doesn't "realize"?  I know people that have put bullets in their head because they can't make ends meet financially for their family (not an exaggeration; my friend's brother committed suicide in the wake of the 2008 crash).   I lost my job in that fiasco and it took me almost a year to find a job, and the one I took required me to drive about 500 miles a week, roundtrip, to do it.  At one point I had sent out something like 250 resumes.  How do I parse out which of those were because I was fat, or male, or over 40, or whatever?   For the people we're talking about, at what point does "race" become the dominant factor in someone else's problems?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 19, 2020, 09:12:11 AM
I'm not advocating for any kind of mandate or a 'you right the wrong tax'.


At this point in our country, every legislative measure that could be taken has been taken to make things 'equal'. I don't think there's anything else you can add to the mix that 'evens' the playing field.....in fact, I personally think (legislatively) that the playing field favors minorities. But the issue isn't legislative. Is personal. Racism cannot be legislated or mandated out of existence. It's a behavior that is learned and taught....plain and simple.

As far as what 'I' can do....I've been doing it. I'm an example to my kids on how you treat people.....not just black people.....but people and I hope that it sticks and then they teach their kids and so on.






Something that has frustrated me during this whole recent 'racism' movement is there is a heavily under toned suggestion that white people are the only racists in the game, which we know isn't true. The black community has just as big an issue being racist toward white people as white people do with the racism towards blacks. But, if you try to point that out...well....you're racist for doing so. You cannot use the defense of "well, if you had been treated the way they have you'd be racist also" because that's exactly the excuse white racists use when justifying why they don't like blacks. If you want an 'honest' discussion on racism.....you cannot leave the other half of the racism issue out of it.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2020, 09:32:37 AM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

That last quote is kind of what I'm responding to more broadly with Lethean, and why I don't think "listen" is really what the many of the protestors have in mind.

There was a unit in one of my daughter's high school classes (I think it was English) and that idea came up re: "ancestors".   I don't know/remember how she phrased it, but this is not a confrontational person on any level).  Bear in mind this is an honor student at a very well regarded private school in Connecticut.   She asked how that can even be a meaningful thing, and she pointed out that, at least on my side, her entire family were residents of Europe at the turn of the 20th century, and in some cases (my grandmother's family) were fleeing their OWN persecution.  The administration wanted to "understand where this question was coming from".    WTF?   It's intellectual inquiry. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 19, 2020, 09:39:33 AM
While it's not discussable outside of this forum, in here, is it reasonable to think that the descendants of slaves are better off now than they would have been? I totally get that we haven't treated them nearly as fairly as we should have, and they shouldn't have been brought here in the first place, but four generations later are they better or worse off than the Ivory Coasters, or the Angolish?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kingshmegland on June 19, 2020, 09:49:44 AM
While it's not discussable outside of this forum, in here, is it reasonable to think that the descendants of slaves are better off now than they would have been? I totally get that we haven't treated them nearly as fairly as we should have, and they shouldn't have been brought here in the first place, but four generations later are they better or worse off than the Ivory Coasters, or the Angolish?

I think since we are only a few generations past separation in schools, bathrooms restaurants, hotels that it's still taught not to trust and that works as well on the Caucasian side. It's something we all struggle with and who knows why?  I just try to see the good or bad, not by skin color.  Growing up hanging out in the projects as a kid helped but even now managing so many ethnicities helps. 

We all tend to hang with who we are comfortable with.  We should fight that feeling. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 19, 2020, 10:27:25 AM
While it's not discussable outside of this forum, in here, is it reasonable to think that the descendants of slaves are better off now than they would have been? I totally get that we haven't treated them nearly as fairly as we should have, and they shouldn't have been brought here in the first place, but four generations later are they better or worse off than the Ivory Coasters, or the Angolish?

At this point in time I’m history I don’t think there’s any other answer than ‘yes’. Certainly the ‘bad’ is in the spotlight right now but when compared across the board and a hard look is taken at all the ‘good’ (but it’s not in fashion to do that) I don’t see a solid argument that they aren’t?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2020, 10:41:33 AM
I'm not advocating for any kind of mandate or a 'you right the wrong tax'.


At this point in our country, every legislative measure that could be taken has been taken to make things 'equal'. I don't think there's anything else you can add to the mix that 'evens' the playing field.....in fact, I personally think (legislatively) that the playing field favors minorities. But the issue isn't legislative. Is personal. Racism cannot be legislated or mandated out of existence. It's a behavior that is learned and taught....plain and simple.

As far as what 'I' can do....I've been doing it. I'm an example to my kids on how you treat people.....not just black people.....but people and I hope that it sticks and then they teach their kids and so on.


Well, there's another angle to this, that sort of "bolsters" the notion that maybe not all of this is "racism".  There's a discussion to be had about equality.  Do we mean equal "starting points", equal "chance to improve" (i.e. opportunity), or equal "station in life" (i.e. outcome).   I think we can all agree that at any point in time at least up to the most recent present (and I am willing to agree not even now) there's not the same "starting point".  I don't know how if ever that can be changed; we cannot go back in time.    I think there's a real strong argument that "opportunities" are equalizing.  My daughter's high school (and the school before that, non-public) both have diversity rates that are consistent with the general population.   There is still work to be done - the police thing is part of this; African Americans are under-represented in Fortune 500 CEO spots - but it's moving in a positive direction.   The really tricky thing is "outcome".   And that's where the wheels fall off the cart.  At SOME point "black" isn't a variable anymore.   It's just not.  People get passed over for jobs, roles, promotions; restaurants close, businesses fail, and products don't sell.  This applies to bad things too: people get pulled over for little or no reason (it's happened to me), or get misidentified as a suspect.  Now, we can judge based on how these mistakes are handled, but at some point the mistake ITSELF isn't a RACE problem (even if it is another problem that still needs to be addressed). 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 19, 2020, 11:53:24 AM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

Um, why are you Mr Crabs? :)

It depends.  And I'm far from an expert in all of this - I'm still trying to figure out the extent of what I could be doing.  So in my view, in depends where you're starting from.  For someone who believes that racism is - not necessarily a thing of the past, but close to it. maybe that person just takes a step back and starts to consider that perhaps they don't have the whole picture.  It's been a while now since I've believed this way, but at one time I thought that while there were still racist individuals, that those individuals were wrong, that by now we all pretty much had equal chances in life.  And over the years, as I've been paying more attention, I've come to believe that that's far from true.   There is a history that goes beyond slavery and into the present day and there are so many pieces as to why things are as they are now.  There was segregation and housing discrimination and mass incarceration.  if you're someone who has said things like "the problem is with black culture" or "the black community has to fix their own problems" or believe that everyone just needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, I would say start with just listening and reading and considering that you might be wrong.  Contest_Sanity years ago recommended The New Jim Crow (book) and 13th (Netflix documentary).  I haven't watched the documentary, but I've seen this recommendation elsewhere too.  I've recently seen a few recommendations for So You Want to Talk About Race and will probably read that shortly. 

Another thing I think one can "do" is not scoff, roll their eyes, or make snide remarks when people of color talk about their experience or when someone mentions things like implicit bias or microaggressions.  If someone talks about experiences they've had with racism, don't try to explain to them how they're wrong.  No, not every negative interaction a black person faces is because of racism; but if they're talking about something that happened to them, they were there and you weren't; they're more likely to have an idea of what's going on. 

These are what I consider the beginning; baby steps.  When you get to the stage and then you're wondering what you can do, it's definitely frustrating.  I'm not a politician, a community leader, etc; I'm just a person trying to live my life.  I don't have all the answers.  But actually the link that Cool Chris posted - https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234 (https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234) - has some concrete things we can do.  A long long list.  You're not going to be able to do all of those things and you might not agree with everything on the list.  But I imagine there are a few things that you could do.

Donation is one of the recommendations and a lot of POC have been recommending donating to The Bail Project - https://bailproject.org/ (https://bailproject.org/), which I believe is also on that list, among other things.  If that's something within your means, you might consider it a donation.  You might consider writing to legislators or local police, etc etc, as the list recommends.

And definitely, confronting racism within your own circle is something we can all do.  It's not easy, at all.  I agree with Stadler and others that just shouting at the person that they're racist isn't really going to help.  I think I have more learning to do on how I can best handle these situations myself.  But some simple things - if it's really overt (which it rarely is, but if it is), you could tell that person that using the N word or whatever is unacceptable.  If it's someone telling racist jokes, maybe you can ask them to stop.  Ask them to empathize and think of the recipient of the joke and how that person would feel as a human being.  If you have kids that you don't want exposed to it, you can tell the person that you'll leave with your kids if make racist remarks/tell racist jokes, and then follow up and do it.  If they're interested in having a conversation, try to be calm and empathetic.

That's what I have for now. 

Oh - yesterday I got an email from a music venue I've been to before (The Tower Theater in Philly) which recommended some resources - one is a podcast called Seeing White and it seems interesting; I listened to the first two episodes and will probably continue.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 19, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

My answer to this is yes and no.  I don't think a white person is responsible for what their ancestors did.  They were alive, they had no control over it.  But the actions of generation after generation of white people (no, not all) has got us to where we are today.  So I think we're all responsible at this point.  And no - I'm not saying black people shouldn't do anything - they are, they have been, they're trying.  I just don't think they can do it alone, because of the structures that have been put in place.  We all need to try to help if we have any ability to do so.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 19, 2020, 12:27:43 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

My answer to this is yes and no.  I don't think a white person is responsible for what their ancestors did.  They were alive, they had no control over it.  But the actions of generation after generation of white people (no, not all) has got us to where we are today.  So I think we're all responsible at this point.  And no - I'm not saying black people shouldn't do anything - they are, they have been, they're trying.  I just don't think they can do it alone, because of the structures that have been put in place.  We all need to try to help if we have any ability to do so.
To which I'd say that I didn't ask to be born into a white, lower-middle class family in Oak Cliff, Texas. I've never asked for the advantages I've received, and it bums me out that others don't have the same opportunities. But that applies to damn near all of us. I could have been Bill Gate's son just as well as I could have been born in a hooch in Somalia. All I, or anybody else, can do is make the best of the cards I'm dealt.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 19, 2020, 12:29:19 PM
Stadler, we've talked about the Colorado cake lots and lots on the MP forum and I don't really want to revisit that at this moment.  Maybe at some point, I don't know, but it isn't really the issue that I'm trying to discuss here.  Neither is Chris Murphy. 

So I'll just weigh in on the quoted paragraphs.  You don't have to engage in any tactics you don't agree with, or support something you don't believe in.  Nothing that I've suggested is something that would get you fired.  Some of what I'm suggesting is just listening and reading.  So there definitely is room to get involved somehow.  It doesn't have to be big and grand.  And just to be clear, I didn't post this with you (or any one specific person) in mind.

I will be honest with you; respectful, but honest: I would say that I need not do ANYTHING to prove my bona fides in terms of my ideals and principles, but if you ONLY mean "reading and listening", I'm all in and I have been for most of my life.  I do not come to my position from ignorance.  I'm aware of Tulsa, I've read authors like Zinn, Coates and others that have a... less than "white privileged" viewpoint on things.   Fundamental to my points, though, is a threshold question: are we going to work within the system or not?   Are we okay with the general premise set forth by T.J., Johnny Boy, Benny and Alex (et. al) back in the late 1700's, or are we looking to revamp the entire footprint of the country?  I work on the assumption that we're good with the basic structure.  If you're not, this is a VERY different conversation. 

As for the first paragraph, I believe them inseparable.   It's painfully obvious that to many, the message and the medium are the same (or at least interrelated).  Emotional pleas with little or no factual substance have traction on both sides, out of proportion to their ultimate efficiency or effectiveness as solutions.  What is FUNDAMENTALLY different between throwing a brick through a window to be heard - then playing on moral obligations to excuse the behavior and elicit support - and standing in front of a crew of moms and dads that lost their toddlers, crying, and playing on moral obligations to excuse the behavior and elicit support?   

I don't *only* mean reading and listening for everyone.  That's where I think it needs to start.  But if you don't ever do more than that, it's not as if I'm "accusing" you of anything.  I am asking you to think about it though.  If someone else accuses you, then whatever.  Maybe that person's wrong to do so, maybe they're right; I'd need to be present for the conversation.  Revamp the entire footprint of the country?  I don't know.  Maybe, if that's what it takes and depending on what you mean.  That's a little broad.

As for using emotion - I don't agree with you.  I agree that decisions should not be based on emotion alone.  But if one has no emotion about a particular topic, they might not be moved beyond that to look at data, to look at possible solutions, to think about it at all further.  I think emotion has its place.

Quote
Quote
I'm saying - let's take a step back right now and listen.  I had a call at work just today where employees of color were talking about George Floyd and what they face in general.  From regular individual contributors to executives.  What they face time and time again is more than I think most of us realize.  There were a couple white parents who talked about how they didn't realize or think about all this stuff until they saw how their mixed race kids were getting treated.  People talking about what they don't do or let their kids do that I don't think twice about doing.

Maybe we're not all going to agree on the solutions to these problems, but we've got to be able to see they exist in the first place.  And see that these race issues aren't just about the obvious over the top bigots, but that there are systemic and structural issues that are as much of a problem - probably more of a problem.

I think you're blurring lines.  I can listen, I can input, I can "realize", I can do all those things ("I" used broadly), but that's simply not enough for most folks.   And you say it's enough for you, but the "whoa, I didn't realize!" part just smacks of "well, the BLM movement is 100% correct and it's just a matter of educating those ignorant white folk and we'll be fine!".  It's almost begging the question, because of the way it expects the answer.  Who says I don't see the problems?  I have a friend - a close friend; I've known him since I was 17, and while I'm too old for "best friends", if I had one phone call, he's probably it - who has a police record because, in my opinion, when the girl on the dance floor felt that (unwanted) hand on her ass, he was the closest black man to her.   This is a man with a master's degree, served his country in the Navy, and lives in a relatively affluent and "blue" section of a very blue state (and is a pretty fine opera singer to boot), and yet...  So there's my token "story".   I go back to something I've said a number of times in the Trump/Election threads.  The trick to getting minds changed is to NOT lead with "you're stupid/ignorant/racist/I'm going to kill you".    I've posted the links to research that is leaning towards INCLUSIVENESS as a solution to these problems.  But we can't GET to inclusiveness if the argument is still "if you don't agree with me, it's on YOU because you clearly do not understand."

It's possible that not all of the "problems faced" are inherently because they are African American.  How do you parse out what is?   More importantly, how do you have the conversation about that, when the framework assumes that one side doesn't "realize"?  I know people that have put bullets in their head because they can't make ends meet financially for their family (not an exaggeration; my friend's brother committed suicide in the wake of the 2008 crash).   I lost my job in that fiasco and it took me almost a year to find a job, and the one I took required me to drive about 500 miles a week, roundtrip, to do it.  At one point I had sent out something like 250 resumes.  How do I parse out which of those were because I was fat, or male, or over 40, or whatever?   For the people we're talking about, at what point does "race" become the dominant factor in someone else's problems?

I don't think BLM or *anyone* is 100% correct all of the time.  I do think we have a lot of ignorant white people out there, and I don't mean ignorant as an insult.  There's a lot of our history that we aren't taught in schools (going back to some of the first posts in this thread), and I believe if more people were aware, no we won't magically be "fine" but it's a start.  To do something* you have to care, and to care about the problem you have to know about the problem.  A lot of people have no idea.  A lot of people are saying they had no idea; they admit it - which is not a sign of weakness in my mind.  I put myself somewhere in the middle - I've known about a good bit for a while, but there's still a lot I don't know. 

(And again "do something" doesn't mean you 100% agree with BLM).

As for the rest - for any one individual person - much of the time you simply don't know.  But it becomes cumulative.   It's not necessarily an individual problem, but it's a structural one. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2020, 12:44:33 PM
Another thing I think one can "do" is not scoff, roll their eyes, or make snide remarks when people of color talk about their experience or when someone mentions things like implicit bias or microaggressions.  If someone talks about experiences they've had with racism, don't try to explain to them how they're wrong.  No, not every negative interaction a black person faces is because of racism; but if they're talking about something that happened to them, they were there and you weren't; they're more likely to have an idea of what's going on. 

I'm not Mr. Crabs either, but I thought I'd weigh in.   We should not be doing this in ANY event, whether it's racism or not.  This is prevalent in our social media-driven, "me first", "Gotchas and Zingers" culture.  This isn't about specifically "rejecting black persons"; this is how MOST political discourse is handled, even on the bigger, supposedly more respected news sites.   Look at any Yahoo news feed and there is at least one headline EVERY DAY that starts with "<So-and-so> destroys <so-and-so> on <insert issue>".  We have an INHERENT lack of respect for dealing with experience.  It may be exacerbating this issue, but this is not just about what "white people" can do for African Americans, it's what HUMANS can do for OTHER HUMANS with differing opinions. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 19, 2020, 12:56:44 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

My answer to this is yes and no.  I don't think a white person is responsible for what their ancestors did.  They were alive, they had no control over it.  But the actions of generation after generation of white people (no, not all) has got us to where we are today.  So I think we're all responsible at this point.  And no - I'm not saying black people shouldn't do anything - they are, they have been, they're trying.  I just don't think they can do it alone, because of the structures that have been put in place.  We all need to try to help if we have any ability to do so.
To which I'd say that I didn't ask to be born into a white, lower-middle class family in Oak Cliff, Texas. I've never asked for the advantages I've received, and it bums me out that others don't have the same opportunities. But that applies to damn near all of us. I could have been Bill Gate's son just as well as I could have been born in a hooch in Somalia. All I, or anybody else, can do is make the best of the cards I'm dealt.

Of course you didn't ask for it.  None of us did.  But I don't think that's all anyone can do.  We can try to bring about change so that others won't be dealt quite as bad a hand in the future.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on June 19, 2020, 01:19:54 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

My answer to this is yes and no.  I don't think a white person is responsible for what their ancestors did.  They were alive, they had no control over it.  But the actions of generation after generation of white people (no, not all) has got us to where we are today.  So I think we're all responsible at this point.  And no - I'm not saying black people shouldn't do anything - they are, they have been, they're trying.  I just don't think they can do it alone, because of the structures that have been put in place.  We all need to try to help if we have any ability to do so.
To which I'd say that I didn't ask to be born into a white, lower-middle class family in Oak Cliff, Texas. I've never asked for the advantages I've received, and it bums me out that others don't have the same opportunities. But that applies to damn near all of us. I could have been Bill Gate's son just as well as I could have been born in a hooch in Somalia. All I, or anybody else, can do is make the best of the cards I'm dealt.

Of course you didn't ask for it.  None of us did.  But I don't think that's all anyone can do.  We can try to bring about change so that others won't be dealt quite as bad a hand in the future.
Of course we can try to bring about change. I lobby for it as I can. I got into this with regard to reparations, so that's what I was getting at. Bringing about change is one thing, but paying them off is another. And granted, part of this is simply my desire to not be shamed or penalized for being what I am, which was beyond my control.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Architeuthis on June 20, 2020, 02:06:00 PM
Isn't it Aunt Jemima they're going after and not Mean Butterworth?

Yes, but in the wake of that decision, other brands are following suit. Uncle Ben’s rice, the Cream of Wheat mascot, and Mrs Butterworth was on the list.
I remember back in the day I thought it would be funny to put Aunt Jemima and Mrs Butterworth in a clamation celebrity death match as syrup bottles. I never even remotely thought of these brands to have racial connotations. I just thought it would be funny, ya know syrup everywhere!
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 20, 2020, 05:50:05 PM
I'm definitely not directing this at any one person, but rather hoping this situation can be a turning point where we all care more and contribute in the ways we can, myself included.

Been thinking about this post for a few days....

Lethean, when you say "contribute in the ways we can", what kinds of things are you thinking?

I saw this post the other day. Like most long lists, for me there was some "cool, I can get behind that," some "eh, what-ev," and some "well that's garbage."

https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234

One of the more thought-provoking comments was:
Quote
"White people like this [another commenter] are the problem; they continue to RESIST helping to right the wrongs of their ancestors; their cousins; uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents. They continue to say ‘it’s not my responsibility’ — when it absolutely is..."

Is it the responsibility of a white person to "right the wrong of their ancestors?"

My answer to this is yes and no.  I don't think a white person is responsible for what their ancestors did.  They were alive, they had no control over it.  But the actions of generation after generation of white people (no, not all) has got us to where we are today.  So I think we're all responsible at this point.  And no - I'm not saying black people shouldn't do anything - they are, they have been, they're trying.  I just don't think they can do it alone, because of the structures that have been put in place.  We all need to try to help if we have any ability to do so.
To which I'd say that I didn't ask to be born into a white, lower-middle class family in Oak Cliff, Texas. I've never asked for the advantages I've received, and it bums me out that others don't have the same opportunities. But that applies to damn near all of us. I could have been Bill Gate's son just as well as I could have been born in a hooch in Somalia. All I, or anybody else, can do is make the best of the cards I'm dealt.

Of course you didn't ask for it.  None of us did.  But I don't think that's all anyone can do.  We can try to bring about change so that others won't be dealt quite as bad a hand in the future.
Of course we can try to bring about change. I lobby for it as I can. I got into this with regard to reparations, so that's what I was getting at. Bringing about change is one thing, but paying them off is another. And granted, part of this is simply my desire to not be shamed or penalized for being what I am, which was beyond my control.

Sure - I don't want that for myself either, and I don't really think shame - certainly not shaming of individuals - is really the way to go here.  Although I would challenge those who say that feel no shame for the past yet talk about how proud of their heritage they are.  How exactly can that be?  How can one feel pride for the good stuff, yet no shame for the bad?  I don't think you can really have it both ways.  That's not at all directed towards you though.  Regarding reparations, I think it should be on the table, at least for discussion.  My gut says that it would at best be a short term fix and would do nothing for the long term - but I could be wrong.  I don't have a super informed take on that.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 20, 2020, 06:24:35 PM
I've obviously heard or reparations, but how are reparations paid out or typically theorized?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: contest_sanity on June 21, 2020, 01:50:35 AM
I've obviously heard or reparations, but how are reparations paid out or typically theorized?

Here's a decent article with some history of the reparations movement and some possible theories of how it could be done: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests)

As to why I think it's a good and even necessary move to consider, I found the video with which Harmony started this thread very helpful. The woman gave an analogy of imagine if you were playing monopoly. And for your team's first 200 turns you got to build nothing for yourself but turned everything over to your opponent (slavery). Then your next 100 turns you were still legally a 2nd class team, still unable to play the game freely and having much of your gains taken from you (Jim Crow and segregation). Then even your next 50 turns, though technically now all teams were equal under the law, were still vastly compromised by housing discrimination, mass incarceration, etc.

With that as our history, it doesn't make much sense to me to just say "well now all teams are (in theory) equal. We can't do anything about the past anyway." Would reparations fix all problems for Black Americans? Of course not, but it could possibly fix a good bit, and it would also be a profoundly concrete step with which we as a nation can offer some atonement for this country's original sin of slavery.

Some earlier discussion mentioned whether or not we needed to change the basic framework of our country. I'm not sure, but I do know that the basic principles of that framework (we believe that all are created equal and have equal opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness) were denied from the very beginning to those we brought here as slaves and to their descendants -- and in many ways still functionally denied even into the present day.

That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

EDIT: and for anyone wanting to really dig into the issue of reparations or even just racism more generally, I can't recommend highly enough Coates' essay: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 21, 2020, 07:27:38 AM
That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

I kind of agree with that, and it's the reason why I asked earlier either in this thread or another if rioting and looting were actually forms of protest.

Kind of surprised at Obama's comment in the article that reparations were "politically impractical". I wonder why he thought so.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 21, 2020, 07:40:25 AM
That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

I kind of agree with that, and it's the reason why I asked earlier either in this thread or another if rioting and looting were actually forms of protest.

Kind of surprised at Obama's comment in the article that reparations were "politically impractical". I wonder why he thought so.

This is a pretty interesting/similar perspective too (< 7 minutes). It's a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on June 21, 2020, 07:42:11 AM
Isn't that the same video in the OP?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on June 21, 2020, 07:45:49 AM
Whoops. Completely forgot that's where this whole thread started. My bad.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: contest_sanity on June 22, 2020, 01:14:13 AM
Oh btw Netflix put the documentary 13th on youtube, so now anybody can watch it. I just re-watched and it really is worth the time towards a greater understanding of these issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 22, 2020, 09:38:34 AM
Of course we can try to bring about change. I lobby for it as I can. I got into this with regard to reparations, so that's what I was getting at. Bringing about change is one thing, but paying them off is another. And granted, part of this is simply my desire to not be shamed or penalized for being what I am, which was beyond my control.

Sure - I don't want that for myself either, and I don't really think shame - certainly not shaming of individuals - is really the way to go here.  Although I would challenge those who say that feel no shame for the past yet talk about how proud of their heritage they are.  How exactly can that be?  How can one feel pride for the good stuff, yet no shame for the bad?  I don't think you can really have it both ways.  That's not at all directed towards you though.  Regarding reparations, I think it should be on the table, at least for discussion.  My gut says that it would at best be a short term fix and would do nothing for the long term - but I could be wrong.  I don't have a super informed take on that.

Because feelings are feelings.  You can't control them.  They are what they are.   I don't share a lot of those kinds of emotions; like Bart said, I sort of had no say where I was born into.  I'm proud of my parents, for various reasons, but I'm not particularly "proud" to be Czechoslovakian or Polish.   And there's not much "shame" there either.  Maybe if I was some other nationality it would be different.   I tend to only have those things for the decisions/actions/words that I had direct influence on.   

Personally, I don't see ANY fix.  It might make certain specific individuals more flush than they were the week before, but it smacks of "lottery" to me, and that's not a solution. That's a panacea and a feel-good for those that feel guilty.    We're far better off taking that money and fixing our education system, our healthcare system, our immigration system, etc.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 22, 2020, 10:38:35 AM
I've obviously heard or reparations, but how are reparations paid out or typically theorized?

Here's a decent article with some history of the reparations movement and some possible theories of how it could be done: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests)

As to why I think it's a good and even necessary move to consider, I found the video with which Harmony started this thread very helpful. The woman gave an analogy of imagine if you were playing monopoly. And for your team's first 200 turns you got to build nothing for yourself but turned everything over to your opponent (slavery). Then your next 100 turns you were still legally a 2nd class team, still unable to play the game freely and having much of your gains taken from you (Jim Crow and segregation). Then even your next 50 turns, though technically now all teams were equal under the law, were still vastly compromised by housing discrimination, mass incarceration, etc.

With that as our history, it doesn't make much sense to me to just say "well now all teams are (in theory) equal. We can't do anything about the past anyway." Would reparations fix all problems for Black Americans? Of course not, but it could possibly fix a good bit, and it would also be a profoundly concrete step with which we as a nation can offer some atonement for this country's original sin of slavery.

Some earlier discussion mentioned whether or not we needed to change the basic framework of our country. I'm not sure, but I do know that the basic principles of that framework (we believe that all are created equal and have equal opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness) were denied from the very beginning to those we brought here as slaves and to their descendants -- and in many ways still functionally denied even into the present day.

That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

EDIT: and for anyone wanting to really dig into the issue of reparations or even just racism more generally, I can't recommend highly enough Coates' essay: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)

I've read that Coates essay a couple times now (and even referred someone here to Coates as "further reading").   But it's not the be-all end-all.   The contract sellers aren't the entire "white race", nor are they the government, nor did they prey only on blacks (they had to low-ball the houses from somewhere).  So why is all of society paying the burden for one sector that had less than stellar magnanimity?   On this logic, we should ALL go back to ANY entity, group, or organization that didn't act in the standard that some of us, today, hold, safe in the comforts of the largest economy in the history of the planet, with the creature comforts today that perhaps half the world cannot (and will not) enjoy.  "Tragic" and "emotionally heartbreaking" does not translate in a duty to "make feel better". 

We have system; it doesn't work for every single person, but it should work for a significant majority, and if it doesn't, we fix it.  We do not, though (or at least we shouldn't), guarantee outcomes.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 22, 2020, 09:18:54 PM
Of course we can try to bring about change. I lobby for it as I can. I got into this with regard to reparations, so that's what I was getting at. Bringing about change is one thing, but paying them off is another. And granted, part of this is simply my desire to not be shamed or penalized for being what I am, which was beyond my control.

Sure - I don't want that for myself either, and I don't really think shame - certainly not shaming of individuals - is really the way to go here.  Although I would challenge those who say that feel no shame for the past yet talk about how proud of their heritage they are.  How exactly can that be?  How can one feel pride for the good stuff, yet no shame for the bad?  I don't think you can really have it both ways.  That's not at all directed towards you though.  Regarding reparations, I think it should be on the table, at least for discussion.  My gut says that it would at best be a short term fix and would do nothing for the long term - but I could be wrong.  I don't have a super informed take on that.

Because feelings are feelings.  You can't control them.  They are what they are.   I don't share a lot of those kinds of emotions; like Bart said, I sort of had no say where I was born into.  I'm proud of my parents, for various reasons, but I'm not particularly "proud" to be Czechoslovakian or Polish.   And there's not much "shame" there either.  Maybe if I was some other nationality it would be different.   I tend to only have those things for the decisions/actions/words that I had direct influence on.   

Personally, I don't see ANY fix.  It might make certain specific individuals more flush than they were the week before, but it smacks of "lottery" to me, and that's not a solution. That's a panacea and a feel-good for those that feel guilty.    We're far better off taking that money and fixing our education system, our healthcare system, our immigration system, etc.

Re: the pride thing - we're pretty similar there.  It's always seemed a little silly to me to be proud of X heritage or American heritage because I didn't do anything to "earn" it.  I was just born here.  But for those who are super big on the pride thing, I'd just urge them to think about it a little more.

Regarding reparations - like I said, I have to think about this more.  But I do think we should at least explore some options.  I'm not at all opposed to Congress studying it to see what it would look like.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 22, 2020, 09:22:55 PM
I've obviously heard or reparations, but how are reparations paid out or typically theorized?

Here's a decent article with some history of the reparations movement and some possible theories of how it could be done: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests)

As to why I think it's a good and even necessary move to consider, I found the video with which Harmony started this thread very helpful. The woman gave an analogy of imagine if you were playing monopoly. And for your team's first 200 turns you got to build nothing for yourself but turned everything over to your opponent (slavery). Then your next 100 turns you were still legally a 2nd class team, still unable to play the game freely and having much of your gains taken from you (Jim Crow and segregation). Then even your next 50 turns, though technically now all teams were equal under the law, were still vastly compromised by housing discrimination, mass incarceration, etc.

With that as our history, it doesn't make much sense to me to just say "well now all teams are (in theory) equal. We can't do anything about the past anyway." Would reparations fix all problems for Black Americans? Of course not, but it could possibly fix a good bit, and it would also be a profoundly concrete step with which we as a nation can offer some atonement for this country's original sin of slavery.

Some earlier discussion mentioned whether or not we needed to change the basic framework of our country. I'm not sure, but I do know that the basic principles of that framework (we believe that all are created equal and have equal opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness) were denied from the very beginning to those we brought here as slaves and to their descendants -- and in many ways still functionally denied even into the present day.

That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

EDIT: and for anyone wanting to really dig into the issue of reparations or even just racism more generally, I can't recommend highly enough Coates' essay: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)

I've read that Coates essay a couple times now (and even referred someone here to Coates as "further reading").   But it's not the be-all end-all.   The contract sellers aren't the entire "white race", nor are they the government, nor did they prey only on blacks (they had to low-ball the houses from somewhere).  So why is all of society paying the burden for one sector that had less than stellar magnanimity?   On this logic, we should ALL go back to ANY entity, group, or organization that didn't act in the standard that some of us, today, hold, safe in the comforts of the largest economy in the history of the planet, with the creature comforts today that perhaps half the world cannot (and will not) enjoy.  "Tragic" and "emotionally heartbreaking" does not translate in a duty to "make feel better". 

We have system; it doesn't work for every single person, but it should work for a significant majority, and if it doesn't, we fix it.  We do not, though (or at least we shouldn't), guarantee outcomes.

.I don't think most anyone is talking about guaranteeing outcomes.  There's always going to be people who do better or worse than others.  But I don't think doing nothing is really an option for us (as a country).  At least not a good one.  I'm not saying it must be reparations and the point of my post (not sure about Harmony's) wasn't reparations.  It was more, let's stop ignoring this and see what we can do.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 23, 2020, 09:12:04 AM
I've obviously heard or reparations, but how are reparations paid out or typically theorized?

Here's a decent article with some history of the reparations movement and some possible theories of how it could be done: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests)

As to why I think it's a good and even necessary move to consider, I found the video with which Harmony started this thread very helpful. The woman gave an analogy of imagine if you were playing monopoly. And for your team's first 200 turns you got to build nothing for yourself but turned everything over to your opponent (slavery). Then your next 100 turns you were still legally a 2nd class team, still unable to play the game freely and having much of your gains taken from you (Jim Crow and segregation). Then even your next 50 turns, though technically now all teams were equal under the law, were still vastly compromised by housing discrimination, mass incarceration, etc.

With that as our history, it doesn't make much sense to me to just say "well now all teams are (in theory) equal. We can't do anything about the past anyway." Would reparations fix all problems for Black Americans? Of course not, but it could possibly fix a good bit, and it would also be a profoundly concrete step with which we as a nation can offer some atonement for this country's original sin of slavery.

Some earlier discussion mentioned whether or not we needed to change the basic framework of our country. I'm not sure, but I do know that the basic principles of that framework (we believe that all are created equal and have equal opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness) were denied from the very beginning to those we brought here as slaves and to their descendants -- and in many ways still functionally denied even into the present day.

That's why Trevor Noah made the profound point that "rioting" evokes a fear in many White people what Black Americans have felt all along: namely that perhaps this is not actually a civilized country with a functioning social contract... and he suggested that maybe White people sit a while with their discomfort at such images and empathize that maybe this is how many if not most Black Americans feel much of the time.

EDIT: and for anyone wanting to really dig into the issue of reparations or even just racism more generally, I can't recommend highly enough Coates' essay: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)

I've read that Coates essay a couple times now (and even referred someone here to Coates as "further reading").   But it's not the be-all end-all.   The contract sellers aren't the entire "white race", nor are they the government, nor did they prey only on blacks (they had to low-ball the houses from somewhere).  So why is all of society paying the burden for one sector that had less than stellar magnanimity?   On this logic, we should ALL go back to ANY entity, group, or organization that didn't act in the standard that some of us, today, hold, safe in the comforts of the largest economy in the history of the planet, with the creature comforts today that perhaps half the world cannot (and will not) enjoy.  "Tragic" and "emotionally heartbreaking" does not translate in a duty to "make feel better". 

We have system; it doesn't work for every single person, but it should work for a significant majority, and if it doesn't, we fix it.  We do not, though (or at least we shouldn't), guarantee outcomes.

.I don't think most anyone is talking about guaranteeing outcomes.  There's always going to be people who do better or worse than others.  But I don't think doing nothing is really an option for us (as a country).  At least not a good one.  I'm not saying it must be reparations and the point of my post (not sure about Harmony's) wasn't reparations.  It was more, let's stop ignoring this and see what we can do.

BY DEFINITION, reparations are outcome.  It is the concept of putting the person or persons in the position they would have been in had the particular event not occurred.    You say you're not talking about "reparations", but a lot of people are; and any who is is talking "outcome".  I'm not prepared to say that's not "most anyone".    Affirmative action hiring practices are outcomes.   It's not enough to get the interview, there is an analysis of the ACTUAL hires, the outcomes.   

We may accept this on a case-by-case basis because there's no other way, and the outcomes are reasonable.  As you can tell, I am opposed to guaranteeing outcomes, but the threshold is identifying things correctly to begin with.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 23, 2020, 11:31:34 AM
Depending on what the reparations are, I don't see it that way.  If it's "every person gets their dream house and their dream job" OK, yeah.  If it's something that helps to level the playing field, I disagree.  There are still a lot of things that person has to do to be successful.  Affirmative action - it's helping to balance things, but it doesn't guarantee anything.  It doesn't keep someone from being fired or dropping out or failing out.

If any measure of trying to fix the problem today is "guaranteeing outcomes," then what we as a nation has done for centuries (slavery, Jim Crow, housing discrimination etc, plus the stuff like Tulsa) was also guaranteeing outcomes.  And some of it is still going on today.  I think we need to come up with a way to make things better.  Not because we feel guilty and want to be able to feel good about ourselves and be able to pat ourselves on the back.  But because it's a problem in our country that isn't going to go away by itself.  Maybe reparations aren't going to be the answer.  Maybe they could be part of a greater solution.  I'd like to see it studied either way.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 23, 2020, 11:49:27 AM
It doesn't keep someone from being fired or dropping out or failing out.

But then that's on them. You get fired for failing to do your job or being responsible. You drop out because it's the easiest thing to do. You fail from lack of effort. Now maybe in some cases it's not that cut and dried but in the majority it is.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on June 23, 2020, 11:52:58 AM
Unless I am dramatically misreading Lethean's statement, he's not saying that affirmative action should guarantee you don't get fired, he's just noting that it doesn't, in response to Stadler saying affirmative action guarantees outcomes.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 23, 2020, 11:55:17 AM
Yes, Shadow Ninja has it right. :)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 23, 2020, 12:10:51 PM
Unless I am dramatically misreading Lethean's statement, he's not saying that affirmative action should guarantee you don't get fired, he's just noting that it doesn't, in response to Stadler saying affirmative action guarantees outcomes.

Yes, Shadow Ninja has it right. :)


My bad. I read it wrong then.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 23, 2020, 01:19:42 PM
Depending on what the reparations are, I don't see it that way.  If it's "every person gets their dream house and their dream job" OK, yeah.  If it's something that helps to level the playing field, I disagree.  There are still a lot of things that person has to do to be successful.  Affirmative action - it's helping to balance things, but it doesn't guarantee anything.  It doesn't keep someone from being fired or dropping out or failing out.

But at this point, in 2020, what needs to be changed to level the playing field?   Are there mortgages being denied because of "black"?   My mortgage broker, nor the company who wrote the mortgage itself, had no idea whether I was white or black at the time of application and probably still don't.   The idea of reparations isn't to level the playing field NOW, it's to right the wrongs of past actions.   By Coates' own argument, not every African American homeowner got screwed.  Sure, most did, but not all.  So SOME figured it out; if you "level the playing field"  by assuming those other 85% or however many WOULD have gotten a house, that's "outcome".   

Quote
If any measure of trying to fix the problem today is "guaranteeing outcomes," then what we as a nation has done for centuries (slavery, Jim Crow, housing discrimination etc, plus the stuff like Tulsa) was also guaranteeing outcomes.  And some of it is still going on today.  I think we need to come up with a way to make things better.  Not because we feel guilty and want to be able to feel good about ourselves and be able to pat ourselves on the back.  But because it's a problem in our country that isn't going to go away by itself.  Maybe reparations aren't going to be the answer.  Maybe they could be part of a greater solution.  I'd like to see it studied either way.

Whether it was or wasn't we agree that it was wrong, don't we?   If that's happening today, we need to address those items directly; there's no argument.  But the response ought not to guarantee a few outcomes for a select few of the population and hope that someday it all evens out. 

I had this conversation with my brother this morning.  We have to teach our kids (meaning, his son and my daughter) about how taxes/leases/mortgages work.   So they understand.   I just went through it a year ago with my step daughter (who bought a house with her douche husband) and am going through it now with my step son (who just put an offer in on a home).   Maybe the fix is to provide this kind of "education" on a more formal basis.   Incorporate a class in school on basic finance to live your life.  Maybe, as a result of the home-buying market over the years, a minority parent doesn't have the experience to offer that education.  Fair enough; let's give it to everyone so that we can all be smarter.  You'll never get any argument over that from me.   But at that point, there's still the obligation to put that knowledge to use.  Douchebag husband didn't (and he's white), so there's no guarantee of outcome, but he HAD the tools.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 23, 2020, 01:39:21 PM
Unless I am dramatically misreading Lethean's statement, he's not saying that affirmative action should guarantee you don't get fired, he's just noting that it doesn't, in response to Stadler saying affirmative action guarantees outcomes.

Well, you might have it right in terms of what he said, but that doesn't mean the underlying sentiment is right.   Many organizations that have affirmative action programs also have strict policies on firing and terminating employees as well.   Ask any Human Resources person if "well, we can just fire them if they don't work out" is an effective strategy.    It cost a LOT of money hire someone and it costs a lot of money and time to fire someone. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on June 23, 2020, 01:49:45 PM
Strict policies on firing and terminating employees generally sounds like a pretty good thing in my book.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on June 23, 2020, 04:37:17 PM
Strict policies on firing and terminating employees generally sounds like a pretty good thing in my book.

Not for the employer looking to cut costs and trim non-productive employees. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kingshmegland on June 23, 2020, 04:40:35 PM
Strict policies on firing and terminating employees generally sounds like a pretty good thing in my book.

Not for the employer looking to cut costs and trim non-productive employees.

Well there are mechanisms in place to alleviate that employee or counsel to the point of letting go.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on June 23, 2020, 04:42:45 PM
Strict policies on firing and terminating employees generally sounds like a pretty good thing in my book.

Not for the employer looking to cut costs and trim non-productive employees.

You can't even see my book, so how do you what's good in it or not?

But yeah, what king said. I'm pretty sure 'this guy isn't doing his job' is reasonable grounds for termination in most instances. I'm not suggesting no one should ever be able to fire anyone.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Lethean on June 23, 2020, 08:29:38 PM
Depending on what the reparations are, I don't see it that way.  If it's "every person gets their dream house and their dream job" OK, yeah.  If it's something that helps to level the playing field, I disagree.  There are still a lot of things that person has to do to be successful.  Affirmative action - it's helping to balance things, but it doesn't guarantee anything.  It doesn't keep someone from being fired or dropping out or failing out.

But at this point, in 2020, what needs to be changed to level the playing field?   Are there mortgages being denied because of "black"?   My mortgage broker, nor the company who wrote the mortgage itself, had no idea whether I was white or black at the time of application and probably still don't.   The idea of reparations isn't to level the playing field NOW, it's to right the wrongs of past actions.   By Coates' own argument, not every African American homeowner got screwed.  Sure, most did, but not all.  So SOME figured it out; if you "level the playing field"  by assuming those other 85% or however many WOULD have gotten a house, that's "outcome".   

I think there are many arguments for reparations, and some of them are indeed intending to level the playing field now.  And I'll be honest - I really don't care that much if someone who didn't "get screwed" somehow benefits.  It's probably impossible to guarantee that only people who "got screwed" will benefit, and I wouldn't want to let that stop us.  Research and study the possibilities, get as close as we can, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Quote
Quote
If any measure of trying to fix the problem today is "guaranteeing outcomes," then what we as a nation has done for centuries (slavery, Jim Crow, housing discrimination etc, plus the stuff like Tulsa) was also guaranteeing outcomes.  And some of it is still going on today.  I think we need to come up with a way to make things better.  Not because we feel guilty and want to be able to feel good about ourselves and be able to pat ourselves on the back.  But because it's a problem in our country that isn't going to go away by itself.  Maybe reparations aren't going to be the answer.  Maybe they could be part of a greater solution.  I'd like to see it studied either way.

Whether it was or wasn't we agree that it was wrong, don't we?   If that's happening today, we need to address those items directly; there's no argument.  But the response ought not to guarantee a few outcomes for a select few of the population and hope that someday it all evens out. 

Of course it shouldn't.  We'll never know exactly because we don't have a crystal ball, but whatever we do, I'm not at all suggesting it should be "hope that someday it all evens out."

Quote
I had this conversation with my brother this morning.  We have to teach our kids (meaning, his son and my daughter) about how taxes/leases/mortgages work.   So they understand.   I just went through it a year ago with my step daughter (who bought a house with her douche husband) and am going through it now with my step son (who just put an offer in on a home).   Maybe the fix is to provide this kind of "education" on a more formal basis.   Incorporate a class in school on basic finance to live your life.  Maybe, as a result of the home-buying market over the years, a minority parent doesn't have the experience to offer that education.  Fair enough; let's give it to everyone so that we can all be smarter.  You'll never get any argument over that from me.   But at that point, there's still the obligation to put that knowledge to use.  Douchebag husband didn't (and he's white), so there's no guarantee of outcome, but he HAD the tools.

I don't think there's an either/or here.  By all means - let's have that finance course in school.  100%  But I don't think we do that and then call it a day on issues of race.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Northern Lion on June 26, 2020, 09:22:18 PM
Racism and privilege are things I know little about.  I'm a white guy who grew up in a really nice neighborhood.  If that gives me privilege then I don't think I would argue with that.  Do I think that's a bad thing?  No, I'm glad I'm privileged and I'm not ashamed of it.  Of course, I wish everyone could have the same privileges as I do.

As far as racism goes, I don't think I really understand what that is.  I know what it is on a surface level, but beyond that?  I do not consider myself racist.  I have had good friends of all different races, backgrounds and nationalities.  I believe in treating everyone with equal respect and dignity.  But that's all I know.

Does institutional racism exist?  Considering how bloated our governmental institutions are and how many rules, regulations and laws we have, I think it is possible and even likely.  But as for how all that would work and how to unravel it, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 14, 2020, 10:37:22 PM
Can one of the mods Delete my thread as I just discovered this one.

Quote from: H2 on Today at 09:32:59 PM
Maybe this is a selfish, evil, very bad thought, but I was reflecting today: suppose I have privileges X, Y, and Z. It would be a nice thing to do to extend those privileges in ways that I can. But that ought not be legally compulsory. After all, not all moral actions should be legally compulsory, in my opinion--refraining from cheating on a partner, for instance, shouldn't be legally compulsory.


This goes into the realm of, where is the line drawn between the difference of God Given Rights, and Man Given Rights? What constitutes God Given Rights?

To me Man Given Rights are what you would consider Laws. Rules we follow in accordance to those that govern us that determined what is to be, as they saw it, a just way to live. In the case of the United States of America, The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

God Given Rights are what I would consider the customs in which the myriad of cultures across the world live by.

Because being a Traditional Native American means to be one that still lives accordingly to our customs, which we are struggling to do and is the effect of assimilation. We are living the best way we can now with what we still know, since our way of life has been invaded. We have god given rights (using my definition) we live by. Yet, within our own culture we have different Man Given Laws within the different Tribes.  But we all follow Our set of God Given Rights.

Now, what are the customs of the culture that defines American? The God Given and Man Given Rights of what American Culture...


Quote from: H2 on Today at 09:32:59 PM
Something about that thought experiment makes me realize that the project of ensuring that all persons everywhere enjoy the same privileges is wrongheaded. The thesis that a disparity of privileges = bad is not quite right, and when implemented in policy to its farthest extent would result in a rights-infringing socialism. So back up--everyone has a unique set of privileges, let's say. That fact alone is not enough to show that there is a problem that needs fixing. So what more needs to be added to the scenario to ensure that this is, in fact, a problem?

It is true all people can't enjoy the same privileges. When you go into Asia, you don't have the privilege of experiencing the buddhist monk lifestyle, only certain Asian people can, and that's Asian Men of Tibetan heritage only.

So what exactly is White Privilege?

Because if we are to have discussions about Race issues, we need to know what exactly White Privilege actually is and what it entails.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on September 15, 2020, 11:45:46 AM
I've written about this before, in several contexts.   "Morals" are what we can ASK of others in our society, "laws" are what we can DEMAND of others in our society.  Sometimes they are intertwined, but not always, and sometimes what seems like a "moral" law - murder statutes, for example - aren't really.

Because if we are to have discussions about Race issues, we need to know what exactly White Privilege actually is and what it entails.

I don't disagree nominally, but that should only be to make sure we're talking about things using the same language and nomenclature.  Too often, though, it seems as if "we need to know what exactly White Privilege actually is" is a euphemism for "you must agree with our concepts and parameters" before entering the conversation.   It SHOULD be used to further understanding, not as a price of admission to the conversation. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 15, 2020, 01:23:46 PM
I've written about this before, in several contexts.   "Morals" are what we can ASK of others in our society, "laws" are what we can DEMAND of others in our society.  Sometimes they are intertwined, but not always, and sometimes what seems like a "moral" law - murder statutes, for example - aren't really.

Because if we are to have discussions about Race issues, we need to know what exactly White Privilege actually is and what it entails.

I don't disagree nominally, but that should only be to make sure we're talking about things using the same language and nomenclature.  Too often, though, it seems as if "we need to know what exactly White Privilege actually is" is a euphemism for "you must agree with our concepts and parameters" before entering the conversation.   It SHOULD be used to further understanding, not as a price of admission to the conversation.

I agree and "You must agree with our concepts and parameters" isn't how I intended the meaning of the question. I would ask the same of what is black privilege?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: MirrorMask on September 16, 2020, 02:02:48 AM
I would call white privilege never having to deal with negative issues correlated to the fact that you're white.

Not that it's even a thing I guess, but the same way you could talk about "hetero privilege". No man will ever be discriminated, judged negatively or assaulted for liking women (and the other way around).
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2020, 07:48:46 AM
I would call white privilege never having to deal with negative issues correlated to the fact that you're white.

Not that it's even a thing I guess, but the same way you could talk about "hetero privilege". No man will ever be discriminated, judged negatively or assaulted for liking women (and the other way around).

And so it begins...  :)

They WILL though, and it will be rationalized as 'the pendulum swinging' or excusable because of the previous misogyny.   Whether it's a man asking a woman out on a date, her not wanting to go and countering with a sexist argument instead of just "saying no" and moving on, or a women being deemed a "slut" for her choice of when and how she "likes" men...  there is ALWAYS judgment.  We've just seemed to allow certain judgments for various reasons (mainly, prioritization of issues).  Now, whether we all share that prioritization is another matter entirely.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 16, 2020, 08:35:59 AM
I would call white privilege never having to deal with negative issues correlated to the fact that you're white.

I wouldn't call that White Privilege, I'd call that White Culture being the dominate culture and society. It's the years of White Culture feeling they're the only humans who must conquer the land. It's been that way since The Europeans first arrived here. And Been that way even on their own territory.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/187631/native-roots-by-jack-weatherford/

This book is a really great book about the impact White Culture has being dominating, persistent, over the Native Culture that IS originally here. And one I would consider essential reading in American History classes (Both Northern and Southern).

Due to the dominating mentality of White Culture, it has produced mindsets of dominance over another man for not following their White Culture.

Yet, also within our set Cultures you have dominating mentalities, which gave rise to your Hitler, and Napolean.


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Implode on September 16, 2020, 08:39:50 AM
You can be judged or discriminated for being anything, and therefore have any kind of "privilege" depending on the space or community you're in. However there is lot more privilege you receive by being the overwhelmingly viewed default, e.g. being straight and never having to stress about coming out, vs being made fun of by 17 year olds on twitter for being straight.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 16, 2020, 09:06:17 AM
You can be judged or discriminated for being anything, and therefore have any kind of "privilege" depending on the space or community you're in. However there is lot more privilege you receive by being the overwhelmingly viewed default, e.g. being straight and never having to stress about coming out, vs being made fun of by 17 year olds on twitter for being straight.

See, that's the dominating effect of White Culture (being in this case Catholicism).

In Native Culture, we have what in recent terms is called Two-Spirits.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/two-spirit/

Privilege is determined based on Culture and Identity. Not Racial Identity, isn't that Racial Discrimination.

So, wouldn't White Culture having a mindset of dominance over another Human Being by Assimilation be called White Privilege.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2020, 01:17:34 PM
You can be judged or discriminated for being anything, and therefore have any kind of "privilege" depending on the space or community you're in. However there is lot more privilege you receive by being the overwhelmingly viewed default, e.g. being straight and never having to stress about coming out, vs being made fun of by 17 year olds on twitter for being straight.

Just an idea - and admittedly a potentially distasteful one in the context of Ben's post - but is there really a psychological benefit to every situation - conflict if you will - being viewed in the light of "privilege"?    I watched a commercial last night, in fact, about a person celebrating their career as a nurse.  Oh, she happens to be an African American woman in a wheel chair.   And it was chock full of language like "they told me I couldn't" and "they told me I wouldn't", and I thought to myself, whoever this "they" is, they ought to be shot.   Forget ANY of the politics of her identity, as a general proposition, they should be... okay, not shot, but certainly taken to task.  Are we really benefiting anyone by recasting everything in the context of an underdog struggle, as opposed to simply the obstacles and hurdles of a life well lived?   And more importantly, in the context of this young girl's life, isn't it important to ask who around her is actually telling her this shit? 

Implode is really, I think, talking about the idea of "in-groups" and "out-groups".   I'm at a loss as to how we make things better by reinforcing the ideas of the out-group. 

Of my four kids, I've had the honor/horror of watching three of them walk into the buzzsaw of life.  Meaning, they grew up sweet and innocent and with all the hope in the world and something or someone handed them a pie full of dog shit.  Whether it was a world populated with people who didn't respect life like we do, or a boy who broke their heart, or a school that didn't reward them commensurate with their inner belief in themselves, or a job that didn't think them anything but a number (or all of the above) somehow life slapped them upside the head.  Some of that is not unique to any individual kid; we all go through the pain of loving someone more than they love us back; but it's how we react and respond that's important.  One is still too young; he's 12, and on the spectrum. He's going to have a... different life than most of us will.  But rather than tell this kid "you're never...", I'm trying to find something to inspire him, something to CONNECT him to the people around him.  There's no reason in this age of COVID  and remote and what not, that he can't find a compelling and rewarding - financially and spiritually - job and life.   I'm failing so far (I just am; all he's interested in is Friday Night At Freddie's and these idiots on YouTube) but even if I continue to go down in flames, I'm never going to tell this kid that "they don't want you to succeed". 

And it's even worse with my grandson.  Not on the spectrum, but with a pretty severe speech impediment.  Cutest kid you'll ever see.  He comes to my house and we have so much fun (he's realized farts are funny).  And I'm steeled for the day that some wise ass kid says something about his speech.  It's inevitable, and all the discussions about "racism and privilege" aren't going to change that.   That's just about someone being a dick, and instead of conditioning this kid for the next 15 years that "they don't want you to succeed", I can't help but thinking I - and his mom, his dad, and my wife - have 15 years to give this kid the tools to make as much lemonade as he can from the lemons he got, and maximize all the others tools he already has.  All in the effort to CONNECT him to the others around him. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 16, 2020, 01:53:04 PM
Just an idea - and admittedly a potentially distasteful one in the context of Ben's post - but is there really a psychological benefit to every situation - conflict if you will - being viewed in the light of "privilege"?   

I wrote a post in response to this and accidentally deleted it while trying to reply to another question. If I can remember correctly...

I don't think I fully understand by what you mean with this. But, I think there is. We can learn from other peoples wrongs, and understand how not to be. Think of it this way, You are wandering the woods, and are privileged to discover a cave, and within is a sleeping bear. In your privilege to explore the cave further, you wake the bear, what does the bear do? It certainly won't be "Okay, human. I'll get up and move." It'll get angry and have the privilege of using your body for it's meal.

The psychological benefit from this conflict, in the light of privilege is "Don't Poke The Bear".



Implode is really, I think, talking about the idea of "in-groups" and "out-groups".   I'm at a loss as to how we make things better by reinforcing the ideas of the out-group. 

Me too, as Society is built on "In-Groups" and "Out-Groups". That's the very basic structure of our Native American Nations.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 16, 2020, 01:55:29 PM
Now, I just thought of something...

What do Black People have that can be considered Black Privilege?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Implode on September 17, 2020, 07:01:43 AM
Just an idea - and admittedly a potentially distasteful one in the context of Ben's post - but is there really a psychological benefit to every situation - conflict if you will - being viewed in the light of "privilege"?    I watched a commercial last night, in fact, about a person celebrating their career as a nurse.  Oh, she happens to be an African American woman in a wheel chair.   And it was chock full of language like "they told me I couldn't" and "they told me I wouldn't", and I thought to myself, whoever this "they" is, they ought to be shot.   Forget ANY of the politics of her identity, as a general proposition, they should be... okay, not shot, but certainly taken to task.  Are we really benefiting anyone by recasting everything in the context of an underdog struggle, as opposed to simply the obstacles and hurdles of a life well lived?   And more importantly, in the context of this young girl's life, isn't it important to ask who around her is actually telling her this shit? 

Well first off, I think that's just a difference in semantics. That's just coming at the same thing from the other side. I think the understanding of both concepts is important.

And second, I agree that many people in the out group side can take the concept of privilege and have it be harmful in a defeatist way. But I think the concept does a net good considering how helpful it is for the in group to consider. I actually just a long discussion with my mother about this last night. Yes, someone from either group can have trials and tribulations that but then at a disadvantage. The concept of privilege however is helpful because it reminds people that not everyone's experience is equal. Unfortunately, many people do need to be reminded of that. And also, the concept of privilege is supposed to be a neutral term, an unbiased descriptor. It has a lot of baggage thanks to discourse now. But it's supposed to just be an observation of the common differences in struggles between certain groups. Recognizing privilege is just an acknowledgement of that difference, and acknowledging those differences and not writing them off because they don't match your own experience is so important in understanding people complexly cultivating more empathy in the world.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on September 17, 2020, 07:37:44 AM
Just an idea - and admittedly a potentially distasteful one in the context of Ben's post - but is there really a psychological benefit to every situation - conflict if you will - being viewed in the light of "privilege"?    I watched a commercial last night, in fact, about a person celebrating their career as a nurse.  Oh, she happens to be an African American woman in a wheel chair.   And it was chock full of language like "they told me I couldn't" and "they told me I wouldn't", and I thought to myself, whoever this "they" is, they ought to be shot.   Forget ANY of the politics of her identity, as a general proposition, they should be... okay, not shot, but certainly taken to task.  Are we really benefiting anyone by recasting everything in the context of an underdog struggle, as opposed to simply the obstacles and hurdles of a life well lived?   And more importantly, in the context of this young girl's life, isn't it important to ask who around her is actually telling her this shit? 

Well first off, I think that's just a difference in semantics. That's just coming at the same thing from the other side. I think the understanding of both concepts is important.

And second, I agree that many people in the out group side can take the concept of privilege and have it be harmful in a defeatist way. But I think the concept does a net good considering how helpful it is for the in group to consider. I actually just a long discussion with my mother about this last night. Yes, someone from either group can have trials and tribulations that but then at a disadvantage. The concept of privilege however is helpful because it reminds people that not everyone's experience is equal. Unfortunately, many people do need to be reminded of that. And also, the concept of privilege is supposed to be a neutral term, an unbiased descriptor. It has a lot of baggage thanks to discourse now. But it's supposed to just be an observation of the common differences in struggles between certain groups. Recognizing privilege is just an acknowledgement of that difference, and acknowledging those differences and not writing them off because they don't match your own experience is so important in understanding people complexly cultivating more empathy in the world.

I respect your position on this, but I have my personal doubts that there's this massive reconsideration of privilege.  I know for me, a contemplative person that actually thinks about these things and is willing to look in the mirror, more often than not the discussions of "privilege" seemed a flawed ad hominem moral judgment than any  real "awareness".   And while I'm not a licensed psychologist, the research I've been reading is that it's not moving the needle.   We've had decades of this type of "forced" awareness, and it's documented to not be working.   "Diversity training" was supposed to accomplish the same thing, and it's failing (https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way-its-supposed-to).   The research now is suggesting that there is more benefit in an approach of inclusion to the out-group.   That idea runs counter to the general implication of "punishment" and "vengeance" to those that don't think like we do, but I'm not really interested in "feel good" solutions, I'm interested in solutions that actually work (NO: that is not another way of saying "F--- your feelings", it's just saying that we - America - seems to love "feel good" measures - like "diversity training" - that don't actually change anything.)

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 09, 2020, 09:38:26 AM
America Is A Racist Place? (https://youtu.be/tbz0TmxSZjQ)

These guys discuss this question...
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on October 09, 2020, 09:58:42 AM
America Is A Racist Place? (https://youtu.be/tbz0TmxSZjQ)

These guys discuss this question...

You really need to screen these sources a bit more. Jesus.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on October 09, 2020, 10:39:27 AM
I got about four minutes in before deciding that none of those men were worth watching for another hour and forty one minutes.


"It's the vice presidential debate with the two candidates... uhh... Donald Trump and uhhh Mr. Creepy Joe Biden".   

Call Joe creepy all you want, but I don't remember him saying "If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her".
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 09, 2020, 09:45:28 PM
America Is A Racist Place? (https://youtu.be/tbz0TmxSZjQ)

These guys discuss this question...

You really need to screen these sources a bit more. Jesus.


What did they say, that made you say I need to screen sources?

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on October 09, 2020, 10:14:25 PM
America Is A Racist Place? (https://youtu.be/tbz0TmxSZjQ)

These guys discuss this question...

You really need to screen these sources a bit more. Jesus.



What did they say, that made you say I need to screen sources?


So so much. I’m not rewatching it to give you direct quotes. If you think it’s a view worth propagating, go for if, but I won’t be clicking on any more YouTube links you provide.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on October 13, 2020, 05:54:07 AM
A congresswoman from my state had a Town Hall over zoom yesterday. It went well.

(https://preview.redd.it/zioaz949ers51.jpg?width=547&auto=webp&s=ce5ec9fdad3283e8cac5ea78c9129955ad75fd8a)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 13, 2020, 09:33:13 AM
A congresswoman from my state had a Town Hall over zoom yesterday. It went well.

(https://preview.redd.it/zioaz949ers51.jpg?width=547&auto=webp&s=ce5ec9fdad3283e8cac5ea78c9129955ad75fd8a)

And they allowed comments, not expecting trolls, on the group chat...  :facepalm:

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on October 13, 2020, 09:34:38 AM
It's no comments, it's a chat. Which, I believe, may be necessary for a large town hall meeting of the sorts. But are you really victim blaming here too?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on October 13, 2020, 09:40:03 AM
A congresswoman from my state had a Town Hall over zoom yesterday. It went well.

(https://preview.redd.it/zioaz949ers51.jpg?width=547&auto=webp&s=ce5ec9fdad3283e8cac5ea78c9129955ad75fd8a)

And they allowed comments, not expecting trolls, on the group chat...  :facepalm:

God forbid a congressional candidate wants to give the people of her district a chance to interact with her and ask questions. I can't even believe that post, man. If comments weren't allowed, you'd have people banging the "she's too afraid of the tough questions the public might ask" drum. This is 100% on the pieces of shit in those posts, the people who are going to be enthusiastically voting for a shit turd in November, and your immediate go-to is to somehow pin it on the congressional candidate? Fuck's sake.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 13, 2020, 09:42:46 AM
It's no comments, it's a chat. Which, I believe, may be necessary for a large town hall meeting of the sorts. But are you really victim blaming here too?

Oh ok. It's a town hall that anyone can attend and comment. I thought it was a video one, with people calling in their comments, and them reading chat questions.

I am just pointing out, it's not surprising to get shit like that when you do an online chat that is public.

To clarify, I understand it's also wrong to do shit like that. But, you can't honestly expect me to not see comments like this from not happening.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 13, 2020, 10:30:17 AM
A congresswoman from my state had a Town Hall over zoom yesterday. It went well.

(https://preview.redd.it/zioaz949ers51.jpg?width=547&auto=webp&s=ce5ec9fdad3283e8cac5ea78c9129955ad75fd8a)

And they allowed comments, not expecting trolls, on the group chat...  :facepalm:

God forbid a congressional candidate wants to give the people of her district a chance to interact with her and ask questions. I can't even believe that post, man. If comments weren't allowed, you'd have people banging the "she's too afraid of the tough questions the public might ask" drum. This is 100% on the pieces of shit in those posts, the people who are going to be enthusiastically voting for a shit turd in November, and your immediate go-to is to somehow pin it on the congressional candidate? Fuck's sake.

I'm generally with you on this, and I'm not in any way "pinning" this on her but I deleted a post (and for that very reason, that I didn't want to imply that I was blaming her) that pointed out how she immediately turned from victim to political operative, making this about and attributable to Trump.   These people are either ideological zealots, pranksters, political shit-stirrers, or false flag operatives, and in all of those cases, the extreme end of the spectrum.  But only one of those, maybe two, might reasonably be assumable as "Trump voters".

The narrative here is getting very singular and very insular:  some of the people here can't even use his name, the hate is so palpable.  That's fine, your opinion is your opinion, but let's not lose sight of the fact that some people - myself included - believe that the problems facing this country do not go away or even get better simply because Trump is gone.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 13, 2020, 10:35:52 AM
I think you are flat wrong about such a low percentage being Trump voters.  I get that you aren't on social media, but that's how a lot of them are.  They don't always use language QUITE that strong, but while I know you hate the term "deplorable", the fact is that a sizable percentage of his followers are exactly this right here.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 13, 2020, 12:48:41 PM
I think you are flat wrong about such a low percentage being Trump voters.  I get that you aren't on social media, but that's how a lot of them are.  They don't always use language QUITE that strong, but while I know you hate the term "deplorable", the fact is that a sizable percentage of his followers are exactly this right here.

Well, to me even if I was on social media, I don't take that for gospel.  That's one of the big distortions of social media (and, perversely, why it's so effective as a bully pulpit) that it exaggerates the weight of the positions being taken (including, ironically, yours, that Trump supporters are largely deplorable racists). 

I don't know many that do support Trump, but those that do?  NONE of them are that, and not even close.  Not even closeted.  We can debate what "sizeable" means here, and I really don't want to get into the "well, even one is too many" meta debate, but it seems far more an argument of convenience than of fact.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 14, 2020, 11:31:37 AM
It's sizeable.  It's a lot.  Not saying it's the majority, but it's a lot.  I'm glad that you don't know any assholes that support Trump. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a hell of a lot of assholes out there who support Trump.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on October 21, 2020, 06:26:22 PM
Wasn't sure to throw this here or in the political funny thread, but SF, being SF, passed a new law leveling increased illegality at people making false 911 calls and claims against black people, an all too common recent occurrence. The act is called the Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies Act....


The CAREN Act.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 21, 2020, 06:35:18 PM
 :lol


Naturally.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 22, 2020, 09:12:53 AM
Wasn't sure to throw this here or in the political funny thread, but SF, being SF, passed a new law leveling increased illegality at people making false 911 calls and claims against black people, an all too common recent occurrence. The act is called the Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies Act....


The CAREN Act.
:clap:
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 22, 2020, 10:15:03 AM
I wonder, if most the arguments were just deciding the right words just to spell Karen (or Caren).


But, is it just Black People, or is it false claims against all people regardless of Race/Gender/Creed/Relgion?

 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kaos2900 on October 22, 2020, 10:21:54 AM
I wonder, if most the arguments were just deciding the right words just to spell Karen (or Caren).


But, is it just Black People, or is it false claims against all people regardless of Race/Gender/Creed/Relgion?

One would hope so. Are you still able to call 911 if someone is taking a dump on the sidewalk in SF?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 22, 2020, 10:44:18 AM
I wonder, if most the arguments were just deciding the right words just to spell Karen (or Caren).


But, is it just Black People, or is it false claims against all people regardless of Race/Gender/Creed/Relgion?

One would hope so. Are you still able to call 911 if someone is taking a dump on the sidewalk in SF?

I read this article about it...

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/21/caren-act-san-francisco-supervisors-approve-ban-racist-911-calls/

What I don't understand is, Does San Francisco have a False 911 call law in place? Would that kind of law prevent any of this shit from happening, as a person just being black doesn't constitute an emergency? So, if they have a False 911 law, why the need for this Law? Is it because "Victims of such calls will also be allowed to sue the caller"? Can't anybody sue anybody anyways for False Accusations based on Race, Gender, Creed, Religion?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 24, 2020, 07:12:39 PM
Wow, frustrating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/residents-of-wisconsin-town-near-kenosha-in-uproar-over-teacher-s-racism-lesson/ar-BB1alzXq?li=BBnbcA1


WTF is wrong with people?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on October 25, 2020, 08:54:38 PM
Interesting article about the Trump administration's attempt, and subsequent failure to create a narrative about the Hunter Biden thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html

Cliffs: Three high-level guy's put together a very slick dossier to hand over to the WSJ hoping they'd blow the Hunter Biden narrative wide open. Giuliani involves himself and casts a ton of doubt over the legitimacy of it all. The WSJ has a reputation to maintain and doesn't want to run a dodgy story. Trump shoots his mouth off about how the Journal is fixing to torpedo Hunter and Joe, further spooking the WSJ. This forces them to resort to the NY Post and Breitbart to sell their story, thus making it seem even less credible than it already was.

So basically, Trump is incompetent, Rudy is worse, and the WSJ still has some integrity.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 26, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
Wow, frustrating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/residents-of-wisconsin-town-near-kenosha-in-uproar-over-teacher-s-racism-lesson/ar-BB1alzXq?li=BBnbcA1


WTF is wrong with people?

I read that article, and while I would not have protested that (my kid went through something similar in her rather liberal high school curriculum) I would point out that it's not an absolute given that all agree on the scope and extent of some of those concepts that seem to be presented as a fait accompli.    For example, "systemic racism"; we've talked about it here, and at a minimum there's a definitional discussion to be had.  You can't say "it's neutral" and then take for granted one side of a deep and enduring discussion.   Later, there was a reference to "a more frank conversation about race, bias and privilege"; the devil is in the details.  Does the conversation ASSUME the parameters of privilege?  We're all adults here, and we've had some spirited conversations, particularly on that last point; do we expect a "neutral" delivery to perfectly - or even imperfectly - walk that line between the reasonable and rational differences?

And that's not to mention that with the stigma of "racist!" hanging in the wings, some of that discussion is almost undoubtedly chilled.  I know I had to have more than one conversation with my daughter - who is by almost every measure, a "Democrat" in policy if not in practice - who was herself reluctant to push back in a classroom setting for fear of being misunderstood as a "racist".   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 26, 2020, 06:40:12 PM
Wow, frustrating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/residents-of-wisconsin-town-near-kenosha-in-uproar-over-teacher-s-racism-lesson/ar-BB1alzXq?li=BBnbcA1


WTF is wrong with people?

I read that article, and while I would not have protested that (my kid went through something similar in her rather liberal high school curriculum) I would point out that it's not an absolute given that all agree on the scope and extent of some of those concepts that seem to be presented as a fait accompli.    For example, "systemic racism"; we've talked about it here, and at a minimum there's a definitional discussion to be had.  You can't say "it's neutral" and then take for granted one side of a deep and enduring discussion.   Later, there was a reference to "a more frank conversation about race, bias and privilege"; the devil is in the details.  Does the conversation ASSUME the parameters of privilege?  We're all adults here, and we've had some spirited conversations, particularly on that last point; do we expect a "neutral" delivery to perfectly - or even imperfectly - walk that line between the reasonable and rational differences?

I understand that. My wife, who is a wicked Republican is always super suspicious of teachers covering things like this. She assumes they will spin it democratically.

But these teachers are in a tough spot. They have children looking at them for information and guidance. If a kid asks a teacher what Black Lives Matter means, what is the teacher supposed to do? Do their best to explain it objectively, which to some people, may not be objective at all.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 26, 2020, 08:18:29 PM
Right wing pundits will point to several examples of activist teachers promoting BLM and other left wing ideologies in their classrooms and stifling any discussion or dissent. I do not believe this is an example of that.

With virtual learning, teachers are in the public eye like never before, and they really, really do not want to get on the wrong side of the mob. It would just take one comment a parent sees in their kid's Zoom class meeting to prompt a post on TweetBook about how Teacher So-and-So is a racist, and then that teacher is suddenly sweating their job.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 26, 2020, 08:23:53 PM
The thing is, I think some curriculums are going to change a bit to include more Black or Native American viewpoints.


I really don't understand why people would be afraid of that.

"Oh they're trying to rewrite our history books!"
But I'm thinking that they're just filling in the blanks.


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 26, 2020, 08:49:29 PM
Some are filling in the blanks, some are rewriting history. Many people do not want to see the difference.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on October 26, 2020, 08:57:22 PM
It probably could do with being rewritten.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 26, 2020, 09:09:13 PM
Then let it be done with facts, and not an agenda. If we are to assume the current history needs to be rewritten because it was originally done with an agenda, let's learn from that and not repeat those mistakes.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on October 26, 2020, 09:18:52 PM
To some, truth IS an agenda.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 26, 2020, 09:33:19 PM
"We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?"

-Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ Superstar

Maybe a non-sequitur, just popped in my head.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 27, 2020, 06:02:57 AM
To some, truth IS an agenda.

Fuck them.
Truth should be an agenda. It should be important.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2020, 01:54:31 PM
To some, truth IS an agenda.

That's a bumper sticker, though.  For many - not all, not most, but many - of the people that I see that would be the first to tell you that, aren't really dealing in A truth, they're dealing in THEIR truth.   There is no such thing - objectively, replicably - as "MY truth".    That's simply a euphemism for "my opinion". 

"Truth" isn't "the other side of the coin".  "Truth" is that which is not up for discussion, which is objectively proven regardless of any other influencing factors.   2+2=4.  if you do that with a number line, or a bunch of rocks, or the ENIAC supercomputer "two items" of something plus "two items" of something give you "four items".  There's no Democratic platform on 2+2, there's no "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" aspect to 2+2, there's no "gender specific" angle to 2+2, there's no "native people's" or "people of color" 2+2.  Pure water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. John Kennedy was President in 1962.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on October 27, 2020, 02:00:27 PM


Fun fact of the day - Pure water exists nowhere on Earth. That's including in the cleanest and most controlled laboratories in the world. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 27, 2020, 02:05:07 PM
To some, truth IS an agenda.

That's a bumper sticker, though.  For many - not all, not most, but many - of the people that I see that would be the first to tell you that, aren't really dealing in A truth, they're dealing in THEIR truth.   There is no such thing - objectively, replicably - as "MY truth".    That's simply a euphemism for "my opinion". 

"Truth" isn't "the other side of the coin".  "Truth" is that which is not up for discussion, which is objectively proven regardless of any other influencing factors.   2+2=4.  if you do that with a number line, or a bunch of rocks, or the ENIAC supercomputer "two items" of something plus "two items" of something give you "four items".  There's no Democratic platform on 2+2, there's no "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" aspect to 2+2, there's no "gender specific" angle to 2+2, there's no "native people's" or "people of color" 2+2.  Pure water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. John Kennedy was President in 1962.

there is no political platform could be made using this standard.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Jaffa on October 27, 2020, 02:18:11 PM
Stadler, I don't disagree with any of that, but I do want to bring something for context. 

While your 2+2=4 example is specifically designed to rule out "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" qualifiers, it's worth noting that it is possible to examine truth with qualifiers attached.  It's possible to examine a claim within a certain framework, and it's possible to examine the implications of a claim without necessarily asserting the truth of that claim.  These examinations will not apply universally, but within their scope, there can still be truth to them.  For example, if I were to say 'it is wrong to move a horse shaped figurine three squares vertically and two squares to the right', this claim would be basically nonsensical, and there would be very little truth to it.  But if I then make that same claim within the context of chess - 'it is against the rules to move a knight from A2 to D4' - the claim has truth. 

What this means is that something can be true within a framework and false (or meaningless) within a different framework.  And that's where perspectives come in. 

Now, any claim of universal fact is always going to be either true or false.   But that's sort of where the difficulty lies, I think - it's not always easy to recognize the difference between a claim to universal fact and the assertion of a perspective. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2020, 03:06:34 PM
To some, truth IS an agenda.

That's a bumper sticker, though.  For many - not all, not most, but many - of the people that I see that would be the first to tell you that, aren't really dealing in A truth, they're dealing in THEIR truth.   There is no such thing - objectively, replicably - as "MY truth".    That's simply a euphemism for "my opinion". 

"Truth" isn't "the other side of the coin".  "Truth" is that which is not up for discussion, which is objectively proven regardless of any other influencing factors.   2+2=4.  if you do that with a number line, or a bunch of rocks, or the ENIAC supercomputer "two items" of something plus "two items" of something give you "four items".  There's no Democratic platform on 2+2, there's no "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" aspect to 2+2, there's no "gender specific" angle to 2+2, there's no "native people's" or "people of color" 2+2.  Pure water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. John Kennedy was President in 1962.

there is no political platform could be made using this standard.

Don't disagree; but we're not talking about political platforms, we're talking about curricula for teaching our kids.   The reference I made to "political platforms" was merely to say that a teacher invested in "truth" should not be teaching a platform to the kids.   (That's not to say that they can't teach platformS, plural, to kids). 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2020, 03:17:34 PM
Stadler, I don't disagree with any of that, but I do want to bring something for context. 

While your 2+2=4 example is specifically designed to rule out "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" qualifiers, it's worth noting that it is possible to examine truth with qualifiers attached.  It's possible to examine a claim within a certain framework, and it's possible to examine the implications of a claim without necessarily asserting the truth of that claim.  These examinations will not apply universally, but within their scope, there can still be truth to them.  For example, if I were to say 'it is wrong to move a horse shaped figurine three squares vertically and two squares to the right', this claim would be basically nonsensical, and there would be very little truth to it.  But if I then make that same claim within the context of chess - 'it is against the rules to move a knight from A2 to D4' - the claim has truth. 

What this means is that something can be true within a framework and false (or meaningless) within a different framework.  And that's where perspectives come in. 

Now, any claim of universal fact is always going to be either true or false.   But that's sort of where the difficulty lies, I think - it's not always easy to recognize the difference between a claim to universal fact and the assertion of a perspective.

100%; I speak frequently of frames, and don't disagree.   The frame of reference for a student in school shouldn't be "Democrat" or "Republican" (or the party of the teacher). 

Look, I get that I'm giving rather extreme examples here, but perspective is part of my point.  ALL humans have a reference point, and all truth is subject to that to a degree.  Just delivering a curriculum in the United States adopts a point of view vis-a-vis Europe or Asia.   I just think in our zeal to further our own political agenda, we need to take a step back and reassess the where we sit in the bigger picture, and reassess the terminology we're using to do that.  Specifically to schools, I think we need to do a better job of either adopting frames that apply to all the students, or being VERY clear what frame is adopted, and what the consequences of adopting that frame are to the others that are available.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2020, 03:21:08 PM
Now, any claim of universal fact is always going to be either true or false.   But that's sort of where the difficulty lies, I think - it's not always easy to recognize the difference between a claim to universal fact and the assertion of a perspective.

Sorry for the multiple replies, but this in particular is important.  A part of the problem is the way the discussion itself has been corrupted; when the consequences are being deemed "racist!" or "socialist!" or something else that goes to character and not just disagreement, it makes it doubly harder to have the conversation about recognition.    I think I spend a lot of time here and elsewhere talking about just that: the difference between a claim to universal fact and the assertion of a perspective.   I see that line bludgeoned on the daily, and I'm not thrilled with the level of response in many cases to that.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Jaffa on October 27, 2020, 03:33:27 PM
Sorry for the multiple replies, but this in particular is important. 

I'm never going to fault you for highlighting the importance of a thing I said.   ;)

In all seriousness, I want to clarify that I really wasn't trying to disagree or argue with you.  I only wanted to point out some context that I thought might be getting lost in the back and forth.  The particular example of teaching in schools is not one I feel qualified to weigh in on (don't have kids, not a teacher, dropped out of high school), so I'll leave you all to it.  :)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 27, 2020, 06:40:25 PM
Stadler, I don't disagree with any of that, but I do want to bring something for context. 

While your 2+2=4 example is specifically designed to rule out "by the standard of 'no harm to anyone'" qualifiers, it's worth noting that it is possible to examine truth with qualifiers attached.  It's possible to examine a claim within a certain framework, and it's possible to examine the implications of a claim without necessarily asserting the truth of that claim.  These examinations will not apply universally, but within their scope, there can still be truth to them.  For example, if I were to say 'it is wrong to move a horse shaped figurine three squares vertically and two squares to the right', this claim would be basically nonsensical, and there would be very little truth to it.  But if I then make that same claim within the context of chess - 'it is against the rules to move a knight from A2 to D4' - the claim has truth. 

What this means is that something can be true within a framework and false (or meaningless) within a different framework.  And that's where perspectives come in. 

Now, any claim of universal fact is always going to be either true or false.   But that's sort of where the difficulty lies, I think - it's not always easy to recognize the difference between a claim to universal fact and the assertion of a perspective.

100%; I speak frequently of frames, and don't disagree.   The frame of reference for a student in school shouldn't be "Democrat" or "Republican" (or the party of the teacher). 

Look, I get that I'm giving rather extreme examples here, but perspective is part of my point.  ALL humans have a reference point, and all truth is subject to that to a degree.  Just delivering a curriculum in the United States adopts a point of view vis-a-vis Europe or Asia.   I just think in our zeal to further our own political agenda, we need to take a step back and reassess the where we sit in the bigger picture, and reassess the terminology we're using to do that.  Specifically to schools, I think we need to do a better job of either adopting frames that apply to all the students, or being VERY clear what frame is adopted, and what the consequences of adopting that frame are to the others that are available.

That's why some people of color want segregated schools, because of the frame of teaching, they see that the only way to teach their children what they need to know is to have them segregated. The same way, languages are taught in school. Here in New Mexico, some tribes have their own schools, usually up to middle school. They teach them things related to their identity, and also things that are required by the state.

You have The Black people coming up with ideas that can help them, the way THEY feel is a right way for them. Then you have Non-Black people telling them, NO. I say, let them do it, leave them to teach their own people.

See, the Truth I am seeing being revealed slowly to me, is America is a big human experiment. Nowhere in history have Humans, all lived in one area together, with many perspectives and views (meaning Cultures, and Customs). The Black people have had their Identity stolen from them, since they were taken from their homelands, as Slaves, and now They don't have an identity. Us Natives have an Heritage/identity, White Americans have an Heritage/Identity, Asian People have Heritage/Identity, Muslim People have a Heritage/Identity, even Hispanic people have a Heritage/Idenity...All of them know where they come from, and can go back to their place of origin. The Black People of America do not have this, they know they come from Africa, but that's it. They don't know these 4 things, of Culture, Traditions, Customs, and Language. These things, are what some Black People, are trying to get their people to understand, Where they truly come from and the 4 things that make them who they are, some of these Black People, have high Native Blood, and are more Native than Black, yet don't know it either, due to Urbanization of Natives.


Sorry for the multiple replies, but this in particular is important. 
The particular example of teaching in schools is not one I feel qualified to weigh in on (don't have kids, not a teacher, dropped out of high school), so I'll leave you all to it.  :)

Teaching in schools was forced upon us Natives, so we have a vastly different perception of schooling than the white person does. And I am only one, trying to tell you our perspective.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 27, 2020, 08:29:01 PM
1955: Segregation based on race is bad. 
2020: Segregation based on race is good.

I do not believe people of color wanting segregated schools is a popular opinion outside the fringe.

And Ben I do not think it as as simple as a "black people think this, white people tell them they are wrong." There are plenty of diverse backgrounds and cultures on school boards, and I truly believe they are doing what they feel is right to serve all students, which is how it should be. We cannot have a society where different people are teaching their kids differently based on their own backgrounds and cultures.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on October 27, 2020, 08:33:15 PM
The curriculums should be merged. No way in hell should kids of different backgrounds be separated. How the fuck are we going to get past racism if that happens?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 27, 2020, 08:56:17 PM
1955: Segregation based on race is bad. 
2020: Segregation based on race is good.

I do not believe people of color wanting segregated schools is a popular opinion outside the fringe.

And Ben I do not think it as as simple as a "black people think this, white people tell them they are wrong." There are plenty of diverse backgrounds and cultures on school boards, and I truly believe they are doing what they feel is right to serve all students, which is how it should be. We cannot have a society where different people are teaching their kids differently based on their own backgrounds and cultures.

I know it's not so simple. And I'm sure they know that. It's not really segregated either. See, it's weird here in New Mexico, because our state has a High Native and Hispanic Population, that outshines the White American population. We're a state that has a strong Cultural Heritage, both from Native and Spanish origins, Our population still practices Customs and Traditions from both Spanish and Native Cultures. In 10th Grade, we were required to Learn New Mexico History, it was our entire History class Sophomore year. We have classes now in some public schools dedicated to Native Languages and only those of the Tribe that speaks that certain language can attend. The Tribal Schools are on Tribal Land, and others can attend those schools. A lot of our state schools do Pageants about Myths, and Stories related to our State Cultures and Heritages, one of them is La Llorona.

I think these Black Segregation Schools, are intending it to be like this. To teach their people where they come from, their heritage, and origins.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 27, 2020, 09:06:38 PM
In 10th Grade, we were required to Learn New Mexico History,

That's great, all histories and cultures should be taught. There is a large population of Natives here as well and I remember taking classes about Native history and culture.

I think these Black Segregation Schools, are intending it to be like this. To teach their people where they come from, their heritage, and origins.

Families should do this, not schools. Teaching children about different cultures and histories is good thing. There should be more of it. Basing a school's curriculum around one specific culture is not. Maybe that is not what is happening, but that is kinda what it sounds like. That shows no desire to learn about anything other than yourself. I admit I know nothing of these schools. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "Black Segregation School."

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 27, 2020, 09:24:25 PM
In 10th Grade, we were required to Learn New Mexico History,

That's great, all histories and cultures should be taught. There is a large population of Natives here as well and I remember taking classes about Native history and culture.

I think these Black Segregation Schools, are intending it to be like this. To teach their people where they come from, their heritage, and origins.

Families should do this, not schools. Teaching children about different cultures and histories is good thing. There should be more of it. Basing a school's curriculum around one specific culture is not. Maybe that is not what is happening, but that is kinda what it sounds like. I admit I know nothing of these schools. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "Black Segregation School."

Of course basing a school around on specific culture is not, yet that's exactly what your schools are/were doing with your European Heritage. These are just priorities as the population is the more dominant in that Area.


I found this interesting Article about how there are still "Segregated Schools" (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/learning/lesson-plans/still-separate-still-unequal-teaching-about-school-segregation-and-educational-inequality.html). And lo and behold Bernalillo County is the one that is Medium, because The Native and Hispanic population dominates both White and Black population. We actually have what we consider the White Classier Neighborhood in the North East Heights of Albuquerque, that has these schools considered the white school, La Cueva. Then you have the Southwest of Albuquerque, a highly Hispanic population with the a school considered by the locals as the Ghetto school, Rio Grande Valley High School.

I don't know why, but that's just how it happened. The Hispanic population has always been here, along with The Native population. White Population of America slowly began making their way here, and incorporating the big city life into our areas. And we locals see that, and the effect it is having.


Edit: I forgot to add, I agree about it's the families that should teach those 4 things.

And, Our concept of a school, is different. Our school is life, we use what is around us to teach. Many of our stories and myths are lessons. It's how I used the metaphors of the Tree and The Branch. And how I can use it now, in reality. We have an invasive Tree Species called the Russian Olive that is taking over the Local Cottonwood Trees. So to put it locally, The Spaniards are the Russian Olives, and we Natives of the Rio Grande are the Cottonwood Trees.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 28, 2020, 09:06:59 AM
The concept and idea of segregation of schools (and really, it applies anywhere) is a difficult one for me.  I balance between free will and intent, but even then it's not clear.   I do find it fascinating, though, how often humans decry a particular framework when it doesn't work for them, but readily embrace it when it does.    "Men's clubs" are great for men, but suck for women, and they want in.  Until they don't and they form "women's clubs", which are great for them, but suck for men.

I'm not naive or ignorant of the power dynamic involved, but the notion of the minority (in the general sense of the word, that is, those not in power) taking back power by implementing their own form of exclusion and control is an uncomfortable one for me.   It seems too easily abused. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 28, 2020, 09:39:20 AM
The concept and idea of segregation of schools (and really, it applies anywhere) is a difficult one for me.  I balance between free will and intent, but even then it's not clear.   I do find it fascinating, though, how often humans decry a particular framework when it doesn't work for them, but readily embrace it when it does.    "Men's clubs" are great for men, but suck for women, and they want in.  Until they don't and they form "women's clubs", which are great for them, but suck for men.

I'm not naive or ignorant of the power dynamic involved, but the notion of the minority (in the general sense of the word, that is, those not in power) taking back power by implementing their own form of exclusion and control is an uncomfortable one for me.   It seems too easily abused.

Segregated Schools isn't the right term for it at all. I would say Private/Charter schools that PRIORITZE the black community. So, the question then becomes, who is gonna fund the Private/Charter Schools? The Black Celebs crying about injustice?

We do have a Native Charter school in Albuquerque, that prioritizes Native American Students. It's called Native American Community Academy. And it has a waiting list.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on October 28, 2020, 10:24:42 AM
Part of the reason I've changed my stance on voucher programs is because I think they'll encourage, even more, self-segregating of the schools, and I think that's generally a good thing insofar as learning is concerned. In Dallas schools are already segregated. With a few exceptions Mexican kids go to public schools, black kids go to private schools, and white kids live in Frisco. When I was a lad they were trying to force integration, and it was a very scary thing.

The best argument I've seen for school segregation, at least of a sort, came from a particularly racist and corrupt county commissioner down here. He's the guy famous for getting butthurt when somebody mentioned black holes (why can't they be purple holes?). He did an interview with the whitest newscaster around which began with them attending services at his church. Afterward they discussed the experience, and despite both of them regularly attending Presbyterian churches, their services couldn't be any more different. Hers is solemn and dignified and his looked like the church from the Blues Brothers. He made this point do demonstrate very real sociological differences between their respective races, and made the argument that it's even more pronounced with youngsters. He suggested that black boys are going to interact better with black male teachers than little old white ladies¹, and in my experience this is absolutely correct.

Having said that, I also think that it's important that the lesson plans be the same across schools, regardless of who you're teaching. And as much as I'd like for those lessens to be neutral and non-biased, I don't think it's likely, or even possible. How are you going to explain BLM to kids in a perfectly neutral way? You'll wind up sounding like me talking my way out of a ticket. "Well, I suppose it's possible that perhaps somebody might have interpreted the officer's actions were of questionable "reasonableness," and therefore reacted in a way that they thought might be the way most likely to bring about the change they think might possibly be some sort of improvement.

Also, rest assured when Texas gets around to updating its history textbooks, BLM will feature predominately as a racist and terrorist organization responsible for rioting and looting based on irrational hatred of police and a desire to create a lawless society. They're probably already writing it. 


¹This is problematic because it forces a couple of questions that we as a society are incapable of discussing. One is the relative physiological and psychological differences between the races. John Wiley Price predicated his opinion on the idea that black kids are naturally more aggressive than white kids. Most people have the good sense to stay far away from that one. The other is whether or not it's reasonable to try and force black kids to behave more like white kids. This would necessitate qualifying those character traits.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 28, 2020, 11:14:19 AM
The concept and idea of segregation of schools (and really, it applies anywhere) is a difficult one for me.  I balance between free will and intent, but even then it's not clear.   I do find it fascinating, though, how often humans decry a particular framework when it doesn't work for them, but readily embrace it when it does.    "Men's clubs" are great for men, but suck for women, and they want in.  Until they don't and they form "women's clubs", which are great for them, but suck for men.

I'm not naive or ignorant of the power dynamic involved, but the notion of the minority (in the general sense of the word, that is, those not in power) taking back power by implementing their own form of exclusion and control is an uncomfortable one for me.   It seems too easily abused.

Segregated Schools isn't the right term for it at all. I would say Private/Charter schools that PRIORITZE the black community. So, the question then becomes, who is gonna fund the Private/Charter Schools? The Black Celebs crying about injustice?

We do have a Native Charter school in Albuquerque, that prioritizes Native American Students. It's called Native American Community Academy. And it has a waiting list.

But - on the understanding that African Americans are human, and so subject to biases, mistakes and prejudice as any other human is - how do you counter the counter?   So the "black schools" are a prioritization of the black community, but if - just IF - they get it wrong, or out of perspective, do we have "white schools to "prioritize" the white community?   I get that the argument is "that's what we already have", but I think that's a specious argument.  We have neither now; there are biases on both sides, but they tend to water down the real truth.  The fact is, some of the historical actors ON BOTH SIDES were worse than we paint them to be, and some were better than we paint them to be.   "Prioritizing" black or white simply emphasizes those sides, it doesn't integrate them - literally or figuratively.  The truth has no color, has no bias. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on October 28, 2020, 11:19:48 AM
Part of the reason I've changed my stance on voucher programs is because I think they'll encourage, even more, self-segregating of the schools, and I think that's generally a good thing insofar as learning is concerned. In Dallas schools are already segregated. With a few exceptions Mexican kids go to public schools, black kids go to private schools, and white kids live in Frisco. When I was a lad they were trying to force integration, and it was a very scary thing.

The best argument I've seen for school segregation, at least of a sort, came from a particularly racist and corrupt county commissioner down here. He's the guy famous for getting butthurt when somebody mentioned black holes (why can't they be purple holes?). He did an interview with the whitest newscaster around which began with them attending services at his church. Afterward they discussed the experience, and despite both of them regularly attending Presbyterian churches, their services couldn't be any more different. Hers is solemn and dignified and his looked like the church from the Blues Brothers. He made this point do demonstrate very real sociological differences between their respective races, and made the argument that it's even more pronounced with youngsters. He suggested that black boys are going to interact better with black male teachers than little old white ladies¹, and in my experience this is absolutely correct.

Having said that, I also think that it's important that the lesson plans be the same across schools, regardless of who you're teaching. And as much as I'd like for those lessens to be neutral and non-biased, I don't think it's likely, or even possible. How are you going to explain BLM to kids in a perfectly neutral way? You'll wind up sounding like me talking my way out of a ticket. "Well, I suppose it's possible that perhaps somebody might have interpreted the officer's actions were of questionable "reasonableness," and therefore reacted in a way that they thought might be the way most likely to bring about the change they think might possibly be some sort of improvement.

Also, rest assured when Texas gets around to updating its history textbooks, BLM will feature predominately as a racist and terrorist organization responsible for rioting and looting based on irrational hatred of police and a desire to create a lawless society. They're probably already writing it. 


¹This is problematic because it forces a couple of questions that we as a society are incapable of discussing. One is the relative physiological and psychological differences between the races. John Wiley Price predicated his opinion on the idea that black kids are naturally more aggressive than white kids. Most people have the good sense to stay far away from that one. The other is whether or not it's reasonable to try and force black kids to behave more like white kids. This would necessitate qualifying those character traits.

There's a Discover Magazine issue that did a piece on race, not just in America but generally, and one of the conclusions - among many - was that at that time (about 20, 25 years ago) we as a society weren't equipped to handle real truth about race.   We just weren't equipped for the possibility there WERE differences that were discernable, in terms of society or culture.   The discussion itself has become so charged that there's almost no possibility of discussing nuances like that without pre-judging the motives and intent of the participants, or having the information bastardized out of context and as you said in the Court thread, weaponized. 

I think there are benefits to both sides; I think the idea of "relating" is important, but I'm a proponent of the in-group and the out-group, and segregation works against that.   "Best friend" is a ridiculous phrase, but I've had close friends of multiple races since kindergarten, and so for me, the idea that a "race" is different is ludicrous.  There are simply good and bad actors, period.  We're doing a disservice to that idea, though, by our lack of focus, and our insistence that this "change" that can be mandated and not cultivated.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 28, 2020, 03:46:36 PM

The best argument I've seen for school segregation, at least of a sort, came from a particularly racist and corrupt county commissioner down here. He's the guy famous for getting butthurt when somebody mentioned black holes (why can't they be purple holes?). He did an interview with the whitest newscaster around which began with them attending services at his church. Afterward they discussed the experience, and despite both of them regularly attending Presbyterian churches, their services couldn't be any more different. Hers is solemn and dignified and his looked like the church from the Blues Brothers. He made this point do demonstrate very real sociological differences between their respective races, and made the argument that it's even more pronounced with youngsters. He suggested that black boys are going to interact better with black male teachers than little old white ladies¹, and in my experience this is absolutely correct.

HAHA thats so fucking true. You have some Native kids when I was in school, actually making fun of the teacher in their language, I don't know their language but I know what they meant, or even taking advantage of them. If they had a stern Native Man there, than they'd be paying more attention.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on October 28, 2020, 08:17:22 PM
Part of the reason I've changed my stance on voucher programs is because I think they'll encourage, even more, self-segregating of the schools, and I think that's generally a good thing insofar as learning is concerned. In Dallas schools are already segregated. With a few exceptions Mexican kids go to public schools, black kids go to private schools, and white kids live in Frisco. When I was a lad they were trying to force integration, and it was a very scary thing.

I think you and I talked a while back about segregation based on skills and goals, and that we are not all equal in our abilities, desires, and ambitions, so maybethinking that the young judge Smails of the world would go to one type of school, and the kids who would grow up to dig ditches would go to another. Was that you?

He suggested that black boys are going to interact better with black male teachers than little old white ladies¹, and in my experience this is absolutely correct.

I always chuckle when I think how my district touts the diversity of its staff, yet unless something changes my 9 year old will be taught by liberal-minded, 40+year old white ladies for the first 7 years of her education.

To your point, there is always a complaint that BIPOC (I'll just use that weird term for now) kids are not being taught by fellow BIPOCs, and that, yes,  black boys are going to interact better with black male teachers than little old white ladies. But we can't segregate forever, as those black boys are going to grow up to be young black men, and possibly working for a little old white lady at some point. We all need to be comfortable around all kinds of people. Reminds me of my wife's aunt, who, at 70+, after a recent dinner gathering at a friend's house, proclaimed "I've never sat down for dinner with a black man before."

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2020, 03:13:00 PM
Speak of the devil:

President Trump installs commission to promote 'patriotic education,' counter 'radical' views of US history (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-1776-commission-critical-race-theory)

Sure seems to me that starting from the basis of patriotism changes the focus from education to indoctrination.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 02, 2020, 08:13:37 PM
Just teach people this and it should help...

Muted Group Theory (https://helpfulprofessor.com/muted-group-theory/)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 07, 2020, 02:32:51 PM
This is a really good listen by Boyce Watkins, he gives his thoughts on what can be done for Black People, now that Biden has been declared President-Elect.

Joe Biden is president - what does that mean for black people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM2s-T3LrUg)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on November 07, 2020, 05:20:22 PM
This is a really good listen by Boyce Watkins, he gives his thoughts on what can be done for Black People, now that Biden has been declared President-Elect.

Joe Biden is president - what does that mean for black people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM2s-T3LrUg)

WTF does he say? I lasted five minutes and he basically said he didn't care.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on November 07, 2020, 05:24:47 PM
This is a really good listen by Boyce Watkins, he gives his thoughts on what can be done for Black People, now that Biden has been declared President-Elect.

Joe Biden is president - what does that mean for black people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM2s-T3LrUg)

WTF does he say? I lasted five minutes and he basically said he didn't care.

I skipped around and landed on a bit where it's about villages attacking each other, raping women, and killing men but keeping the gays around.

I got nothing. Wanna give us a few summaries so we don't have to listen to 30 minutes of weirdness?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: H2 on November 08, 2020, 10:04:20 PM
Speak of the devil:

President Trump installs commission to promote 'patriotic education,' counter 'radical' views of US history (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-1776-commission-critical-race-theory)

Sure seems to me that starting from the basis of patriotism changes the focus from education to indoctrination.
Def agree. His bashing of critical race theory was so satisfying. But the solution is not more govt-involved education.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 09, 2020, 09:33:36 AM

I skipped around and landed on a bit where it's about villages attacking each other, raping women, and killing men but keeping the gays around.

I got nothing. Wanna give us a few summaries so we don't have to listen to 30 minutes of weirdness?


WTF does he say? I lasted five minutes and he basically said he didn't care.


These two quotes proved my point in we want everything "In the snap of the finger" and can't take the time or find the time, to listen to or read something that is quite long...

Here he explains it better than I can...

Quote
"The above firmly points the finger at technological progress and
globalization as the primary “culprits” responsible for greater
interdependence. In addition, they have created such a culture of immediacy
that it’s not an exaggeration to claim that, in today’s world, everything
moves much faster than before. If just one thing were to be singled out to
explain this astonishing increase in velocity, it would undoubtedly be the
internet. More than half (52%) of the world’s population is now online,
compared to less than 8% 20 years ago; in 2019, more than 1.5 billion
smartphones – a symbol and vector of velocity that allows us to be reached
anywhere and at any time – were sold around the world. The internet of
things (IoT) now connects 22 billion devices in real time, ranging from cars
to hospital beds, electric grids and water station pumps, to kitchen ovens
and agricultural irrigation systems. This number is expected to reach 50
billion or more in 2030. Other explanations for the rise in velocity point to
the “scarcity” element: as societies get richer, time becomes more valuable
and is therefore perceived as evermore scarce. This may explain studies
showing that people in wealthy cities always walk faster than in poor cities
– they have no time to lose! No matter what the causal explanation is, the
endgame of all this is clear: as consumers and producers, spouses and
parents, leaders and followers, we are all being subjected to constant, albeit
discontinuous, rapid change.
We can see velocity everywhere; whether it’s a crisis, social discontent,
technological developments and adoption, geopolitical upheaval, the
financial markets and, of course, the manifestation of infectious diseases –
everything now runs on fast-forward. As a result, we operate in a real-time
society, with the nagging feeling that the pace of life is ever increasing. This
new culture of immediacy, obsessed with speed, is apparent in all aspects of
our lives, from “just-in-time” supply chains to “high-frequency” trading,
from speed dating to fast food. It is so pervasive that some pundits call this
new phenomenon the “dictatorship of urgency”. It can indeed take extreme
forms. Research performed by scientists at Microsoft shows, for example,
that being slower by no more than 250 milliseconds (a quarter of a second)
is enough for a website to lose hits to its “faster” competitors! The allembracing result is that the shelf life of a policy, a product or an idea, and
the life cycle of a decision-maker or a project, are contracting sharply and
often unpredictably.


This is a really good listen by Boyce Watkins, he gives his thoughts on what can be done for Black People, now that Biden has been declared President-Elect.

Joe Biden is president - what does that mean for black people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM2s-T3LrUg)

WTF does he say? I lasted five minutes and he basically said he didn't care.

You just reached the part where he talks about his Black Economics site...

Here's a timestap.  https://youtu.be/CM2s-T3LrUg?t=296
Saying, Black people need to educate themselves, instead of letting the white people teach them how to think. You have to remember, he's talking to the black people on what they can do to better themselves. These are things I listen and watch too, because they effect us, because they weren't the only ones persecuted by European Colonists.

These are things they are wanting to do for themselves, and don't want white people telling us how we should be teaching our children, our people, and determining how we should go about with, and let us be the ones to determine it for ourselves. Get it...That is all.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on November 09, 2020, 09:57:06 AM
Wanting everything in the snap of a finger?

My man, you have a history of posting videos of rather crazy fringe people voicing rather extreme views that almost none of us buy into except you. Why would I want to listen to more of that? If you like something someone says, tell us what he says.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 09, 2020, 10:35:43 AM
Wanting everything in the snap of a finger?

My man, you have a history of posting videos of rather crazy fringe people voicing rather extreme views that almost none of us buy into except you. Why would I want to listen to more of that? If you like something someone says, tell us what he says.

Ok, cool. It doesn't interest you, but it could others who frequent this board. Or others may actually listen and then decide not to post about it. I post to generate discussion, while all you guys do is Attack the Messenger. You don't have to post and then can ignore it, like others have done, and other stuff I have posted is well ignored.

I will then now refrain from posting anymore insightful, other views, even if they are extreme, they still hold weight.

I don't agree with everything he says. But it's more of the concepts he talks about. Like what I just said in my post that you chose to not bring up, instead you brought up the Snap of The Finger things? Which wasn't about you or anyone here, but of how Society has become, in not wanting to take the time for things.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on November 09, 2020, 11:45:09 AM
You quoted me directly said it proves we want everything in the snap of a finger. That made it about me.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on November 09, 2020, 07:53:16 PM
These are things they are wanting to do for themselves, and don't want white people telling us how we should be teaching our children, our people, and determining how we should go about with, and let us be the ones to determine it for ourselves.

Only addressing this comment, not the whole video which I haven't had a chance to watch... if we have reached this mentality in our country, we just might as well call everything off and Balkanize the whole nation.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 10, 2020, 08:41:11 PM
These are things they are wanting to do for themselves, and don't want white people telling us how we should be teaching our children, our people, and determining how we should go about with, and let us be the ones to determine it for ourselves.

Only addressing this comment, not the whole video which I haven't had a chance to watch... if we have reached this mentality in our country, we just might as well call everything off and Balkanize the whole nation.

Yes we do need to Balkanize(Obviously a joke). The Least that could be done, we need to Redraw the maps of America to reflect the many Sovereign Native Nations and their Territories/Reservation Boundaries. People need to know that Once you are on Tribal Reservations, you are bound to those Tribal Laws, and those are different depending on the Tribe. Most people don't even know they are actually living within a Tribal Boundary line, or are passing through one. If you come here to New Mexico from Colorado, from San Lewis and go into Questa, as you follow that road, you pass through Taos, which is both the Native Reservation, and the Town of Taos is outside the Reservation, following that road south past the Gorge, you then come upon, Okay Owingeh, as you drive south you can pass by nearly all 19 Pueblos. If you were to get pulled over by the Tribal Police, you have to deal with The Tribal Courts, and if it's something worse it goes through BIA and the FEDS, that is if it occurs within Tribal Lands the state does not get involved. The only laws we abide by that aren't ours are Federal, and some Tribes follow the State laws for certain things.

You'd be amazed at the amount of people that live here, but have no idea whom we are, and anything about these laws, until it's too late, and they have to deal with Tribal Officials. Many of the Tribes here have posts before the Village Entrances that state what is not allowed on the reservation by Outside Visitors. Such as, NO Picture taking, NO Art Sketching, etc... Especially during Pueblo Feast Dances. You'll get your phone confiscated, may not get it returned, and have to pay a fine if caught. Most tourists don't bother and get all "I didn't know" when there are BIG SIGNS that states that. That is just to give us the Respect, and our right to our Live our Life in Privacy. Our life ways, and dances are not a show, you are allowed to visit and spectate, but have Respect for whom we are. That includes the many places within our Wildlife Areas, Forests, Deserts, and Ruins within America.


These are just the recognized Tribes
(https://i.ibb.co/5hM8Sn1/united-states-indian-tribes-map.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1GvqPd0)


This is where, if we were to have boundary lines, the different Tribes would be:
(https://i.ibb.co/NTzDpfY/Map.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bbnwLYd)
 
"The map is available online and via the Native Land app (for both iOS and Android). Just type in your address, and you'll be able to see what indigenous group(s) once lived there or nearby. It's even possible members of that community still live in that area, though of course many native people were displaced, thanks to, uh, centuries of shitty federal policy."
https://mashable.com/article/indigenous-map-america/




I am telling you, The issue of Racism and Privilege isn't as simple as you guys think it is. To me, here in America, discussion of Privilege begins with the History of our Country. The truth of how America came to be. This is what they mean by Education Reform and "Rewriting History". It's getting to the truth. Privilege here is defined as the Colonial Mindset of "I claim this land, and all that lies within in the name of (insert King/Queen/Nobility)" They saw us as uncivilized and in turn regarded and considered us the same level as Cattle. While, they did have Cattle, and Horses to do some labor work, they instead opted to use the Native people to do the labor of the Cattle and Horses. Later on, when Native Populations Dwindled and the demand for labor grew, they Sent the Supply of African Slaves on over, thus bringing the African here to the American Continents.



I am giving you my perspective, as a Native man, and offering the Black perspectives, even if they are extreme they are still a perspective, I recognize we have extremists within the Native people as well.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on November 10, 2020, 09:05:53 PM
The Least that could be done, we need to Redraw the maps of America to reflect the many Sovereign Native Nations and their Territories/Reservation Boundaries. People need to know that Once you are on Tribal Reservations, you are bound to those Tribal Laws, and those are different depending on the Tribe.

Sounds reasonable. I have thoughts on this I need to formulate better, and it might be more appropriate for your thread on Natives.

I am telling you, The issue of Racism and Privilege isn't as simple as you guys think it is. To me, here in America, discussion of Privilege begins with the History of our Country. The truth of how America came to be. This is what they mean by Education Reform and "Rewriting History". It's getting to the truth. Privilege here is defined as the Colonial Mindset of "I claim this land, and all that lies within in the name of (insert King/Queen/Nobility)"

My comment was a bit in jest, but I am not trying to convey a feeling of this all being "simple." It has been decades since I've been in school, but I know we learned a lot about the history of the US, including all the bad stuff. If that isn't being taught now, or in some areas of the country, that is a shame. My school district has referenced this site from a link you posted (https://native-land.ca/) on more than one occasion.

At the same time, while I may be privileged by being a white male and I can recognize and acknowledge the evils of history, I do not want my existence to be characterized by the "colonial mindset" of centuries past, or by the sins of my ancestors.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 10, 2020, 11:46:27 PM
Sounds reasonable. I have thoughts on this I need to formulate better, and it might be more appropriate for your thread on Natives.

I look foward to reading it. I don't expect quick responses to my posts really, on the threads I made. I want formative thoughts, those will help me better understand the perspective of what is called "The Other."


My comment was a bit in jest, but I am not trying to convey a feeling of this all being "simple." It has been decades since I've been in school, but I know we learned a lot about the history of the US, including all the bad stuff. If that isn't being taught now, or in some areas of the country, that is a shame. My school district has referenced this site from a link you posted (https://native-land.ca/) on more than one occasion.

At the same time, while I may be privileged by being a white male and I can recognize and acknowledge the evils of history, I do not want my existence to be characterized by the "colonial mindset" of centuries past, or by the sins of my ancestors.

Of course not. You may not be of that, and am grateful there are many that are not. It's more the Corporations, the businesses that are doing things we find detrimental to the Earth. We see ourselves as Protectors of the Earth, and see the damage to the Earth these Businesses have caused/are causing.

One way that I know darn well would help is Legalizing Hemp, doesn't have to be Cannabis, but the Hemp can be used for a lot of things these Corporations deplete the Natural Resources we are running out of, and need for other Natural Things, for example Trees give us Oxygen to Breathe, It's a big concern about the Amazon, and why we need to prevent the Corporations from developing there, and also the Grazing of Cattle from Farmlands also helped in the depletion of the Forest Trees. Earths Lungs.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on November 11, 2020, 10:23:27 AM
This isn't about corporations.  They are a tool, a mechanism.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 11, 2020, 07:25:02 PM
This isn't about corporations.  They are a tool, a mechanism.

It is, when they are doing things that are detrimental to all life on Earth. They deem they have the Privilege to deplete the Natural Resources, regardless of who is living on that land, or whether it'll destroy the habitats of many other life forms. It messes with the Ecosystem, and it affects everything that surrounds it. It  trickles down like water soaking in a dry towel.

It's the same concept of Why the Europeans declared their Privilege to Slave People they saw as "Uncivilized". In other words, Not abiding by the way they Identify in Thought, and Way of Worship. People were considered "Uncivilized" if they didn't convert to the Catholic/Christian Philosophy, and were treated on the same level as their Domesticated Animals they used for Labor jobs, like Plowing Fields.

Who granted them the Privilege to claim and ownership?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on November 12, 2020, 07:27:54 AM
This isn't about corporations.  They are a tool, a mechanism.

It is, when they are doing things that are detrimental to all life on Earth. They deem they have the Privilege to deplete the Natural Resources, regardless of who is living on that land, or whether it'll destroy the habitats of many other life forms. It messes with the Ecosystem, and it affects everything that surrounds it. It  trickles down like water soaking in a dry towel.

It's the same concept of Why the Europeans declared their Privilege to Slave People they saw as "Uncivilized". In other words, Not abiding by the way they Identify in Thought, and Way of Worship. People were considered "Uncivilized" if they didn't convert to the Catholic/Christian Philosophy, and were treated on the same level as their Domesticated Animals they used for Labor jobs, like Plowing Fields.

Who granted them the Privilege to claim and ownership?

I think we're talking past each other here; I'm not suggesting that there's not a lack of respect - generally - for mother earth.  I'm saying that the corporations themselves aren't sentient.  They aren't an entity that is making decisions.  The people IN the company, making decisions based on metrics that don't encourage preservation, conservation and stewardship, are the issue.  The same people that make decisions at their job that harm the environment are the same people that take their kids to McDonald's on the weekend and dump their trash out the window on the ride home.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 12, 2020, 09:08:26 AM
This isn't about corporations.  They are a tool, a mechanism.

It is, when they are doing things that are detrimental to all life on Earth. They deem they have the Privilege to deplete the Natural Resources, regardless of who is living on that land, or whether it'll destroy the habitats of many other life forms. It messes with the Ecosystem, and it affects everything that surrounds it. It  trickles down like water soaking in a dry towel.

It's the same concept of Why the Europeans declared their Privilege to Slave People they saw as "Uncivilized". In other words, Not abiding by the way they Identify in Thought, and Way of Worship. People were considered "Uncivilized" if they didn't convert to the Catholic/Christian Philosophy, and were treated on the same level as their Domesticated Animals they used for Labor jobs, like Plowing Fields.

Who granted them the Privilege to claim and ownership?

I think we're talking past each other here; I'm not suggesting that there's not a lack of respect - generally - for mother earth.  I'm saying that the corporations themselves aren't sentient.  They aren't an entity that is making decisions.  The people IN the company, making decisions based on metrics that don't encourage preservation, conservation and stewardship, are the issue.  The same people that make decisions at their job that harm the environment are the same people that take their kids to McDonald's on the weekend and dump their trash out the window on the ride home.

Well yeah. But they still represent the corporation. As the Corporation is the machine and those people are the Power Rangers running the Megazord.

In the same way, when you work for a company, you represent the company and are forced not to do things as it will Tarnish the company image, like having a Facebook.

So the CEOs, Zordons, should be telling the Power Rangers, "Why are you destroying Angel Grove and helping Rita."
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Adami on November 12, 2020, 09:16:58 AM
This isn't about corporations.  They are a tool, a mechanism.

It is, when they are doing things that are detrimental to all life on Earth. They deem they have the Privilege to deplete the Natural Resources, regardless of who is living on that land, or whether it'll destroy the habitats of many other life forms. It messes with the Ecosystem, and it affects everything that surrounds it. It  trickles down like water soaking in a dry towel.

It's the same concept of Why the Europeans declared their Privilege to Slave People they saw as "Uncivilized". In other words, Not abiding by the way they Identify in Thought, and Way of Worship. People were considered "Uncivilized" if they didn't convert to the Catholic/Christian Philosophy, and were treated on the same level as their Domesticated Animals they used for Labor jobs, like Plowing Fields.

Who granted them the Privilege to claim and ownership?

I think we're talking past each other here; I'm not suggesting that there's not a lack of respect - generally - for mother earth.  I'm saying that the corporations themselves aren't sentient.  They aren't an entity that is making decisions.  The people IN the company, making decisions based on metrics that don't encourage preservation, conservation and stewardship, are the issue.  The same people that make decisions at their job that harm the environment are the same people that take their kids to McDonald's on the weekend and dump their trash out the window on the ride home.

Well yeah. But they still represent the corporation. As the Corporation is the machine and those people are the Power Rangers running the Megazord.

In the same way, when you work for a company, you represent the company and are forced not to do things as it will Tarnish the company image, like having a Facebook.

So the CEOs, Zordons, should be telling the Power Rangers, "Why are you destroying Angel Grove and helping Rita."

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fb/4e/10/fb4e1004bd9bbc1f8a1211847b4b1d53.jpg)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 20, 2020, 08:07:13 AM
Here's some Archived FBI files on The Creativity Movement. A Neo-Nazi, white supremacist group and religion.

https://archive.org/details/TheCreativityMovement/1363684-0_-_Section_5

Racism won't be abolished in our lifetime. It's our childrens, and thier children who will Abolish it.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 20, 2020, 09:54:59 AM
Countering The Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys (1987) | Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qgw0r29GYw)

This one is really informative. (It's entirely opposite of those extremist vids that I posted before)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 19, 2021, 07:26:55 PM
Wasn't quite sure where to put this, from Ta-Nehsi Coates on The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/ta-nehisi-coates-revisits-trump-first-white-president/617731/?utm_term=2021-01-19T23%3A11%3A30&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=twitter

Quote
It was popular, at the time of Donald Trump’s ascension, to stand on the thinnest of reeds in order to avoid stating the obvious. It was said that the Trump presidency was the fruit of “economic anxiety,” of trigger warnings and the push for trans rights. We were told that it was wrong to call Trump a white supremacist, because he had merely “drawn upon their themes.”

Oh it's still popular with some people

Quote
One hopes that after four years of brown children in cages; of attempts to invalidate the will of Black voters in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit; of hearing Trump tell congresswomen of color to go back where they came from; of claims that Joe Biden would turn Minnesota into “a refugee camp”; of his constant invocations of “the Chinese virus,” we can now safely conclude that Trump believes in a world where white people are—or should be—on top. It is still deeply challenging for so many people to accept the reality of what has happened—that a country has been captured by the worst of its history, while millions of Americans cheered this on.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 19, 2021, 08:24:33 PM
Wasn't quite sure where to put this, from Ta-Nehsi Coates on The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/ta-nehisi-coates-revisits-trump-first-white-president/617731/?utm_term=2021-01-19T23%3A11%3A30&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=twitter

Quote
It was popular, at the time of Donald Trump’s ascension, to stand on the thinnest of reeds in order to avoid stating the obvious. It was said that the Trump presidency was the fruit of “economic anxiety,” of trigger warnings and the push for trans rights. We were told that it was wrong to call Trump a white supremacist, because he had merely “drawn upon their themes.”

Oh it's still popular with some people

Quote
One hopes that after four years of brown children in cages; of attempts to invalidate the will of Black voters in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit; of hearing Trump tell congresswomen of color to go back where they came from; of claims that Joe Biden would turn Minnesota into “a refugee camp”; of his constant invocations of “the Chinese virus,” we can now safely conclude that Trump believes in a world where white people are—or should be—on top. It is still deeply challenging for so many people to accept the reality of what has happened—that a country has been captured by the worst of its history, while millions of Americans cheered this on.


Oh, believe me, that is not just Donald Trump that believes this, and as a matter in fact, there are people that are much worse than Trump, and I would not want those people in office at all, good thing they're not that power hungry to want to run, yet. It's basically what I call the "European Mindset of Colonialism" where they self-proclaimed themselves as the knower of all things, and the one that holds all truths, and that their way is the right and only way, therefore everyone shall assimilate to my way of thinking and living.

There are people that still hold this belief. And any race is capable of having this Mindset of dominance, "My way is the right way, and all other ways are wrong."

I quite like the way they cleverly worded that sentence though...."Trump believes in a world where white people ARE-Or should be-on top"

Like how they're saying he believes White People are on top, and that is a true statement. But then they slyly add in the "Or should" which now makes it that he believes white people should be on top, as if they are not, making him about White Power. I would've worded it..."Trump believes in a world where white people are, and should remain, on top."


These kinds of articles I really look at the words and how they use these words in the sentence, and also the sentence structure like the one I quoted. But my god, that is some intense wording and sentence structure. I applaud for that effort.


Quote
But more telling, Trump is also the first president to have publicly affirmed that his daughter is a “piece of ass.” The mind seizes trying to imagine a black man extolling the virtues of sexual assault on tape (“When you’re a star, they let you do it”), fending off multiple accusations of such assaults, immersed in multiple lawsuits for allegedly fraudulent business dealings, exhorting his followers to violence, and then strolling into the White House.

I sure hope he also addresses how Popular Black Music Artists are dominated by this very sexualization, and are popular and seen as idols among the minority communities. And also that minorities are very dependent on that very government that is ruled by White Supremacy.




 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2021, 07:28:43 AM
Wasn't quite sure where to put this, from Ta-Nehsi Coates on The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/ta-nehisi-coates-revisits-trump-first-white-president/617731/?utm_term=2021-01-19T23%3A11%3A30&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=twitter

Quote
It was popular, at the time of Donald Trump’s ascension, to stand on the thinnest of reeds in order to avoid stating the obvious. It was said that the Trump presidency was the fruit of “economic anxiety,” of trigger warnings and the push for trans rights. We were told that it was wrong to call Trump a white supremacist, because he had merely “drawn upon their themes.”

Oh it's still popular with some people

Quote
One hopes that after four years of brown children in cages; of attempts to invalidate the will of Black voters in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit; of hearing Trump tell congresswomen of color to go back where they came from; of claims that Joe Biden would turn Minnesota into “a refugee camp”; of his constant invocations of “the Chinese virus,” we can now safely conclude that Trump believes in a world where white people are—or should be—on top. It is still deeply challenging for so many people to accept the reality of what has happened—that a country has been captured by the worst of its history, while millions of Americans cheered this on.

And neither side is 100% right on this point; I have made that former argument in the past (and still think there is truth there).  But that doesn't serve the narrative.    And given that there were far more communities of color that he DIDN'T go after than he did, reason says he didn't invalidate the votes in Atlanta, Philadelphia and Detroit because they were black voters, he invalidated them because they weren't for HIM. Because they denied him is primary objective. He doesn't (necessarily; I'm not in his head) invoke "Chinese virus" because "whites are better", he does it because it allows him to pass blame.   If that virus came from Canada, he'd be calling it that "Canad virus", and you know that.    Not saying there is NOTHING that can't be interpreted through the lens of race, but as a general proposition, "to a hammer, everything is a nail".  It's a variation on Occam's Razor; those are not unreasonable arguments, but there are far more basic, more plausible explanations than this complicated over-arching viewpoint on "race" from a guy that has shown absolutely zero evidence of "over-arching" ANYTHING other than himself.


And of course, it should go without saying, but it unfortunately cannot:  just because you DID cheer doesn't mean you're complicit in any aspects that were race-related.   I've been extremely critical of China over the past 8 to 10 years, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with skin color or race; it DOES have to do with the fact that I was part of a joint venture with them about 10 years ago and they literally stole all our intellectual property without even blinking an eye; it DOES have to do with they have no interest in being a trading partner, or a co-leader in geopolitical issues facing our globe; it DOES have to do with them having zero interest in participating fairly in global initiatives like climate change.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on January 22, 2021, 06:27:40 PM
Not sure if this goes here, but has been gnawing at me for a while.

So the past few years around this time, the sports world laments the lack of minorities hired for HC/OC jobs in the NFL, claiming a very low level of representation. This is followed up by calls that "we must do something about this." And where I am stuck is what we are to do about it. If NFL owner Reginald Oil Mangate IV wants to hire his golfing partner and personal masseur Frederick Frat Brother Farthington as his HC, who has less experience than other more qualified minority candidates, what are we to do about it? What should we do about it?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: TAC on January 22, 2021, 06:59:19 PM
NFL owner Reginald Oil Mangate IV

 :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 22, 2021, 08:37:40 PM
Not sure if this goes here, but has been gnawing at me for a while.

So the past few years around this time, the sports world laments the lack of minorities hired for HC/OC jobs in the NFL, claiming a very low level of representation. This is followed up by calls that "we must do something about this." And where I am stuck is what we are to do about it. If NFL owner Reginald Oil Mangate IV wants to hire his golfing partner and personal masseur Frederick Frat Brother Farthington as his HC, who has less experience than other more qualified minority candidates, what are we to do about it? What should we do about it?

Shouldn't that be exactly what can be done about it. Rather then getting riled up at the NFL itself, why don't they start lambasting the owners for not hiring minorities, and their friends instead.

But then, they own that team, and they can say, you know what screw it, it's done. And no more football team, unless someone buys it from the owner.

I don't see why a minority entrepreneur, can't start up a football team of their own. Why don't these minority celebrities donate or help fund that minority entrepreneur and help them get a minority owned football team started. What is stopping them from doing that?

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Cool Chris on January 22, 2021, 09:29:02 PM
Shouldn't that be exactly what can be done about it. Rather then getting riled up at the NFL itself, why don't they start lambasting the owners for not hiring minorities, and their friends instead.

They do. Billionaires don't generally get too bothered when people on sports talk radio lambast them. It doesn't always fall on the owners though. Some are more involved than others in football decisions and operations. Many times the buck stops at the GM; they are the ones doing the hiring, the owner is just signing the checks.

But then, they own that team, and they can say, you know what screw it, it's done. And no more football team, unless someone buys it from the owner.

I don't see why a minority entrepreneur, can't start up a football team of their own. Why don't these minority celebrities donate or help fund that minority entrepreneur and help them get a minority owned football team started. What is stopping them from doing that?

The business of the NFL is way beyond my knowledge base, but I imagine 1) there isn't a mechanism for forcing an owner to sell, and 2) expansion is complex; you can't just create a new team because you want to.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on January 24, 2021, 05:19:26 PM
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty misguided. If the best candidate for the job is named La'Travius Juan-Carlos Zhao, Mr. Magnate IV, isn't going to think twice about hiring him. And if you're Deuce Staley, do yo want a job interview because somebody thinks you're qualified, or because the Rooney rule makes you a popular token interviewee? If you get the job, do you want it to be because you were who they really wanted, or because the league incentivized your hire?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2021, 08:09:48 AM
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty misguided. If the best candidate for the job is named La'Travius Juan-Carlos Zhao, Mr. Magnate IV, isn't going to think twice about hiring him. And if you're Deuce Staley, do yo want a job interview because somebody thinks you're qualified, or because the Rooney rule makes you a popular token interviewee? If you get the job, do you want it to be because you were who they really wanted, or because the league incentivized your hire?

That's exactly it, really. When you have that level of money involved - winning franchises are generally worth more than those that do not - it's not about color.  It's about the best chance to win.   

For me, I think this is a classic case of where the metrics don't tell you the full story on the ground, and are a construct to further a narrative.  The player population of the NFL is something like 65% African American, the Head Coach population is about 10%, and the OC/DC population is about 18% (general population is about 13.5%).   In the NFL you have career tracks like in any other industry.   Players come out of high school and/or college and they plot their career path.  An inordinate number of African American players get opportunities as players (about 50% of the NCAA is African American); it's not an unreasonable assumption that the white player that doesn't get the playing opportunity is going to stick with the sport in some capacity.   The skillset for playing is not the same as that for coaching; ask Ted Williams about that.  Or Bart Starr, or Wayne Gretsky.   

I think it's misguided to assume an optimal percentage for participation at any given point on the continuum.  The player has other things to consider besides the X's and O's of his position - his conditioning, his health, his diet, etc. - and perhaps doesn't have other things to consider at all - motivation of players in positions that are not his, recruiting and retaining players, overall team strategy.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 25, 2021, 08:57:05 AM
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty misguided. If the best candidate for the job is named La'Travius Juan-Carlos Zhao, Mr. Magnate IV, isn't going to think twice about hiring him. And if you're Deuce Staley, do yo want a job interview because somebody thinks you're qualified, or because the Rooney rule makes you a popular token interviewee? If you get the job, do you want it to be because you were who they really wanted, or because the league incentivized your hire?

That's exactly it, really. When you have that level of money involved - winning franchises are generally worth more than those that do not - it's not about color.  It's about the best chance to win.   

For me, I think this is a classic case of where the metrics don't tell you the full story on the ground, and are a construct to further a narrative.  The player population of the NFL is something like 65% African American, the Head Coach population is about 10%, and the OC/DC population is about 18% (general population is about 13.5%).   In the NFL you have career tracks like in any other industry.   Players come out of high school and/or college and they plot their career path.  An inordinate number of African American players get opportunities as players (about 50% of the NCAA is African American); it's not an unreasonable assumption that the white player that doesn't get the playing opportunity is going to stick with the sport in some capacity.   The skillset for playing is not the same as that for coaching; ask Ted Williams about that.  Or Bart Starr, or Wayne Gretsky.   

I think it's misguided to assume an optimal percentage for participation at any given point on the continuum.  The player has other things to consider besides the X's and O's of his position - his conditioning, his health, his diet, etc. - and perhaps doesn't have other things to consider at all - motivation of players in positions that are not his, recruiting and retaining players, overall team strategy.
I agree with all of that, at least in theory.

What the Rooney Rule is for to make sure that some minority candidates at least get interviewed, which is the huge sticking point.  If they can get in the door, they have a chance to show the owner/GM what they can do.  If they don't get the job, they don't get the job, but at least they had their shot.  That almost never happened before the Rooney Rule.

And to Barto's point about "the best person for the job", I'm not really sure what that means anymore.  What I see often is a white guy gets a head coaching job, is there for a couple of years (maybe one pretty good season, then 2 or 3 mediocre-at-best seasons), he gets canned, and then he's a candidate for another head coaching job, even though he's already demonstrated that he's not a great head coach.  This happens over and over again, instead of giving new candidates a chance (white, black, green, whatever).  It's like a good ole boys network of mediocre coaches that switch jobs every 4 or 5 years, often with a year between jobs to do a TV gig.  Owners don't often look like they care about "the best person for the job", especially if what they mean is a winner.

*shrugs*
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 25, 2021, 09:24:27 AM
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty misguided. If the best candidate for the job is named La'Travius Juan-Carlos Zhao, Mr. Magnate IV, isn't going to think twice about hiring him. And if you're Deuce Staley, do yo want a job interview because somebody thinks you're qualified, or because the Rooney rule makes you a popular token interviewee? If you get the job, do you want it to be because you were who they really wanted, or because the league incentivized your hire?

That's exactly it, really. When you have that level of money involved - winning franchises are generally worth more than those that do not - it's not about color.  It's about the best chance to win.   

For me, I think this is a classic case of where the metrics don't tell you the full story on the ground, and are a construct to further a narrative.  The player population of the NFL is something like 65% African American, the Head Coach population is about 10%, and the OC/DC population is about 18% (general population is about 13.5%).   In the NFL you have career tracks like in any other industry.   Players come out of high school and/or college and they plot their career path.  An inordinate number of African American players get opportunities as players (about 50% of the NCAA is African American); it's not an unreasonable assumption that the white player that doesn't get the playing opportunity is going to stick with the sport in some capacity.   The skillset for playing is not the same as that for coaching; ask Ted Williams about that.  Or Bart Starr, or Wayne Gretsky.   

I think it's misguided to assume an optimal percentage for participation at any given point on the continuum.  The player has other things to consider besides the X's and O's of his position - his conditioning, his health, his diet, etc. - and perhaps doesn't have other things to consider at all - motivation of players in positions that are not his, recruiting and retaining players, overall team strategy.
I agree with all of that, at least in theory.

What the Rooney Rule is for to make sure that some minority candidates at least get interviewed, which is the huge sticking point.  If they can get in the door, they have a chance to show the owner/GM what they can do.  If they don't get the job, they don't get the job, but at least they had their shot.  That almost never happened before the Rooney Rule.

And to Barto's point about "the best person for the job", I'm not really sure what that means anymore.  What I see often is a white guy gets a head coaching job, is there for a couple of years (maybe one pretty good season, then 2 or 3 mediocre-at-best seasons), he gets canned, and then he's a candidate for another head coaching job, even though he's already demonstrated that he's not a great head coach.  This happens over and over again, instead of giving new candidates a chance (white, black, green, whatever).  It's like a good ole boys network of mediocre coaches that switch jobs every 4 or 5 years, often with a year between jobs to do a TV gig.  Owners don't often look like they care about "the best person for the job", especially if what they mean is a winner.

*shrugs*

Reminds of the cops that get fired from one precinct and then get hired again in another precinct. They already demonstrated they're not good cops, yet they keep getting hired in other positions.

In other words, that's the way the system works.

OMG...Are they subtly saying Reform the NFL... :lol :lol
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2021, 09:58:44 AM
Honestly, the whole thing is pretty misguided. If the best candidate for the job is named La'Travius Juan-Carlos Zhao, Mr. Magnate IV, isn't going to think twice about hiring him. And if you're Deuce Staley, do yo want a job interview because somebody thinks you're qualified, or because the Rooney rule makes you a popular token interviewee? If you get the job, do you want it to be because you were who they really wanted, or because the league incentivized your hire?

That's exactly it, really. When you have that level of money involved - winning franchises are generally worth more than those that do not - it's not about color.  It's about the best chance to win.   

For me, I think this is a classic case of where the metrics don't tell you the full story on the ground, and are a construct to further a narrative.  The player population of the NFL is something like 65% African American, the Head Coach population is about 10%, and the OC/DC population is about 18% (general population is about 13.5%).   In the NFL you have career tracks like in any other industry.   Players come out of high school and/or college and they plot their career path.  An inordinate number of African American players get opportunities as players (about 50% of the NCAA is African American); it's not an unreasonable assumption that the white player that doesn't get the playing opportunity is going to stick with the sport in some capacity.   The skillset for playing is not the same as that for coaching; ask Ted Williams about that.  Or Bart Starr, or Wayne Gretsky.   

I think it's misguided to assume an optimal percentage for participation at any given point on the continuum.  The player has other things to consider besides the X's and O's of his position - his conditioning, his health, his diet, etc. - and perhaps doesn't have other things to consider at all - motivation of players in positions that are not his, recruiting and retaining players, overall team strategy.
I agree with all of that, at least in theory.

What the Rooney Rule is for to make sure that some minority candidates at least get interviewed, which is the huge sticking point.  If they can get in the door, they have a chance to show the owner/GM what they can do.  If they don't get the job, they don't get the job, but at least they had their shot.  That almost never happened before the Rooney Rule.

And to Barto's point about "the best person for the job", I'm not really sure what that means anymore.  What I see often is a white guy gets a head coaching job, is there for a couple of years (maybe one pretty good season, then 2 or 3 mediocre-at-best seasons), he gets canned, and then he's a candidate for another head coaching job, even though he's already demonstrated that he's not a great head coach.  This happens over and over again, instead of giving new candidates a chance (white, black, green, whatever).  It's like a good ole boys network of mediocre coaches that switch jobs every 4 or 5 years, often with a year between jobs to do a TV gig.  Owners don't often look like they care about "the best person for the job", especially if what they mean is a winner.

*shrugs*
You got a couple of problems there, Hef. For one, in nearly all of these cases these coaches go back to being coordinators or position coaches for a while, increasing their rep quite a bit. Anthony Lynn is now Detroit's OC, and if he succeeds there he'll get another chance. And he's indicative of your greater problem. This same thing happens to black coaches the same as it does white coaches. Jim Caldwell. Romeo Crennell. Lovie Smith. Herm Edwards. They all got second chances despite not being particularly successful, and I'm sure there are other examples that I can't easily find.

(Finding this list of former black coaches was difficult, and stops at 2010, because the only thing Google will show you are articles about how racist the NFL is because 70% of the coaches aren't black.)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 25, 2021, 02:29:08 PM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2021, 03:55:00 PM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 26, 2021, 08:35:45 AM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2021, 08:43:45 AM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.
Perhaps he is. Where I run into a problem is when people automatically assume racist intent. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there's an awful lot of it going around.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 26, 2021, 09:29:36 AM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.
Perhaps he is. Where I run into a problem is when people automatically assume racist intent. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there's an awful lot of it going around.

Yes it is, and being in the minority of minorities, I see it. It's hard to distinguish between Real racial intent, and someone playing the race victim card. And then, those of us that do tell those people, that's not racist at all, it's just you playing the race-victim, then they call me a traitor, I'm like, well you're not helping solve this issue, you're part of the problem.

But, if all of those guys on the top are white (GMs', Owners), why won't they start their own League, that is owned by Minorities. Guarantee, it'll make the league crumble, as the NFL will see their athletes and potential athletes move to the other League. It's possible to do, as there are Wealthy Black People (especially those celebs).

I personally think, that's a better way to fight Racial Injustice.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2021, 12:18:45 PM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.

It's not at all, though.   I took entire classes during my MBA examining companies that withered and died on the vine, limiting themselves and their development by not moving too far from center.  There's a fantastic Harvard Business Review article on BMW from about 2000 on that exact topic (they having largely done it right, balancing innovation with consistency and tradition).   When you have billions at stake, it's hard to be bold, and there's not a lot of risk taking in the NFL when it comes to coaches.  Why take a chance on "New Guy", black OR white, when you've got Adam Gase, who, sure, failed, but [ratioanlization], and [rationalization], and of course there is [rationalization].


I refuse to call a GM or owner racist because given a choice between a coach who is white and a coach who is black, they opt to hire the guy who has previous coaching experience over the guy who doesn't.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2021, 12:52:40 PM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.
Perhaps he is. Where I run into a problem is when people automatically assume racist intent. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there's an awful lot of it going around.

Yes it is, and being in the minority of minorities, I see it. It's hard to distinguish between Real racial intent, and someone playing the race victim card. And then, those of us that do tell those people, that's not racist at all, it's just you playing the race-victim, then they call me a traitor, I'm like, well you're not helping solve this issue, you're part of the problem.

But, if all of those guys on the top are white (GMs', Owners), why won't they start their own League, that is owned by Minorities. Guarantee, it'll make the league crumble, as the NFL will see their athletes and potential athletes move to the other League. It's possible to do, as there are Wealthy Black People (especially those celebs).

I personally think, that's a better way to fight Racial Injustice.

But what are we calling "racial injustice"?   Just because the percentage of non-white owners of the four major sports teams in the U.S. is less than that of the general population, doesn't necessarily mean "injustice".   One, most of these owners are long term; some of the ownership in NFL extends back half a century.  We can't FORCE teams to sell out.   And when they do come up for sale, who is doing the buying?  We can't FORCE people of color to buy in.   When the Charlotte Panthers went up for sale, P Diddy expressed interest, the league, including Robert Kraft, expressed interest in him... but ultimately he did not submit a bid.    Eight major league teams transferred ownership since 2010; three of the eight (37.5%) involved a transfer to some form of minority ownership (including the Royals, in whom Patrick Mahomes has an ownership interest).
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 26, 2021, 03:58:07 PM
I'm not as concerned with second chances.  Everyone (almost) deserves a second chance.  I'm talking about guys getting third, fourth, or fifth chances, who have proven nothing about their ability other than they don't have very much, while potentially deserving candidates (black or otherwise) just don't get a shot.

I think there are ABSOLUTELY people in that category, and I'm sure I'll think of one when I go cook dinner.  But I don't think that has anything to do with "race" per se, and more to do with lack of imagination.
It may not have anything to do with race, but all of these guys are white (Owners, GMs, and coaches).  I think you are being a little too generous by saying "lack of imagination".  Among 32 owners, most of whom are capitalists of the first order worth literally billions, that's a lot of imagination missing.
Perhaps he is. Where I run into a problem is when people automatically assume racist intent. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there's an awful lot of it going around.

Yes it is, and being in the minority of minorities, I see it. It's hard to distinguish between Real racial intent, and someone playing the race victim card. And then, those of us that do tell those people, that's not racist at all, it's just you playing the race-victim, then they call me a traitor, I'm like, well you're not helping solve this issue, you're part of the problem.

But, if all of those guys on the top are white (GMs', Owners), why won't they start their own League, that is owned by Minorities. Guarantee, it'll make the league crumble, as the NFL will see their athletes and potential athletes move to the other League. It's possible to do, as there are Wealthy Black People (especially those celebs).

I personally think, that's a better way to fight Racial Injustice.

But what are we calling "racial injustice"?   Just because the percentage of non-white owners of the four major sports teams in the U.S. is less than that of the general population, doesn't necessarily mean "injustice".   One, most of these owners are long term; some of the ownership in NFL extends back half a century.  We can't FORCE teams to sell out.   And when they do come up for sale, who is doing the buying?  We can't FORCE people of color to buy in.   When the Charlotte Panthers went up for sale, P Diddy expressed interest, the league, including Robert Kraft, expressed interest in him... but ultimately he did not submit a bid.    Eight major league teams transferred ownership since 2010; three of the eight (37.5%) involved a transfer to some form of minority ownership (including the Royals, in whom Patrick Mahomes has an ownership interest).

That's what I am asking as well. I agree with you here.

I wish those people that screaming at the NFL though would see what you posted. About P Diddy having interest, but not submitting a bid. Could be negotiations, and other things, to why Diddy didn't submit.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 06:13:09 AM
Frustrated at where we've evolved to. 

There are a couple posts in the COVID thread (non-PR version) where we're laughing/mocking/shaking our heads at people who just aren't listening to FACTS, and are drawing their own conclusions regardless, based on their feelings and/or their agenda.

So, here in CT, the recent attacks in Georgia have been getting a lot of airtime, to the point that my local station had to do a special fact-check session (they call it "We Verify!") about the events (https://www.fox61.com/article/news/verify/verify-fake-robert-long-facebook-post/85-f343e743-d75e-411c-9eb1-6055187f2d5b).

So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).  Then he said that they would be doing more investigation, since "it was too early in the investigation to draw any conclusions".   The next segment was my Attorney General - William Tong - responding generally to attacks on Asian-Americans, but very clearly and very specifically stating that the attacks in Georgia were racially motivated.  He appeared on CNN as well, making a similar case.

Now, look, this isn't about the subject matter; hate crimes in 2020 were down overall by about 7%, but against the Asian-American community they were up almost 150% (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264) (many suggest this is a result of misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID virus). That's got to end, and we must address that disparity. It's just ignorance. But why the fast and loose with the facts? Why does the fact that some agree this is a worthy cause justify the glossing over of fundamentals of truth to make the point?

If "moral certainty" about our cause is enough to trump truth (and I use that word very specifically), where does it end?  Why does truth even matter at that point?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on March 19, 2021, 06:29:25 AM
Frustrated at where we've evolved to. 

There are a couple posts in the COVID thread (non-PR version) where we're laughing/mocking/shaking our heads at people who just aren't listening to FACTS, and are drawing their own conclusions regardless, based on their feelings and/or their agenda.

So, here in CT, the recent attacks in Georgia have been getting a lot of airtime, to the point that my local station had to do a special fact-check session (they call it "We Verify!") about the events (https://www.fox61.com/article/news/verify/verify-fake-robert-long-facebook-post/85-f343e743-d75e-411c-9eb1-6055187f2d5b).

So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).  Then he said that they would be doing more investigation, since "it was too early in the investigation to draw any conclusions".   The next segment was my Attorney General - William Tong - responding generally to attacks on Asian-Americans, but very clearly and very specifically stating that the attacks in Georgia were racially motivated.  He appeared on CNN as well, making a similar case.

Now, look, this isn't about the subject matter; hate crimes in 2020 were down overall by about 7%, but against the Asian-American community they were up almost 150% (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264) (many suggest this is a result of misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID virus). That's got to end, and we must address that disparity. It's just ignorance. But why the fast and loose with the facts? Why does the fact that some agree this is a worthy cause justify the glossing over of fundamentals of truth to make the point?

If "moral certainty" about our cause is enough to trump truth (and I use that word very specifically), where does it end?  Why does truth even matter at that point?

This one is a shit show for sure. There's a lot of little things for a whole bunch of different groups to be pissed at.

As you said, hate crimes against Asians are up 150% in the last year. Regardless of the shooter's motivation, six Asian women were murdered. They not being presented as people that were just mowed down, but rather sex objects that this dude struggled to cope with mentally. Even when they're getting shot and killed, they're some how being negged by the media, even if it's not intentional. 

The police chief really fucked this one up too. The shooter was "having a bad day"... c'mon. We all have bad days. The chief also had a history of anti-Asian posts on Facebook, so you can't help but wonder if he's trying to cover for the kid somehow.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/17/us/shooting-atlanta-acworth
“He was pretty much fed up and had been kind of at the end of his rope,” Captain Baker said. “Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.”

The comments were widely panned on social media, with critics characterizing them as callous and pointing to Facebook posts from March 30 and April 2 of last year by Captain Baker, in which he promoted sales of an anti-Asian T-shirt. The shirts, echoing the rhetoric of President Donald J. Trump, referred to the coronavirus as an “imported virus from Chy-na.”

“Place your order while they last,” Captain Baker wrote at the time in one of the posts. He did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday and Thursday.


I'm not ready to declare this shooter as being racially motivated yet, but I'm not sold on the whole sex-addiction/bad day thing either. It's probably a combination of the two.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 19, 2021, 06:29:52 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on March 19, 2021, 06:44:51 AM
So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).

Mass murderers, are of course, noted for their reliability and truthfulness.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: chknptpie on March 19, 2021, 07:06:13 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.

x1000 The shooter specifically sought out Asian sex workers. Just because the shooter says it isn't racially motivated doesn't make it so. That police chief also has some anti-asian racist shit on his social media.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 07:07:40 AM
So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).

Mass murderers, are of course, noted for their reliability and truthfulness.

So it's whatever we want it to be, regardless of what they say?  Why does that only seem to apply when the agenda suits it?  And that also means the police and prosecutors in Atlanta are in on it too.   I'm not actually taking HIS word for it, I'm taking the word of the people charged with investigating this.  It's kind of in their best interest too, to make this something more than it is, and yet they aren't.   

I'm just tired of being lectured by certain factions that "words matter" and that we have to "watch what we say", then when it's no longer convenient to do so, "who the f--- cares!".   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 19, 2021, 07:34:43 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.

x1000 The shooter specifically sought out Asian sex workers. Just because the shooter says it isn't racially motivated doesn't make it so. That police chief also has some anti-asian racist shit on his social media.
Now, wait.  He definitely deliberately sought out massage parlors featuring sex workers.  But just because most (not all!) of the sex workers there were Asian doesn't mean that he did it for racist reasons.  Correlation =/= causation.  After all, he killed the non-Asians, too.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 07:40:48 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.

x1000 The shooter specifically sought out Asian sex workers. Just because the shooter says it isn't racially motivated doesn't make it so. That police chief also has some anti-asian racist shit on his social media.
Now, wait.  He definitely deliberately sought out massage parlors featuring sex workers.  But just because most (not all!) of the sex workers there were Asian doesn't mean that he did it for racist reasons.  Correlation =/= causation.  After all, he killed the non-Asians, too.



Totally personal perspective... He felt shame and fear that these Asian women (he was a frequent customer of these places) had such power and control over him, so in his fucked up mind he had to eliminate and reassert his dominance. It was specifically the Asian women, and there accessibility, that aroused him and made him feel shame. The other people shot were just wrong place, wrong time.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on March 19, 2021, 07:41:52 AM
So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).

Mass murderers, are of course, noted for their reliability and truthfulness.

So it's whatever we want it to be, regardless of what they say?

No. Just suggesting that a man who is willing to murder 6 Asian people and 2 other persons in cold blood might also be willing to lie about why he did it. Out of the two crimes, lying is probably a bit easier to justify to yourself. Conversely, despite Asian Americans being a distinct minority in the US population, made up 75% of his victims, might at least point in the direction of their being a racial component.

Quote
And that also means the police and prosecutors in Atlanta are in on it too.   I'm not actually taking HIS word for it, I'm taking the word of the people charged with investigating this.  It's kind of in their best interest too, to make this something more than it is, and yet they aren't.   

No, you're taking the word of a police spokesperson who has demonstrable anti-Asian bias.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 07:42:28 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.

x1000 The shooter specifically sought out Asian sex workers. Just because the shooter says it isn't racially motivated doesn't make it so. That police chief also has some anti-asian racist shit on his social media.

And just saying it is, doesn't make it so.   That's exactly the point of my posting this.  I have no idea what his motivation was or was not; that a majority of victims are of a certain demographic doesn't make that demographic the target without some corroboration.  I have an adult club about five miles from my house; I'm not a patron, but I know someone who is, and he's thrilled by the fact that most of the women there have a Russian/Eastern European accent; if a dancer stiffs him on the lap dance, or shuts down his asking her on a date, and he shoots the place up, is that de facto a hate crime against women from behind the Iron Curtain?   If it turns out this is in fact a crime against Asian Americans, then prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law based on that fact.  But in the meantime, I think it destroys credibility to make grand pronouncements without basis, and in fact, in contradiction to what little we know.

(Personally, I think it's just as likely that this was a crime against women, frankly, but I'm in no better position to judge than anyone else.  From what I've pieced together, the club he shot up was not necesarily known for illicit sexual acts (https://www.kcra.com/article/stigmas-on-race-gender-and-sex-overlap-in-atlanta-massage-parlor-slayings/35879182).)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 19, 2021, 07:45:53 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 07:49:21 AM
So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).

Mass murderers, are of course, noted for their reliability and truthfulness.

So it's whatever we want it to be, regardless of what they say?

No. Just suggesting that a man who is willing to murder 6 Asian people and 2 other persons in cold blood might also be willing to lie about why he did it. Out of the two crimes, lying is probably a bit easier to justify to yourself. Conversely, despite Asian Americans being a distinct minority in the US population, made up 75% of his victims, might at least point in the direction of their being a racial component.

You're SUGGESTING he MIGHT.  Fair enough.   No argument.

That's very different than point-blank statements on intent like are being made here.  And I've already noted the percentage doesn't matter in a sample size that small.

And actually, I'm not even all that worried about individuals here; look, it's all the usual suspects finding a way to make everything about identity politics no matter what happens and facts be damned.   But we're talking about the media now, and elected officials who we choose to represent ALL of us, not just those of a certain demographic.  Let's not lose sight of the fact that the HIGHEST prosecutor in my state, the Attorney General, has unilaterally decided to forego any due process and determine his guilt and his motivation without a trial or without representation.

Quote
Quote
And that also means the police and prosecutors in Atlanta are in on it too.   I'm not actually taking HIS word for it, I'm taking the word of the people charged with investigating this.  It's kind of in their best interest too, to make this something more than it is, and yet they aren't.   

No, you're taking the word of a police spokesperson who has demonstrable anti-Asian bias.

Well, I know what I said and wrote, but the reality is, I'm not taking ANYONE'S word. It'd be more accurate to say I'm just not dismissing out of hand any word because of my personal bias or viewpoint. There is a difference.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 07:51:05 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

So you've found two opinion pieces that jive with your opinion.  OKay. That settles it, then.

The second one, while a moving story that ought to be read by all, doesn't even bother to assert that it's an opinion, the author just takes it as a fait accompli that we all know what the deal is, and extrapolates it out to a number of unrelated - albeit heartbreaking - incidents and events. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 19, 2021, 07:52:07 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

So you've found two opinion pieces that jive with your opinion.  OKay. That settles it, then.

insensitive jerk, no surprise there.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 07:54:00 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

So you've found two opinion pieces that jive with your opinion.  OKay. That settles it, then.

insensitive jerk, no surprise there.

I'm asking hard questions and you're selectively quoting me and name-calling like an adolescent.  No surprise there, either.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 19, 2021, 07:58:34 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

So you've found two opinion pieces that jive with your opinion.  OKay. That settles it, then.

insensitive jerk, no surprise there.

I'm asking hard questions and you're selectively quoting me and name-calling like an adolescent.  No surprise there, either.

you want to derail this conversation like you do everytime, fine have at it.  You’re
  not gaslighting me ever again into thinking I’m the only one with a problem here,  plenty of people are sick of your shit and you know it. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on March 19, 2021, 08:01:40 AM
That's very different than point-blank statements on intent like are being made here.  And I've already noted the percentage doesn't matter in a sample size that small.

I don't buy that argument. Murder is not a stochastic process. The perpetrator had both agency to choose where and when he committed the crime, and the time and power to choose his victims. Therefore the small number of individuals he chose to murder is quite pertinent. Same way as 3 dead Double 0 agents might be an indicator you have a SMERSH problem.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on March 19, 2021, 08:02:56 AM
I’ve been reading and listening to the asian community, here’s a few examples

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1261339?__twitter_impression=true

So you've found two opinion pieces that jive with your opinion.  OKay. That settles it, then.

insensitive jerk, no surprise there.

I'm asking hard questions and you're selectively quoting me and name-calling like an adolescent.  No surprise there, either.

you want to derail this conversation like you do everytime, fine have at it.  You’re
  not gaslighting me ever again into thinking I’m the only one with a problem here,  plenty of people are sick of your shit and you know it. 

Xerocks, might I request you take a break before I force one upon you? This kind of name-calling is not on.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 08:13:33 AM
That's very different than point-blank statements on intent like are being made here.  And I've already noted the percentage doesn't matter in a sample size that small.

I don't buy that argument. Murder is not a stochastic process. The perpetrator had both agency to choose where and when he committed the crime, and the time and power to choose his victims. Therefore the small number of individuals he chose to murder is quite pertinent. Same way as 3 dead Double 0 agents might be an indicator you have a SMERSH problem.

Nice 007 reference (I just bought the Bond box set with all 124 movies).

Look, I hear you.

I'm against the taking of anyone's life without their consent, so this kid, if he confessed to this, is a piece of shit who should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  No question.

I'm also not saying this isn't a hate crime; it may well be.  In fact, I've already said, since "gender" is a part of "hate crime" I very much think it is.  BUT I DON'T KNOW, and I don't get to fill in someone else's "truth" with what I think.

I'm objecting to this now-widely accepted model of "Oh, well we ALL know what he's REALLY thinking!  <Wink wink, nod nod>".  It's no way to govern or police a democratic republic of 330 million people.  No, you DON'T know what I'm REALLY thinking, and don't pretend to (at best) or punish me for it (at worst).  I'm sorry if it's a distasteful example for some, but it is what it is.   (And there's no gaslighting: I know full well Xe isn't the only one with the problem; I can't help that and I'm not pandering to someone else's misconceptions or misreading of my words.)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jingle.boy on March 19, 2021, 08:31:42 AM
the attacks were racially motivated.

x1000 The shooter specifically sought out Asian sex workers. Just because the shooter says it isn't racially motivated doesn't make it so. That police chief also has some anti-asian racist shit on his social media.
Now, wait.  He definitely deliberately sought out massage parlors featuring sex workers.  But just because most (not all!) of the sex workers there were Asian doesn't mean that he did it for racist reasons.  Correlation =/= causation.  After all, he killed the non-Asians, too.

Totally personal perspective... He felt shame and fear that these Asian women (he was a frequent customer of these places) had such power and control over him, so in his fucked up mind he had to eliminate and reassert his dominance. It was specifically the Asian women, and there accessibility, that aroused him and made him feel shame. The other people shot were just wrong place, wrong time.

I haven't been following this other than what's been shown in the headlines and ticker scrolls.  But Hef's comment is pretty much exactly where I'm at.  Unless there are some specific facts that I've missed which supports RJs comments, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it being an open-and-shut fact that it was racially motivated - AT THIS TIME.  It could very well be, I just don't know that there is demonstrable evidence to fully support it.

If it comes out (for example) that he frequented MANY "spa's", and there are ones with non-Asian therapists that went unscathed, then I can see the argument for it being a racist crime.  This appears more likely to be mysogynistic than racist to me at the moment.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 08:35:02 AM
Stadler's batting a thousand this morning. I think his point here is bang-on. This kid was targeting whore-houses, both the working gals and the management/ownership. The fact that they're Asian doesn't really seem to be a component of this. Yet it's damn sure the one aspect that we want to fixate on because it's and indictment of the conservative xenophobic rhetoric we see all to much of. Not only that, we're assuming the credibility of the people involved based on what we want to believe.

And for what it's worth, as soon as I heard about this my first thought was A.J. Maggot from The Dirty Dozen. The idea that he was targeting Asians never really entered my head. He was targeting whores. My inititial assumption was based on religious fervor (Maggot), but now I think he might be a different sort of wacko. Killing people because they're an uncontrollable temptation spells nutjob to me, just as shooting a president to bang Jodie Foster or beating up Dan Rather to stop CBS from beaming RF signals into his noggin does.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 19, 2021, 08:49:12 AM
https://www.ncapaonline.org/ncapa-mourns-atlanta-shooting-statement/

https://apaics.org/media/press-releases/apaics-statement-on-atlanta-area-shootings/

https://councilka.org/press-release-3-17-2021/

https://culturallyrelevantshow.com/episodes/diary-the-murders-in-georgia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kh3FhYyao

https://stopaapihate.org/

https://www.advancingjustice-atlanta.org/donate

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 09:06:11 AM
The use of the term 'whores' in reference to these ladies really doesn't help the situation. There's a gross negative connotation to the term, as well as a dehumanizing and misogynistic effect. I'd imagine as the dipshit was shooting them, the term was running through his head as well.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 09:12:51 AM
The first and third show a stark contrast in the right and wrong way to make a statement. One is propaganda and one is a well crafted statement to show support and sympathy without rabble-rousing assumptions and generalizations.

Quote
“Given the appearance that these murders were racially-motivated, there are few words that can describe the grief many of us feel at this moment—grief that is matched only by the outrage of seeing the consequences of weaponized xenophobia. Make no mistake: this is as much a tragic culmination, as it is a foreseeable outcome of hate and misogyny left unchecked."

Quote
“Regardless of the motive, the effect of this shooting on our communities is clear. Our hearts go out to all those who are experiencing deep feelings of grief and anger.”

This horrific tragedy occurs in the context of an escalation of violence against the Asian American community and a year-long wave of anti-Asian hate and bias. We encourage members of the community to express and acknowledge the feelings and trauma they may be experiencing right now.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 09:16:42 AM
The use of the term 'whores' in reference to these ladies really doesn't help the situation. There's a gross negative connotation to the term, as well as a dehumanizing and misogynistic effect. I'd imagine as the dipshit was shooting them, the term was running through his head as well.
Which is why I used the term. When referring to his motivations I was using his (and Maggot's) point of view. Your point is well taken, though. I tend to assume that people just understand my style and how I write things.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 09:22:30 AM
The use of the term 'whores' in reference to these ladies really doesn't help the situation. There's a gross negative connotation to the term, as well as a dehumanizing and misogynistic effect. I'd imagine as the dipshit was shooting them, the term was running through his head as well.
Which is why I used the term. When referring to his motivations I was using his (and Maggot's) point of view. Your point is well taken, though. I tend to assume that people just understand my style and how I write things.

Gotcha, apologies for assuming the wrong context bud.


Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that when they finally interview the survivor (if they haven't already, not sure how seriously injured he was) , that this asshole didn't shout 'die Chinese whore' as he was blowing them away.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 09:58:31 AM
Frustrated at where we've evolved to. 

There are a couple posts in the COVID thread (non-PR version) where we're laughing/mocking/shaking our heads at people who just aren't listening to FACTS, and are drawing their own conclusions regardless, based on their feelings and/or their agenda.

So, here in CT, the recent attacks in Georgia have been getting a lot of airtime, to the point that my local station had to do a special fact-check session (they call it "We Verify!") about the events (https://www.fox61.com/article/news/verify/verify-fake-robert-long-facebook-post/85-f343e743-d75e-411c-9eb1-6055187f2d5b).

So they run through the FACTS, as we know them, and play a tape of the Atlanta Police representative (I don't know if he's the chief or not) saying that the suspect has been clear that race was NOT a motive, and that the suspect indicated he did it to deal with his sex addiction (the spas were, apparently, a temptation for him).  Then he said that they would be doing more investigation, since "it was too early in the investigation to draw any conclusions".   The next segment was my Attorney General - William Tong - responding generally to attacks on Asian-Americans, but very clearly and very specifically stating that the attacks in Georgia were racially motivated.  He appeared on CNN as well, making a similar case.

Now, look, this isn't about the subject matter; hate crimes in 2020 were down overall by about 7%, but against the Asian-American community they were up almost 150% (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264) (many suggest this is a result of misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID virus). That's got to end, and we must address that disparity. It's just ignorance. But why the fast and loose with the facts? Why does the fact that some agree this is a worthy cause justify the glossing over of fundamentals of truth to make the point?

If "moral certainty" about our cause is enough to trump truth (and I use that word very specifically), where does it end?  Why does truth even matter at that point?

Kind of funny I ended up coming to this thread after responding on the coronavirus thread that it's Truth.



It's a weird case for sure. You have a man who likely can't get any from anyone, so he has to resort to going to these types of places and paying for it. Probably no free-roaming whores around, but there are these places whom house these said "whores" he's looking for. They just happen to be Asian based, and these women are very likely Sex Slave workers.

Being in sexual frustration, he goes and when these people won't give him what his addiction craves, he goes and shoots them. If he didn't have a gun, he likely would've strangled them or found some other way to vent his frustration.

an Addiction is still an addiction, and you will do many many things just to fill the craving from the addiction, drugs, gambling, and sex.

I do not think it is racially motivated. But race does play a factor in whom work these types of places. And it should expose people to these businesses that employ sex slave workers.

It's unfortunate that the people whom work these places tend to be Asian women.



And also...it's exposing how media can control a narrative.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on March 19, 2021, 10:11:57 AM
1. There is a racial component to whom is involved in sex work. The Asian sex worker is a pretty well worn trope and a common joke in a lot of media.

2. The Asian population of the town is around 450 people based on the latest census data. With a community that small, there is a reasonable probability a sizeable proportion knew at least one of the victims. In that respect it does not really matter what the "motivation" was. This was still a catastrophic attack on their community, and as a minority that is subject to stereotyping and racist abuse, I don't blame them for focusing on that aspect.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 10:48:57 AM
The use of the term 'whores' in reference to these ladies really doesn't help the situation. There's a gross negative connotation to the term, as well as a dehumanizing and misogynistic effect. I'd imagine as the dipshit was shooting them, the term was running through his head as well.
Which is why I used the term. When referring to his motivations I was using his (and Maggot's) point of view. Your point is well taken, though. I tend to assume that people just understand my style and how I write things.

Gotcha, apologies for assuming the wrong context bud.


Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that when they finally interview the survivor (if they haven't already, not sure how seriously injured he was) , that this asshole didn't shout 'die Chinese whore' as he was blowing them away.

And if he just shouted out "die, whore!"?  Or just "die!"?  None of them would really "surprise" me, that's not the point.  El Barto made the key point above:  one of those statements above started "GIVEN THE APPEARANCE..." and one started "REGARDLESS....".  That's it in a concise way.  It's NOT a "given", unless you're predisposed to see that, and any emotion we might feel ought to be independent of whether you do or not.

I don't understand why anything less than 'intolerance of assumed intolerance' is now "insensitive" or worse.

EDIT: And just so's the message is crystal clear to the hater(s), I thought this was a perfect balance:  "We're not clear yet on the motive, but I do want to say to our Asian America community that we stand with you," Vice President Kamala Harris said. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-deadly-atlanta-area-spa-shootings-says-he-was-motivated-n1261299)"  As was this (cite is the same article):   "Biden said Wednesday: "Whatever the motivation here, I know Asian Americans, they are very concerned, because, as you know, I have been speaking about the brutality against Asian Americans, and it's troubling. But I am making no connection at this moment to the motivation of the killer. ... I'll have more to say when the investigation is completed.""

Sensitive, aware, caring, and yet not succumbing to the narrative, or suspending due process.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 11:08:11 AM
Basically it all comes down to this...

All races have had some form of prejudice done against them. In this case, in America, It was done mainly by the Dominant White/European people. And now, the tides have shifted and these White/European are now the ones experiencing these prejudices, not just from one race, but from the myriad of races. This is the effect this generation of White/Europeans are feeling for their Ancestors choices and decisions. The current, White/European generations in America, are paying for their Ancestors decisions and choices.

It's why we say...What is done today, effects the future generations, and not you in the present. If you don't want your children to struggle, what are you going to do to help them live a life of liberty and happiness.

Racism, also isn't just from one racial group. Racism exists in every race. I have seen it, Blacks being that way towards Asians. Asians, towards blacks, Native towards asian and black, and all possible combinations.

What is focused on is the White/Europeans only because they were the main ones whom dominate the world and we are currently living their lifestyle because of the world dominance. Christianity and Catholicism are just one of many religions and ways of belief. They were just forceful in their beliefs. And now it's the current climate and habitat of our environment.








Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jingle.boy on March 19, 2021, 11:14:35 AM
Someone mark the date and time ... Stadler gave props to BOTH Joe and Kamala ... IN THE SAME POST!!! 

WITHOUT A CAVEAT!!!!!

 :rollin  :rollin

P.S. you know I love ya, Stads.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 11:19:01 AM
I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape over the "it was a really bad day for him" remark. Actually, I do, and it's more than a little concerning. The sheriff wasn't trying to diminish what this jackass did, nor was he trying to be sympathetic to him. His remarks were focused quite clearly on what this idiot's motivation was, and that he was having a pretty bad day is very relevant to that point. Crucial, in fact. Given the context, it seems pretty clear to me that the sheriff was suggesting that he was in crisis mode and fell apart the day before. But therein lies the problem. As I've been saying for years, Americans have little interest in context. What somebody says, and why they say it is totally irrelevant as compared to how we can weaponize the words they used.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 11:31:17 AM
I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape over the "it was a really bad day for him" remark. Actually, I do, and it's more than a little concerning. The sheriff wasn't trying to diminish what this jackass did, nor was he trying to be sympathetic to him. His remarks were focused quite clearly on what this idiot's motivation was, and that he was having a pretty bad day is very relevant to that point. Crucial, in fact. Given the context, it seems pretty clear to me that the sheriff was suggesting that he was in crisis mode and fell apart the day before. But therein lies the problem. As I've been saying for years, Americans have little interest in context. What somebody says, and why they say it is totally irrelevant as compared to how we can weaponize the words they used.

Because Americans believe in everything the media tells them as factual and truthful. And that includes Social Media. The issue is many people are now getting their news and information through Facebook and Twitter. Hardly anyone gets their news from CNN, NBC, or MSNBC. And in turn, these media outlets are getting news from Twitter and Facebook posts. They are turning ONE Twitter post into a story. They are manipulating and exacerbating one 100 word twitter tweet into a news headline. And they do this by pulling at the heartstrings of the people.

As these Media outlets turn these tweets into headlines, and since people get their information and news through Facebook and Twitter, they now can control the narratives based on Facebook and Twitter, and use the mob to affect more peoples thoughts by getting them with their emotions.

What we are seeing are Emotions being played and manipulated. So when you don't feel the same emotions, you are considered heartless and unempathetic, and are shunned and banned.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 11:36:58 AM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman. That to me was just a bit of him slipping through. I do take note of his posting China virus shirts with the caption 'get em while they're hot' but whatever.


A few other issues this one is going to eventually bring out, and that I'm seeing already...

Dipshit was taken into custody without incident, after rampaging through eight victims. Wonder if he got fast food like that other dipshit a few years back?

Also, he bought the gun that morning. Definitely will be discussed ad nauseum.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 11:53:05 AM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman. That to me was just a bit of him slipping through. I do take note of his posting China virus shirts with the caption 'get em while they're hot' but whatever.
But that still implies there was something wrong with what he said. There wasn't. I'm not sure I would have phrased it any differently. It was a useful and relevant detail to the guy's motivation, which is what he's being asked to describe.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 12:00:56 PM
I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape over the "it was a really bad day for him" remark. Actually, I do, and it's more than a little concerning. The sheriff wasn't trying to diminish what this jackass did, nor was he trying to be sympathetic to him. His remarks were focused quite clearly on what this idiot's motivation was, and that he was having a pretty bad day is very relevant to that point. Crucial, in fact. Given the context, it seems pretty clear to me that the sheriff was suggesting that he was in crisis mode and fell apart the day before. But therein lies the problem. As I've been saying for years, Americans have little interest in context. What somebody says, and why they say it is totally irrelevant as compared to how we can weaponize the words they used.

Because Americans believe in everything the media tells them as factual and truthful. And that includes Social Media. The issue is many people are now getting their news and information through Facebook and Twitter. Hardly anyone gets their news from CNN, NBC, or MSNBC. And in turn, these media outlets are getting news from Twitter and Facebook posts. They are turning ONE Twitter post into a story. They are manipulating and exacerbating one 100 word twitter tweet into a news headline. And they do this by pulling at the heartstrings of the people.

As these Media outlets turn these tweets into headlines, and since people get their information and news through Facebook and Twitter, they now can control the narratives based on Facebook and Twitter, and use the mob to affect more peoples thoughts by getting them with their emotions.

What we are seeing are Emotions being played and manipulated. So when you don't feel the same emotions, you are considered heartless and unempathetic, and are shunned and banned.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, but I have no idea how it's supposed to relate to my point. America's dislike of context goes back at least as far as 1994 and all of that "N-word" nonsense, which in and of itself was a subjective weaponization of language. While the media may well have done a small bit to misrepresent the sheriff's words, that's more an example of playing to the audience that only wants support for its own interpretation. That audience existed well before Twitter and Facebook.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 12:18:54 PM
I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape over the "it was a really bad day for him" remark. Actually, I do, and it's more than a little concerning. The sheriff wasn't trying to diminish what this jackass did, nor was he trying to be sympathetic to him. His remarks were focused quite clearly on what this idiot's motivation was, and that he was having a pretty bad day is very relevant to that point. Crucial, in fact. Given the context, it seems pretty clear to me that the sheriff was suggesting that he was in crisis mode and fell apart the day before. But therein lies the problem. As I've been saying for years, Americans have little interest in context. What somebody says, and why they say it is totally irrelevant as compared to how we can weaponize the words they used.

Because Americans believe in everything the media tells them as factual and truthful. And that includes Social Media. The issue is many people are now getting their news and information through Facebook and Twitter. Hardly anyone gets their news from CNN, NBC, or MSNBC. And in turn, these media outlets are getting news from Twitter and Facebook posts. They are turning ONE Twitter post into a story. They are manipulating and exacerbating one 100 word twitter tweet into a news headline. And they do this by pulling at the heartstrings of the people.

As these Media outlets turn these tweets into headlines, and since people get their information and news through Facebook and Twitter, they now can control the narratives based on Facebook and Twitter, and use the mob to affect more peoples thoughts by getting them with their emotions.

Well, that's just it; it's a circle, a cycle.  If you have a media that is now focused almost solely on eye-balls, clicks, and likes, what better way to capitalize on that than to regurgitate what gets those likes?   If I'm invested in having readership/viewership, and I see a tweet that is factually 100% accurate and gets 50,000 likes, but I see a tweet that is, eh, largely factual, but maybe slips into op-ed, or maybe uses unsubstantiated language, and gets 1,000,000 likes, which am I going to use?   Then that gets circulated, and the NEXT 1,000,000 eye-balls take that for the gospel story, and we spiral from there.   We're DEEP in that now; opinion pieces are regularly put forth as "hard news" and it's dismaying.

Quote
What we are seeing are Emotions being played and manipulated. So when you don't feel the same emotions, you are considered heartless and unempathetic, and are shunned and banned.

Wow, it's funny; I was thinking that exact same thing this morning in the shower - that we've gotten to the point that we're demanding equal emotional responses in order to judge fitness.  Look at Xe; he even used "insensitive" as a perjorative, when in fact he couldn't be further from the truth.  I am heartbroken that people died needlessly.  I'm just unwilling to attribute "guilt" based on "assumption".   That not only shouldn't be ridiculed, but in a nation of laws - remember that? Wasn't that the RESPONSE to Trump? "We're a nation of laws"? - that should be celebrated.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: chknptpie on March 19, 2021, 12:20:06 PM
Long read and Copied/pasted from a journalist I follow on FB. She is great - look up Heather Cox Richardson if you're interested. She does a great job of giving large picture context on current events.

Quote
On Tuesday, in Georgia, a gunman murdered 1 man and 7 women, at three spas, and wounded another man. All three of the businesses were operating legally, according to Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and had not previously come to the attention of the Atlanta Police Department, although all three had  been reviewed by an erotic review site. The man apprehended for the murders was 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, who is described as deeply religious. Six of the women killed were of Asian descent.
Yesterday, at the news conference about the killings, the sheriff’s captain who was acting as a spokesman about the case, Jay Baker, told reporters that Long was “pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.” The spokesman went on to say that the suspect “apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction,” that had spurred him to murder, and that it was too early to tell if the incident was a “hate crime.” Long told law enforcement officers that the murders were “not racially motivated.” He was, he said, trying to “help” other people with sex addictions.
Journalists quickly discovered that Baker had posted on Facebook a picture of a shirt calling COVID-19 an “IMPORTED VIRUS FROM CHY-NA.”
As Baker’s Facebook post indicated, the short-term history behind the shooting is the former president’s attacks on China, in which he drew out the pronunciation of the name to make it sound like a schoolyard insult.
The story behind Trump’s attacks on China was his desperate determination to be reelected in 2020. In 2018, the former president placed tariffs on Chinese goods to illustrate his commitment to make the U.S. “a much stronger, much richer nation.” The tariffs led to a trade war with China and, rather than building a much stronger nation, resulted in a dramatic fall in agricultural exports. Agricultural exports to China fell from $15.8 billion in 2017 to $5.9 billion in 2018.
To combat the growing unrest in the agricultural regions of the country, where farm bankruptcies grew by nearly 20% in 2019, Trump paid off farmers hurt by the tariff with subsidies, which made up more than one third of U.S. farm income in 2020. In June 2019, he also begged Chinese President Xi Jinping to help him win the 2020 election. He told him that farmers were important to his election prospects, and begged Xi to buy more soybeans and wheat from U.S. farmers.
In January 2020, Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed a deal that cut some U.S. tariffs in exchange for Chinese promises to buy more agricultural products, as well as some other adjustments between the two countries. On January 22, Trump tweeted: ““One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!”
But, of course, the novel coronavirus was beginning to ravage the world.
On January 24, Trump tweeted: “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Five days later, at a signing ceremony, he said: “I think our relationship with China now might be the best it's been in a long, long time.”
On February 7, Trump called journalist Bob Woodward and said of the coronavirus, “This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed…. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flu.” Still, on February 10, he told supporters in New Hampshire that the coronavirus would “miraculously” go away when the weather got warmer, and in mid-February, he defended Xi’s handling of the epidemic, saying China was working hard and “doing a very good job” and that they “have everything under control.”
Shortly after the U.S. shut down to combat the pandemic in mid-March, Trump began to turn on China. On March 22, after 33,000 Americans had tested positive for the virus and 421 had died of it, Trump seemed to think better of his praise for Xi. He insisted that China had not told him about the deadly nature of the virus, and began to call it the “Chinese virus,” or the “Chy-na virus.”
By April 17, a Republican strategy document urged candidates to deflect attention from the nation’s disastrous coronavirus news by attacking China, which “caused this pandemic by covering it up, lying, and hoarding the world’s supply of medical equipment…. China… has stolen millions of American jobs, [and] sent fentanyl to the United States.” Democrats would not stand up to China, the document told Republican candidates to say, but “I will stand up to China, bring our manufacturing jobs back home, and push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic.” 
In May, Trump announced the U.S. would leave the World Health Organization because it had been too easy on China in the early days of the pandemic.
To undercut his own association with China, Trump somewhat nonsensically tried to link his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, to China. He claimed—falsely—that China had paid Biden’s son, Hunter, $1.5 billion. He and his appointees Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Attorney General William Barr, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, all claimed—again falsely-- that China was interfering in the election to help Biden.
This week, the intelligence community reported that, in fact, China did not try to influence the election because it did not “view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling.”
As Trump politicized the pandemic and attacked China, hate crimes against Asian-Americans began to rise; there were about 3800 of them between March 19, 2020 and February 28, 2021. In cities, hate incidents increased by 150%.
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.
Discrimination and hatred have continued to plague their descendants.
The rise in anti-Asian violence has been so bad this year that a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee had planned a hearing today on hate crimes against Asian Americans even before the murders. Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) today condemned the recent uptick in violence, but pointed out that discrimination is hardly new. “There is a systemic problem here,” she said. Of Japanese descent, she noted that she was born during WWII in an internment camp in Arizona.
Asian American women have borne a dual burden of both racism and sexism, as certain men fetishize Asian and Asian American women, seeing them as submissive, exotic, and sexually available. Attackers aimed nearly 70% of the reported 3,800 hate incidents reported last year at women.
That Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses ties into a long history that links racism to sexism—and to violence— in a peculiarly American fashion.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 12:43:02 PM
Long read and Copied/pasted from a journalist I follow on FB. She is great - look up Heather Cox Richardson if you're interested. She does a great job of giving large picture context on current events.

Quote
On Tuesday, in Georgia, a gunman murdered 1 man and 7 women, at three spas, and wounded another man. All three of the businesses were operating legally, according to Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and had not previously come to the attention of the Atlanta Police Department, although all three had  been reviewed by an erotic review site. The man apprehended for the murders was 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, who is described as deeply religious. Six of the women killed were of Asian descent.
Yesterday, at the news conference about the killings, the sheriff’s captain who was acting as a spokesman about the case, Jay Baker, told reporters that Long was “pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.” The spokesman went on to say that the suspect “apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction,” that had spurred him to murder, and that it was too early to tell if the incident was a “hate crime.” Long told law enforcement officers that the murders were “not racially motivated.” He was, he said, trying to “help” other people with sex addictions.
Journalists quickly discovered that Baker had posted on Facebook a picture of a shirt calling COVID-19 an “IMPORTED VIRUS FROM CHY-NA.”
As Baker’s Facebook post indicated, the short-term history behind the shooting is the former president’s attacks on China, in which he drew out the pronunciation of the name to make it sound like a schoolyard insult.
The story behind Trump’s attacks on China was his desperate determination to be reelected in 2020. In 2018, the former president placed tariffs on Chinese goods to illustrate his commitment to make the U.S. “a much stronger, much richer nation.” The tariffs led to a trade war with China and, rather than building a much stronger nation, resulted in a dramatic fall in agricultural exports. Agricultural exports to China fell from $15.8 billion in 2017 to $5.9 billion in 2018.
To combat the growing unrest in the agricultural regions of the country, where farm bankruptcies grew by nearly 20% in 2019, Trump paid off farmers hurt by the tariff with subsidies, which made up more than one third of U.S. farm income in 2020. In June 2019, he also begged Chinese President Xi Jinping to help him win the 2020 election. He told him that farmers were important to his election prospects, and begged Xi to buy more soybeans and wheat from U.S. farmers.
In January 2020, Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed a deal that cut some U.S. tariffs in exchange for Chinese promises to buy more agricultural products, as well as some other adjustments between the two countries. On January 22, Trump tweeted: ““One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!”
But, of course, the novel coronavirus was beginning to ravage the world.
On January 24, Trump tweeted: “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Five days later, at a signing ceremony, he said: “I think our relationship with China now might be the best it's been in a long, long time.”
On February 7, Trump called journalist Bob Woodward and said of the coronavirus, “This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed…. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flu.” Still, on February 10, he told supporters in New Hampshire that the coronavirus would “miraculously” go away when the weather got warmer, and in mid-February, he defended Xi’s handling of the epidemic, saying China was working hard and “doing a very good job” and that they “have everything under control.”
Shortly after the U.S. shut down to combat the pandemic in mid-March, Trump began to turn on China. On March 22, after 33,000 Americans had tested positive for the virus and 421 had died of it, Trump seemed to think better of his praise for Xi. He insisted that China had not told him about the deadly nature of the virus, and began to call it the “Chinese virus,” or the “Chy-na virus.”
By April 17, a Republican strategy document urged candidates to deflect attention from the nation’s disastrous coronavirus news by attacking China, which “caused this pandemic by covering it up, lying, and hoarding the world’s supply of medical equipment…. China… has stolen millions of American jobs, [and] sent fentanyl to the United States.” Democrats would not stand up to China, the document told Republican candidates to say, but “I will stand up to China, bring our manufacturing jobs back home, and push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic.” 
In May, Trump announced the U.S. would leave the World Health Organization because it had been too easy on China in the early days of the pandemic.
To undercut his own association with China, Trump somewhat nonsensically tried to link his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, to China. He claimed—falsely—that China had paid Biden’s son, Hunter, $1.5 billion. He and his appointees Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Attorney General William Barr, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, all claimed—again falsely-- that China was interfering in the election to help Biden.
This week, the intelligence community reported that, in fact, China did not try to influence the election because it did not “view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling.”
As Trump politicized the pandemic and attacked China, hate crimes against Asian-Americans began to rise; there were about 3800 of them between March 19, 2020 and February 28, 2021. In cities, hate incidents increased by 150%.
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.
Discrimination and hatred have continued to plague their descendants.
The rise in anti-Asian violence has been so bad this year that a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee had planned a hearing today on hate crimes against Asian Americans even before the murders. Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) today condemned the recent uptick in violence, but pointed out that discrimination is hardly new. “There is a systemic problem here,” she said. Of Japanese descent, she noted that she was born during WWII in an internment camp in Arizona.
Asian American women have borne a dual burden of both racism and sexism, as certain men fetishize Asian and Asian American women, seeing them as submissive, exotic, and sexually available. Attackers aimed nearly 70% of the reported 3,800 hate incidents reported last year at women.
That Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses ties into a long history that links racism to sexism—and to violence— in a peculiarly American fashion.

No offense, but that's terrible, and I don't think I'd call it journalism. Do you not see a problem with this? Maybe the very problem Ben was suggesting?

Quote
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 12:59:04 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: chknptpie on March 19, 2021, 01:06:09 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Chino on March 19, 2021, 01:12:52 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.


That's a huge stretch. If brothels and rub and tugs were legal, and he only frequented the Asian ones, you'd have a point. But odds are that Asians were the only game in town.   

And having a "racial fetish" when it comes to sexual desires means nothing. Go through my porn history and you'll see that videos featuring black women probably outnumber Asian content by about 15:1. It doesn't mean I have anything against Asian women. You like what you like.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 01:17:12 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.

NO...It just so happens that the people that work these "Massage" parlors are Asian Women. And the reasons for that being the reasons I gave earlier. It's an unfortunate reality that there are businesses that can legally be able to set up shop with sex slaves. In my closest city, we have a couple here, and one was on a news story for having sex workers, and that place is still open for business.

If there were other outlets where he could get these same services, he would have frequented those as well. The thing is, there aren't any others but these ones.



Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 01:19:36 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.
Did he? It seems just as, if not more likely to me that it was a matter of availability. XJ suggested earlier "a racial component to whom is involved in sex work," and while I didn't comment on it because my take wasn't relevant then, I think he's very wrong. The racial component is with regards to where they work in the industry. Asians tend to work almost exclusively in massage parlors (and massage parlors tend to recruit Asians excursively). I can't speak for this asshole, but in Dallas I can point to three different places one can go to get it on with Asian girls (and not from personal experience). I wouldn't have a clue where to go to pick up other prostitutes. In this case, Asians are simply the most accessible.


edit: Double-ninja'd (that doesn't happen too often  :lol)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 01:30:24 PM
Long read and Copied/pasted from a journalist I follow on FB. She is great - look up Heather Cox Richardson if you're interested. She does a great job of giving large picture context on current events.

Quote
On Tuesday, in Georgia, a gunman murdered 1 man and 7 women, at three spas, and wounded another man. All three of the businesses were operating legally, according to Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and had not previously come to the attention of the Atlanta Police Department, although all three had  been reviewed by an erotic review site. The man apprehended for the murders was 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, who is described as deeply religious. Six of the women killed were of Asian descent.
Yesterday, at the news conference about the killings, the sheriff’s captain who was acting as a spokesman about the case, Jay Baker, told reporters that Long was “pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.” The spokesman went on to say that the suspect “apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction,” that had spurred him to murder, and that it was too early to tell if the incident was a “hate crime.” Long told law enforcement officers that the murders were “not racially motivated.” He was, he said, trying to “help” other people with sex addictions.
Journalists quickly discovered that Baker had posted on Facebook a picture of a shirt calling COVID-19 an “IMPORTED VIRUS FROM CHY-NA.”
As Baker’s Facebook post indicated, the short-term history behind the shooting is the former president’s attacks on China, in which he drew out the pronunciation of the name to make it sound like a schoolyard insult.
The story behind Trump’s attacks on China was his desperate determination to be reelected in 2020. In 2018, the former president placed tariffs on Chinese goods to illustrate his commitment to make the U.S. “a much stronger, much richer nation.” The tariffs led to a trade war with China and, rather than building a much stronger nation, resulted in a dramatic fall in agricultural exports. Agricultural exports to China fell from $15.8 billion in 2017 to $5.9 billion in 2018.
To combat the growing unrest in the agricultural regions of the country, where farm bankruptcies grew by nearly 20% in 2019, Trump paid off farmers hurt by the tariff with subsidies, which made up more than one third of U.S. farm income in 2020. In June 2019, he also begged Chinese President Xi Jinping to help him win the 2020 election. He told him that farmers were important to his election prospects, and begged Xi to buy more soybeans and wheat from U.S. farmers.
In January 2020, Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed a deal that cut some U.S. tariffs in exchange for Chinese promises to buy more agricultural products, as well as some other adjustments between the two countries. On January 22, Trump tweeted: ““One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!”
But, of course, the novel coronavirus was beginning to ravage the world.
On January 24, Trump tweeted: “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
Five days later, at a signing ceremony, he said: “I think our relationship with China now might be the best it's been in a long, long time.”
On February 7, Trump called journalist Bob Woodward and said of the coronavirus, “This is deadly stuff. You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed…. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flu.” Still, on February 10, he told supporters in New Hampshire that the coronavirus would “miraculously” go away when the weather got warmer, and in mid-February, he defended Xi’s handling of the epidemic, saying China was working hard and “doing a very good job” and that they “have everything under control.”
Shortly after the U.S. shut down to combat the pandemic in mid-March, Trump began to turn on China. On March 22, after 33,000 Americans had tested positive for the virus and 421 had died of it, Trump seemed to think better of his praise for Xi. He insisted that China had not told him about the deadly nature of the virus, and began to call it the “Chinese virus,” or the “Chy-na virus.”
By April 17, a Republican strategy document urged candidates to deflect attention from the nation’s disastrous coronavirus news by attacking China, which “caused this pandemic by covering it up, lying, and hoarding the world’s supply of medical equipment…. China… has stolen millions of American jobs, [and] sent fentanyl to the United States.” Democrats would not stand up to China, the document told Republican candidates to say, but “I will stand up to China, bring our manufacturing jobs back home, and push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic.” 
In May, Trump announced the U.S. would leave the World Health Organization because it had been too easy on China in the early days of the pandemic.
To undercut his own association with China, Trump somewhat nonsensically tried to link his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, to China. He claimed—falsely—that China had paid Biden’s son, Hunter, $1.5 billion. He and his appointees Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Attorney General William Barr, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, all claimed—again falsely-- that China was interfering in the election to help Biden.
This week, the intelligence community reported that, in fact, China did not try to influence the election because it did not “view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling.”
As Trump politicized the pandemic and attacked China, hate crimes against Asian-Americans began to rise; there were about 3800 of them between March 19, 2020 and February 28, 2021. In cities, hate incidents increased by 150%.
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.
Discrimination and hatred have continued to plague their descendants.
The rise in anti-Asian violence has been so bad this year that a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee had planned a hearing today on hate crimes against Asian Americans even before the murders. Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) today condemned the recent uptick in violence, but pointed out that discrimination is hardly new. “There is a systemic problem here,” she said. Of Japanese descent, she noted that she was born during WWII in an internment camp in Arizona.
Asian American women have borne a dual burden of both racism and sexism, as certain men fetishize Asian and Asian American women, seeing them as submissive, exotic, and sexually available. Attackers aimed nearly 70% of the reported 3,800 hate incidents reported last year at women.
That Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses ties into a long history that links racism to sexism—and to violence— in a peculiarly American fashion.

No offense, but that's terrible, and I don't think I'd call it journalism. Do you not see a problem with this? Maybe the very problem Ben was suggesting?

Quote
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.

That is exactly the point I am making about the news and them using Social Media.

Quote
In this context, the suggestion of a police spokesman who had posted pictures celebrating a shirt that called Covid-19 the “VIRUS IMPORTED FROM CHY-NA” that a gunman had killed six women of Asian descent because he had had “a really bad day,” along with the officer’s apparent acceptance of Long’s statement that the killings were not racially motivated, outraged observers.
That seemingly cavalier dismissal of the dead while accepting the words of the white murderer seemed to personify an American history that has discriminated against Asians since the California legislature slapped a Foreign Miners’ Tax on Chinese miners in 1850, just a year after they began to arrive in California. Discriminatory laws and violence from their white neighbors plagued Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Koreans, Vietnamese, and all Asian immigrants as they moved to the U.S.


They go and make a big long scrolls worth of "context" and then say "in this context".... :lol Well yeah, if you include all those things that have no relation to what Long did. And this is to dismiss the police officer who made the statement.  :facepalm: And then they go one to say "Words of the white murderer" and "dismissal of the dead" what the hell kind of word play is this.

This is exactly pulling at the heartstrings and making you emotional. That long scrolls worth of text is the Heartstring pulling that should make you feel bad for the Asian people. And get you riled up at the officer for saying it's not racially motivated, because he did things on Social Media. This is exactly what I am also pointing out about how News and Media use Social Media for their stories.



Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 19, 2021, 01:39:59 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.
Did he? It seems just as, if not more likely to me that it was a matter of availability. XJ suggested earlier "a racial component to whom is involved in sex work," and while I didn't comment on it because my take wasn't relevant then, I think he's very wrong. The racial component is with regards to where they work in the industry. Asians tend to work almost exclusively in massage parlors (and massage parlors tend to recruit Asians excursively). I can't speak for this asshole, but in Dallas I can point to three different places one can go to get it on with Asian girls (and not from personal experience). I wouldn't have a clue where to go to pick up other prostitutes. In this case, Asians are simply the most accessible.


edit: Double-ninja'd (that doesn't happen too often  :lol)

If you think about availability. He wouldn't have done that around a certain part of Albuquerque, just walk the street and you're guaranteed to find someone willing to service you...and he would have a choice at that.  :biggrin:




The only thing I see Racial about any of this is the fact that Asian women tend to be part of these businesses. They should be raving about why Asian women are in this business and why are they are the only race in this type of shadow business.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: cramx3 on March 19, 2021, 01:47:22 PM
As sad as this story is for the murder of these innocent people, the media coverage is so piss poor.  I hardly want to talk about it because it makes me mad to see the media spin this to not only divide their audience (creating not only division but it gets everyone talking) but to hit the bell on the line item that sells the most "racism"

The only real racial issue I have found is that sex work in massage parlors are almost all Asian.  That can (and maybe should) be discussed, but when the shooter himself admits his motives to be of sexual nature not racial, it's hard for me really blame the opposite. 

I don't doubt he might and likely was racist, and that he probably was mentally unstable due to his religious views vs. his actions, but I think the second point is more important than the former in this case.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 01:49:26 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.
Did he? It seems just as, if not more likely to me that it was a matter of availability. XJ suggested earlier "a racial component to whom is involved in sex work," and while I didn't comment on it because my take wasn't relevant then, I think he's very wrong. The racial component is with regards to where they work in the industry. Asians tend to work almost exclusively in massage parlors (and massage parlors tend to recruit Asians excursively). I can't speak for this asshole, but in Dallas I can point to three different places one can go to get it on with Asian girls (and not from personal experience). I wouldn't have a clue where to go to pick up other prostitutes. In this case, Asians are simply the most accessible.


edit: Double-ninja'd (that doesn't happen too often  :lol)

If you think about availability. He wouldn't have done that around a certain part of Albuquerque, just walk the street and you're guaranteed to find someone willing to service you...and he would have a choice at that.  :biggrin:

There are obviously neighborhoods in Dallas where you can find girls walking about. At the same time AMPs crop up all over the place. They're not just relegated to sleazy neighborhoods. That would make them a much more likely target for kill-crazy whackjobs.

Quote
The only thing I see Racial about any of this is the fact that Asian women tend to be part of these businesses. They should be raving about why Asian women are in this business and why are they are the only race in this type of shadow business.
That certainly is a real component of this. My hunch would be that women who've worked at these places go on to open places of their own. It's funny you mention it, though. There was a mama-san in the news down here last year that became a fairly big story. She had opened up a restaurant specializing in handmade dumplings that became all the rage. It quickly became one of the top restaurants in Dallas. Turns out she only opened the place as a venue to launder all of the cash from her AMP on the other side of town. She'd become a minor local celebrity, and was looking to expand her restaurants before she became public enemy number 1.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jingle.boy on March 19, 2021, 02:03:52 PM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.

Haven't read the long ass Heather whoever post (though I have read some of hers in the past from your FB feed, Tricia), but will peruse it later.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 02:07:59 PM
AMP's are a dime a dozen out here, and where I live is far from a shady area. The industry is massive. As far as I know though, this is the first mass shooting incident involving them. Sex addiction tends more to individual crimes of passion as opposed to scorched earth approaches like this asshole took. Most of the time, they direct their shame and anger inward towards self harm, substance abuse, or further feeding the beast. (I have pretty solid experience with all three). Thin line of thinking leads me to focus more on the individual, and why his circumstances went to these extremes.

While race may not be a factor, his southern  white, Christian upbringing does have a play I'd gather. I can only imagine the shame of knowing these immigrants held such power over him, and were such an unclean temptation that he was driven to deal with it in the great American fashion.just thinking out loud, tear it apart as I know you all will.

I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.


The kind of mistakes someone who sucked at public speaking would make.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: cramx3 on March 19, 2021, 02:37:42 PM
While race may not be a factor, his southern  white, Christian upbringing does have a play I'd gather. I can only imagine the shame of knowing these immigrants held such power over him, and were such an unclean temptation that he was driven to deal with it in the great American fashion.just thinking out loud, tear it apart as I know you all will.

His hardcore religious beliefs made him mentally unstable IMO.  Guy was consistently breaking his own religious rules and felt extreme guilt.  Took it out on the ones who "enabled" his sinful pleasure.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 19, 2021, 02:39:22 PM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.

Haven't read the long ass Heather whoever post (though I have read some of hers in the past from your FB feed, Tricia), but will peruse it later.
Was it your intention to refer to the latter twice? Either way, I just don't see crassness or smugness in that. If he'd said "he has good days and bad days, and yesterday was a really bad day," would that have made a difference? Because that's certainly the way I interpreted it, and unless you're looking for an angle, I'm not sure why'd somebody would jump to a different interpretation. If the general public's understanding of the Enlgish language leads it to quickly infer "oh, he was just having a bad day so he went out and slaughtered 8 people, no big deal," then this country is far, far more fucked up than even I already think it is.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on March 19, 2021, 02:45:24 PM
While race may not be a factor, his southern  white, Christian upbringing does have a play I'd gather. I can only imagine the shame of knowing these immigrants held such power over him, and were such an unclean temptation that he was driven to deal with it in the great American fashion.just thinking out loud, tear it apart as I know you all will.

His hardcore religious beliefs made him mentally unstable IMO.  Guy was consistently breaking his own religious rules and felt extreme guilt.  Took it out on the ones who "enabled" his sinful pleasure.

Definitely a big part of his whole psychology that lead to this. This case touches so many aspects of America that need some attention for sure... Gun laws, race, religious zealotry, trafficking, sex work, addiction, and the press's ability to fuck it all up.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 19, 2021, 02:52:43 PM
I was going in a different direction; whether the article was good or not is in the eye of the beholder, but for me, it makes the same illogical leap that I've been pointing out for the better part of a page and a half.

I have read several articles on this horrific, horrible event, and I haven't seen one that clearly stated that Long blamed Asian or Asian American women for his own sexual impulses.  He did blame, as far as I can tell, the general availability of sex "outlets", which is it's own issue, but that's as far as he went.  I think it might be well-meaning, but it's still dangerous to go further than that.

It's just baffling to me, because the ambiguity does nothing for the main argument; that author doesn't HAVE to make that leap in order to maintain the thrust of the rest of the article, so why do it?  What's the upside?

What I don't understand is why does it matter who Long blames? He had a racial fetish that has some impact to his decision making process, whether he admits to it or not.

Well, it matters who he blames because that's all we have to go on for his motivation.  Whether you or I or that author thinks he has a "racial fetish" or not is immaterial.   It's purely guess-work: just because one goes to one of those places is not, in itself, indicative of a "racial fetish".  Her whole premise is predicated, basically, on a connection that just so happens to fully support her premise.  That's a tautology.   And honestly, even if he DID have a "racial fetish", it still doesn't lend to the conclusion; that's only correlation, not causation.   Adam Lanza shooting up a school that, by definition, has a lot of kids doesn't mean he hates kids.

(And of course, this whole conversation begs the question of whether a "racial fetish" is in and of itself bad.  People like who they like; it's not a choice.)

EDIT:  Couple others' got there before me.  But, yeah.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jingle.boy on March 19, 2021, 04:45:22 PM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter former (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.

Haven't read the long ass Heather whoever post (though I have read some of hers in the past from your FB feed, Tricia), but will peruse it later.
Was it your intention to refer to the latter twice? Either way, I just don't see crassness or smugness in that. If he'd said "he has good days and bad days, and yesterday was a really bad day," would that have made a difference? Because that's certainly the way I interpreted it, and unless you're looking for an angle, I'm not sure why'd somebody would jump to a different interpretation. If the general public's understanding of the Enlgish language leads it to quickly infer "oh, he was just having a bad day so he went out and slaughtered 8 people, no big deal," then this country is far, far more fucked up than even I already think it is.

Nope... brain fart.  fix'd above.  These kinds of things are often on the heels of something 'triggering' the aggressor, and (not that I think this is what Sherrif Gomer was saying), insinuating this guy's "bad day" was because of that trigger would be mildly palatable.

Was just looking for a way as to why people are viewin gthe 'bad day' comment as a big deal / not a big deal.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 22, 2021, 08:22:53 AM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter former (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.

Haven't read the long ass Heather whoever post (though I have read some of hers in the past from your FB feed, Tricia), but will peruse it later.
Was it your intention to refer to the latter twice? Either way, I just don't see crassness or smugness in that. If he'd said "he has good days and bad days, and yesterday was a really bad day," would that have made a difference? Because that's certainly the way I interpreted it, and unless you're looking for an angle, I'm not sure why'd somebody would jump to a different interpretation. If the general public's understanding of the Enlgish language leads it to quickly infer "oh, he was just having a bad day so he went out and slaughtered 8 people, no big deal," then this country is far, far more fucked up than even I already think it is.

Nope... brain fart.  fix'd above.  These kinds of things are often on the heels of something 'triggering' the aggressor, and (not that I think this is what Sherrif Gomer was saying), insinuating this guy's "bad day" was because of that trigger would be mildly palatable.

Was just looking for a way as to why people are viewin gthe 'bad day' comment as a big deal / not a big deal.

Because they need something of outrage to bolster their world view?   I was at a small get-together this weekend for a Uconn Basketball game (yes, social distanced, and with masks), and a good friend of mine was there and she was all up in arms about the "bad day" comment.  I love her, I would trust her with my life, and she's married to one of my oldest and dearest friends, but she's not the brightest bulb on the tree and tends to lead with her heart on matters political.  For her (and she would never admit this), this is something to be outraged about and to use as an example.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 22, 2021, 09:39:57 AM
I can dismiss the bad day comment as just a small town sheriff not being a trained public spokesman.

It's possible the issue might be in that some people heard the comment from Sheriff Gomer as "He's having a bad day after killing 8 women" (no shit, Sherlock!), vs some hearing it as "He's having a bad day, so he went and killed 8 women".  The latter implies his 'bad day' was triggered by something, and that trigger is what finally put him over the edge.  The latter former (to me) suggests a crass/smug/off-the-cuff/callous comment.

Haven't read the long ass Heather whoever post (though I have read some of hers in the past from your FB feed, Tricia), but will peruse it later.
Was it your intention to refer to the latter twice? Either way, I just don't see crassness or smugness in that. If he'd said "he has good days and bad days, and yesterday was a really bad day," would that have made a difference? Because that's certainly the way I interpreted it, and unless you're looking for an angle, I'm not sure why'd somebody would jump to a different interpretation. If the general public's understanding of the Enlgish language leads it to quickly infer "oh, he was just having a bad day so he went out and slaughtered 8 people, no big deal," then this country is far, far more fucked up than even I already think it is.

Nope... brain fart.  fix'd above.  These kinds of things are often on the heels of something 'triggering' the aggressor, and (not that I think this is what Sherrif Gomer was saying), insinuating this guy's "bad day" was because of that trigger would be mildly palatable.

Was just looking for a way as to why people are viewin gthe 'bad day' comment as a big deal / not a big deal.

Because they need something of outrage to bolster their world view?   I was at a small get-together this weekend for a Uconn Basketball game (yes, social distanced, and with masks), and a good friend of mine was there and she was all up in arms about the "bad day" comment.  I love her, I would trust her with my life, and she's married to one of my oldest and dearest friends, but she's not the brightest bulb on the tree and tends to lead with her heart on matters political.  For her (and she would never admit this), this is something to be outraged about and to use as an example.

Now if she tends to lead with her heart on matters political. Imagine now how many people are like her. And then, add in the news playing on the Heartstrings and Emotions...

That's what I am getting at. The news knows this, and they exploit it and have been doing this. Rage, Sadness, and Fear are their holy trinity to get viewers to watch the news. And people like her eat it up, and then get sad, then get mad, and then go on Twitter and Facebook and then we have The Protests in the streets.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 22, 2021, 09:54:34 AM
protests aren’t just an irrational emotional reaction, that’s an incredible flippant reduction.  There’s case by case differences. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 22, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
protests aren’t just an irrational emotional reaction, that’s an incredible flippant reduction.  There’s case by case differences.

Well duh...

I am talking about protests, like the ones you see on Social Media, and Twitter. But also, SOME protests do start with the heartstring pulling. George Floyd protests and also these Asian Minority ones.

Also, we can't forget that Asians can also be racist themselves, not all, but some, I've seen it at certain restaurants...Also...You do not know what they are saying behind your back in their language. They could be saying it to your face and you wouldn't even know it.  :lol

See, what that did was pull the Heartstrings of the Asian People by the news focusing only on these Asian Women. With no mention of the type of work they're in, or how these businesses are mainly Asian ran businesses.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 22, 2021, 10:07:23 AM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 22, 2021, 10:15:40 AM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

And it's not because of Trump either. Once people knew this virus came from Wuhan. You have people that immediately did this regardless.

But in reality, it has always been happening. It's just now being shown through the media and the news. Only because of this they mention it.

Racism is very prevalent. But I don't like calling it Racism, as every race can be capable of being racists themselves. POC are treating White people with Racists idealings now.

I like to use the term Prejudiced. Because it's not racial, it's universal and it includes the other types of Prejudice that can be used including based on Gender, Body and the many other ways you can exclude and insult someone.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 22, 2021, 10:32:09 AM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.

As you yourself (I think correctly) stated:  "There’s case by case differences."   Many of the reactions to this horrific event are emotional in nature, and as I've tried to point out - and you seem to agree - "that’s an incredible flippant reduction".

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 22, 2021, 01:00:47 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 22, 2021, 01:24:41 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on March 22, 2021, 01:29:01 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to.
It's to point out that folks now are exploiting something only tangentially related for their own gain, and in the process diminishing the very important thing the Asians have been saying all along. I'm on their side here, but misrepresenting various incidences to boost their cause only serves to piss me off.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 22, 2021, 02:00:34 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to.

Let me break it to you. I bet you not all Asian people agree with those advocacy groups. The same as how not all Black people agree with BLM.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 22, 2021, 02:09:31 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to.

Let me break it to you. I bet you not all Asian people agree with those advocacy groups. The same as how not all Black people agree with BLM.

what does that change about anything?  The BLM protests are still justified and so is the attention to anti asian violence. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 22, 2021, 02:11:06 PM
And here's an interesting ideal happening...As Tim Pool reports...

https://youtu.be/e2qdCC0jHUg?t=968

Here's the actual Tweet of it...

"Really wild stuff downtown. A Stop Asian Hate rally is clashing with a Pro-Uighur drive by. The pro-Uighur group is shouting “F— China!” The Asian rally is responding by calling them “racist.”"

https://twitter.com/NicXTempore/status/1373691318208245764


Which led to this...

"The UAA's reckless drive-by has caused severe backlash against Uyghurs. I want to clarify that we don't condone racism and Uyghurs / East Turkistanis are NOT "anti-Asian" nor are they "racist." Our struggle is against China's racist and genocidal government / CCP regime."

https://twitter.com/SalihHudayar/status/1373835152300904450
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 23, 2021, 12:22:33 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to.

It's meant to state facts. We shouldn't be worried about whether FACTS "downplay" an agenda or cause.  That's part of the reason we're in this friggin' mess to begin with.   Just because a cause is, in theory or in practice, just, doesn't mean that all rules go out the window, or anything goes.    Put more bluntly:  it serves no one, least of all the Asian American community, to hitch their wagon to the most convenient star.  If THIS case is about Asian-American violence, then that's one thing, but it doesn't ultimately help the cause to blindly lump everything together because it "sells" better.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on March 23, 2021, 12:24:51 PM
the rise in anti asian violence is very real

Well documented.   That doesn't, though, mean that every incident of violence that happens to involve an Asian or Asian American is race-related.
Indeed.

I didn’t imply otherwise, but I’m not sure what pointing this out is supposed to accomplish in this context other than to downplay a situation all the different asian community advocacy groups are (and have been for a year)desperately trying to bring attention to.

Let me break it to you. I bet you not all Asian people agree with those advocacy groups. The same as how not all Black people agree with BLM.

what does that change about anything?  The BLM protests are still justified and so is the attention to anti asian violence.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your direct reference, no not ALL the BLM protests were justified.  The peaceful, lawful ones were, but the ones that turned violent or turned into riots, I think might fall outside that blanket.  For the same reasons that have been put forth here by various people.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on April 04, 2021, 11:32:51 AM
not sure where to put this

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/03/us/anti-asian-attacks.html?smtyp=cur&amp;smid=tw-nytimes

A detailed documenting of the rise in anti-asian violence. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 13, 2021, 04:31:18 PM
You know...I think it's time we really should define what is "Racism"....and the difference between "Racism" and "Prejudice". Because the way I see it, people do not know the difference between the two.

First off, what is "Racism"?

I can't use the dictionary term for it because...according to Websters...

Quote
Racism appears to be a word of recent origin, with no citations currently known that would suggest the word was in use prior to the early 20th century. But the fact that the word is fairly new does not prove that the concept of racism did not exist in the distant past. Things may have words to describe them before they exist (spaceship, for instance, has been in use since the 19th century, well before the rocket-fired vessels were invented), and things may exist for a considerable time before they are given names (t-shirt does not appear in print until the 20th century, although the article of clothing existed prior to 1900).

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

So what is "Racism"?

...

What is "Prejudice"?

According to Webster

Quote
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2a(1): preconceived judgment or opinion
(2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b: an instance of such judgment or opinion
c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

So what is "Racism"?

"Racism" is "Prejudice", albeit only focused on one's race.

See, cause for me, there isn't as much "Racism" and declaring someone Racist is racist in itself, ONLY if you do not know that the person actually despises people of that race, and you would know. Because they want nothing to do with that race, and will do anything to not be around that race, some people actually leave jobs or other businesses because that race is there.

That is Racism....Any Kind of Racial Supremacy is Racism.

"Prejudice" is where you don't like someone regardless if they are of any race, and sometimes they just happen to be of a certain race, but that does not necessarily mean they despise that race, and want nothing to do with them at all. It's being prejudice because of a racial stereotype, which not everyone in that race does. Expecting all people of that race to fit into these "Racial Stereotypes" is Racist in itself.

I only bring this up, because you have people wanting "Unity" and "Equal Treatment" yet, end up doing exactly the same thing being done to them, basically ending up wearing the same shoes.

And those people are declaring "Racism" while wearing those shoes....That does not help with "Unity" and "Equal Treatment".
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: chknptpie on April 13, 2021, 07:14:46 PM
So question for you Ben. Reading your post above, it's really individual/person focused. What if you take the person out of it. Do you think a system or a construct can be racist? I'm being vague here for a reason and not giving any examples. I'm truly curious your thoughts.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 14, 2021, 09:23:17 AM
So question for you Ben. Reading your post above, it's really individual/person focused. What if you take the person out of it. Do you think a system or a construct can be racist? I'm being vague here for a reason and not giving any examples. I'm truly curious your thoughts.

Yes it can. And also, that's where Sovereignty comes into play. Does a country/Nation have the right to control their country/people how they see fit? Yes, and no one can do anything but the people. You could try and be the hero and fix that Nation, but then that's what starts Wars, because you are now controlling what that Nation can and can't do, and that is seen as a violation of their Sovereignty, and Freedom to rule as a Sovereign Nation.

There'e lots of examples of leaders/dictators/tyrants using someone's race and exposing it for their own gains.

The way I see it....The current system the world lives under is dominated by White European Culture. Everything that is known today is based off the teaching of these cultures...Greek, Roman, Italian, Irish, British, even the Indigenous Cultures of Europe, this is how we have our Holiday Traditions, like The Christmas Tree and The Jack-o'-lantern.

Yet, other cultural ideas and knowledge gets ignored...

These are the cultures that inhabit America. America is one big melting pot of many cultures that need to find a way to respect one another. By allowing each other to pray and worship however one sees fit. It's when one tries to be the all knowing religion and culture is when it'll be a culture war, rather than a race war.

And actually, The Culture War is what I think now it actually is, rather than a race war, it's a Culture War. Because the current main dominant culture isn't respecting the other cultures and self-declared itself as the all knowing culture that is the true faith, while ignoring the other cultures exist, and won't listen to them. These cultures have knowledge that can help the world.

What people see is this culture is in fact bringing Destruction to the planet. Yes, this culture has good things and ideasz it's just that they're not using it in the beneficial good way, they're using it in the destructive bad way. Which is why the Earth is sick and causing Global Warming or Climate Change. It's feeling the effects of our destructive ways.

So in turn... it's more of a Culture thing than Race. Because this "White Culture" is the system we, and the world, follow and obey too...
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: hefdaddy42 on April 19, 2021, 09:46:18 AM
Racism is a subset of prejudice, as is homophobia, classism, xenophobia, and any number of other viewpoints.  They are each prejudice.

All racism is prejudice, but not all prejudice is racist.

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 19, 2021, 02:30:43 PM
So question for you Ben. Reading your post above, it's really individual/person focused. What if you take the person out of it. Do you think a system or a construct can be racist? I'm being vague here for a reason and not giving any examples. I'm truly curious your thoughts.

The problem with the concept of "systemic racism" is in the limited number of ways it can be measured.  If African Americans are 13.5% of the population, but in a given year, 7% of college graduates are African American, that does not, in and of itself, confer "systemic racism".  There are too many variables that might account for that (some that themselves may have racist components) to draw a conclusion.  Yet, that seems to be more and more the norm. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 19, 2021, 03:22:41 PM
So question for you Ben. Reading your post above, it's really individual/person focused. What if you take the person out of it. Do you think a system or a construct can be racist? I'm being vague here for a reason and not giving any examples. I'm truly curious your thoughts.

The problem with the concept of "systemic racism" is in the limited number of ways it can be measured.  If African Americans are 13.5% of the population, but in a given year, 7% of college graduates are African American, that does not, in and of itself, confer "systemic racism".  There are too many variables that might account for that (some that themselves may have racist components) to draw a conclusion.  Yet, that seems to be more and more the norm.

It can get to a point where the "systemic racism" of one minority race turns a tide and the minority becomes the majority which the majority race then gets treated to "systemic racism"

That's when you end up wearing the same shoes. And that's a thing to be weary of in regards to bringing a solution for "Systemic Racism".

Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on April 27, 2021, 08:51:31 AM
So question for you Ben. Reading your post above, it's really individual/person focused. What if you take the person out of it. Do you think a system or a construct can be racist? I'm being vague here for a reason and not giving any examples. I'm truly curious your thoughts.

The problem with the concept of "systemic racism" is in the limited number of ways it can be measured.  If African Americans are 13.5% of the population, but in a given year, 7% of college graduates are African American, that does not, in and of itself, confer "systemic racism".  There are too many variables that might account for that (some that themselves may have racist components) to draw a conclusion.  Yet, that seems to be more and more the norm.


The fact that a concept is difficult to measure in no way diminishes or invalidates its existence.  I'm reminded of this the words of Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis vs Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio):


Quote from: WikiPedia
the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."


Institutional racism exists. That is a fact, not an opinion.


 I think the degree to which it permeates our society -especially in the southern part of the USA- is certainly debatable but I think it's a bigger problem than most on the political right would care to admit.  That is an opinion, not fact.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 27, 2021, 09:17:39 AM
Not for nothing, and I am not saying this to be confrontational, but as a lawyer, who has studied many (not all, not even most) of the larger decisions - including the one you cite - that is one of my least favorite opinions.   It's clever, but it's not indicative, and it doesn't apply to you and me.  We're not arbiters.  We're living it.  That standard in real life is like "tie goes the runner" in a sandlot baseball game.

Personally, though, I think you're probably mostly right.  But I think the reality is more moderate:  I think while the further right you go, it's probably more and more underplayed as you say, but I think the converse is true as well: the further you go on the left, the more and more it's overplayed.

I think it EXISTS.  That's not up for discussion, but the degree is.   I do not think it is as pervasive as some think.  We've come to a point in our society where there's almost no such thing as "failure"; bias is assumed unless proven otherwise, and that's an impossible standard to meet (that's where the measurement comes in; not the existence but the degree).  There are other factors that need - if we're interested in FACT - to be considered.   I've posted articles/studies from Harvard - hardly "right wing", hardly pushing an agenda - that question the singular role of pure race in the rash of police killings.  Utterly ignored, and overlooked, because it doesn't serve the agenda.   I don't say any of this to support racism, to excuse it, to tolerate it, to condone it, even though given the national narrative - and the requirement that we reject, protest, intolerate - that's going to ring hollow with some people (oh well).   I say this because I'm a firm believer that it is foolish to try to solve a problem if you can't be honest about the root of the problem.    We just don't seem to be able to be honest about our dialogue on race.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 27, 2021, 10:31:13 AM
Not for nothing, and I am not saying this to be confrontational, but as a lawyer, who has studied many (not all, not even most) of the larger decisions - including the one you cite - that is one of my least favorite opinions.   It's clever, but it's not indicative, and it doesn't apply to you and me.  We're not arbiters.  We're living it.  That standard in real life is like "tie goes the runner" in a sandlot baseball game.

Personally, though, I think you're probably mostly right.  But I think the reality is more moderate:  I think while the further right you go, it's probably more and more underplayed as you say, but I think the converse is true as well: the further you go on the left, the more and more it's overplayed.

I think it EXISTS.  That's not up for discussion, but the degree is.   I do not think it is as pervasive as some think.  We've come to a point in our society where there's almost no such thing as "failure"; bias is assumed unless proven otherwise, and that's an impossible standard to meet (that's where the measurement comes in; not the existence but the degree).  There are other factors that need - if we're interested in FACT - to be considered.   I've posted articles/studies from Harvard - hardly "right wing", hardly pushing an agenda - that question the singular role of pure race in the rash of police killings.  Utterly ignored, and overlooked, because it doesn't serve the agenda.   I don't say any of this to support racism, to excuse it, to tolerate it, to condone it, even though given the national narrative - and the requirement that we reject, protest, intolerate - that's going to ring hollow with some people (oh well).   I say this because I'm a firm believer that it is foolish to try to solve a problem if you can't be honest about the root of the problem.    We just don't seem to be able to be honest about our dialogue on race.


These bolded parts are really interesting points about all of the Race discussion...

The assumption that one fits into the stereotype that was created of that Race. I should know because people actually think us Natives all live in teepees and say "How" and care about the environment. Yes, that is whom SOME of the natives are and we are supposed to be caring about the environment, but in Reality, we eat shit poop and pee the same things, because History (I won't get into all of that here). It's the assumption of fitting into an already preconceived assumption of who one is as a human.

We know who we are, we know what we have. It's just that you are not listening to what we are trying to comprehend to you. Instead, you go and assume our responsibilities and whom we are to better fit into whom you assume us to be, because it's not what you were taught whom we are.


And no race is free of any prejudice....That's one of the myriad flaws of humanity.

Black people treat Asians like shit....Asians treat blacks like shit.....Natives Treat whites like shit....

See how focusing on how one's skin tone is, sounds so stupid and causes nothing but chaos and division. That's all focusing on ones skin tone does.

To stop racism, we need to stop focusing on the skin tone, and rather understand that we are no different from one another, and if we want to talk about Race....Our true race is the Human race....like in the animal kingdom, same species but different forms. We humans can benefit and learn a lot just by going out and seeing what's in the world, and what the world offers. All this knowledge is there, you just need to seek it and want it, and Nature itself will show you.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on April 27, 2021, 03:07:30 PM

I do not think it is as pervasive as some think. 


Said the white lawyer.  ;)


No offense, counselor but you are pretty far off the mark with this one.  If it's not as big a problem as "some" think how do you explain the fact that we incarcerate people of color at nearly 5 times the rate of white people?


Quote
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states. This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.
Source (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/)


I'm too lazy to go find more examples but I could fill this entire board up with examples of not just some institutional racism in the United States.  No, the United States is possibly the most racist country on earth.  It permeates every social strata. 


We still don't have a federal law against lynching for chrissakes.


We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.



Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 27, 2021, 04:33:07 PM
Minor Drug offenses were also, a big factor in being incarcerated.


But where this stems from is the fact that White Europeans all had a sense of entitlement over the world. Which is why they ended up dominating this area of the world. They still want that dominion, and if China or Russia wasn't them and dominant nations, those would've been conquered as well.

But also, let's put Japan in play because they attacked us, yet ended up becoming the most technological advanced nation on Earth.

There is nothing like that for Black or Native people, because we were enslaved and incarcerated for not assimilating into their forceful ways of life.

Only now, those ways of incarceration are justified by the law. Before it was justified through church law, until Queen Isabelle declared that Native people were now Free, yet it took how long for it to be spread into this continent and also, those people knew, yet still disobeyed orders and had Native Slaves.

Since then, both Native and Blacks have been incarcerated and to this day still are...


Look at Leonard Peltier who is still incarcerated.


But also, The people need to realize and these kids need to realize that the system is built around Slavery because of production and this stems from the mining of our resources for the White European community and people, while leaving us the scraps...


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on April 28, 2021, 08:23:14 AM

I do not think it is as pervasive as some think. 


Said the white lawyer.  ;)


No offense, counselor but you are pretty far off the mark with this one.  If it's not as big a problem as "some" think how do you explain the fact that we incarcerate people of color at nearly 5 times the rate of white people?


Quote
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states. This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.
Source (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/)


I'm too lazy to go find more examples but I could fill this entire board up with examples of not just some institutional racism in the United States.  No, the United States is possibly the most racist country on earth.  It permeates every social strata. 


We still don't have a federal law against lynching for chrissakes.


We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.




To start, I'm not at all arguing that systematic racism in the judicial system doesn't exist, it obviously does. But simply saying that there are disproportionate levels of POC in prison does not prove systematic racism. It is possible that black people simply commit more crimes and thus deserve to be in prison at higher rates.

The numbers to me that show systematic racism are the stats that show that black people get harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes. White people are more likely to be let off with a warning where black people are more likely to get a ticket/fine/jail time for the same types of infractions. Black people are targeted more by police for minor infractions that whites get away with all the time. That type of thing, which I know exist.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 28, 2021, 10:59:24 AM

I do not think it is as pervasive as some think. 


Said the white lawyer.  ;)


No offense, counselor but you are pretty far off the mark with this one.  If it's not as big a problem as "some" think how do you explain the fact that we incarcerate people of color at nearly 5 times the rate of white people?


Quote
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states. This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.
Source (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/)


I'm too lazy to go find more examples but I could fill this entire board up with examples of not just some institutional racism in the United States.  No, the United States is possibly the most racist country on earth.  It permeates every social strata. 


We still don't have a federal law against lynching for chrissakes.


We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.

You don't have to cite more (I mean that nicely; I'm familiar with the numbers, at least nominally).   I get it.  But that's what I meant by difficulty measuring.   Is that differential actually because the incarcerated are there solely because they are black?  Or because of another variable?  And to what degree is THAT variable because the subject is black?   Where does the inequity occur?  In the sentencing?  The convicting?  The arrest?  The perpetration of the alleged crime?   The formulation of the crime (the legislation)?   All of the above? Some of the above?   

In some cases, the evidence is clearer; the "story" behind the "cocaine/crack" discrepancy is well-publicized.  I don't see any explanation there that doesn't at least in part involve race.   But that's not the whole story everywhere else; I've written about this here before:  a study was done here in Connecticut about the traffic stops on a particular stretch of road.   I don't remember the exact numbers, but when compared to the overall state demographic, African Americans were pulled over at something like twice the rate of white drivers, proportionally.  BUT.... when you dug in and looked at the demographic of the ROADWAY, that is, the average "demographic" of the area in which the stops were done, African Americans were pulled over at a rate that was some fraction of that of white drivers, proportionally.  The NAACP made great hay about how racist Connecticut cops are, and yet... with a full data set, that's not what the study showed.   Now, it's not out of the question that other factors/variables are in play.  Why was that stretch of road selected?  What happened with each stop? etc., but that was beyond the scope of the study. 


And while I trust you were joking, my race isn't a factor here, because I'm not arguing about race.  I'm arguing about the merits of the discussion and the elements of the argument.  I am not, for example, saying that the five times African Americans "belong there" in jail.  I'm not saying nothing should be done, or there's no need to look any further.   I am saying, though, that we do have to understand if it really is "race" or if race is a corrollary or if it's something else entirely.    If there is racial bias, it ought to be eradicated as quickly and as completely as it can be.  As that lawyer, I'm interested in a system that has good data in, and good data out.  If someone goes through the system, and ALL other variables are equal, then the outcomes for a white person and a person of color ought to be the same as the demographic in which they are living.  What I'm pushing back on is gamed analysis, that starts with the outcome and assumes a problem without appropriately controlling for all the variables, or where all the other variables AREN'T equal.   I don't do this to defend cops, or to persecute African Americans, I do this because so far all the "solutions" haven't worked, and it's my experience, from almost thirty years of dealing with process improvement in one form or another, that you cannot POSSIBLY solve a problem if you do not understand what that problem is and what's causing it.   "Guessing" and "common sense" are not "understanding".

And finally, let's be clear: the comment about "systemic racism" isn't limited to our criminal justice system.  I think it's in the activists best interests that anything that COULD be racially influenced be categorically classified as "racism".  That's in large part what I mean by "overblown".   This isn't a difference in qualification; I will repeat what I said about, to the extent there is a disparity BY RACE, it needs to be eradicated.   But "race" isn't special, it's not sacred, it's not elite; we need truth, accuracy and objectivity to solve the problem just like we do with climate change, immigration, or any of a 100 other issues that affect our nation.  And again, I say this as an advocate, albeit a measured one:   lack of truthfulness, lack of accuracy, lack of transparency isn't just not going to solve the problem, it's going to make the problem worse.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 28, 2021, 11:58:30 AM
From the article that Barry cited, this is a fantastic example of what I'm talking about:

"The impact of structural disadvantage begins early in life. When looking at juvenile crime, it is not necessarily the case that youth of color have a greater tendency to engage in delinquency, but that the uneven playing field from the start, a part of larger American society, creates inequalities which are related to who goes on to commit crime and who is equipped to desist from crime.46) More specifically, as a result of structural differences by race and class, youth of color are more likely to experience unstable family systems, exposure to family and/or community violence, elevated rates of unemployment, and more school dropout.47) All of these factors are more likely to exist in communities of color and play a role in one’s proclivity toward crime."

At some point we have to get to levers that can be pulled to effect lasting, stabilizing change.  But how do you do that?  Is it really "racism" - systemic or otherwise - that under-emphasizes family and/or education in minority families?   This says that income over $50k can reduce the risk of divorce by almost a third over that of families with incomes less than $25k (https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/); so clearly there is an economic factor in the structural stability of a family.  Is that "racial" in nature?  There can certainly be racial implications there; but even if an African American family is more likely than a white family to be economically challenged, that's a key spot where the chain of causation can be broken.   Similar with education; it's well established that there are links to education level and income over the working life of an individual (https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017/01/03/education-income-and-wealth/).   So how do we use education to remove or minimize the disparities that manifest later in life?   

Again, even if the answer is ultimately, "yes, this is racism", this is a point at which change can be made that is lasting.  Rather than blow up the entire system - that clearly works for SOME - why not make it work for ALL?   Why not put the onus back on the people that want the change, that need the change?  Why not eliminate the grey areas, the downstream correlations, and focus on the real heart of the problem?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on April 28, 2021, 12:37:23 PM

We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.
So as somebody from a state that plays a big role in the makeup of death row, I'll chime in on this. It's a lot of overlap from Stadler's post, but I think I can shed some light on one major distinction. This issue that we see down here is more social than systemic. The issue is with juries being more inclined to sentence a black guy to death than a white guy, and elected prosecutors being more inclined to pursue that avenue. That's a people problem. And the reality, at least I think, has more to do with perception than race. I can assure you that the people that wind up getting the needle down here are rung up because they're seen as undesirable, rather than black or white or Mexican. If a white guy is seen as worthless, and plenty are, he'll get the same end of the shaft. If a black guy is seen as salvageable, he'll escape the needle. While race obviously does factor into the distinction, again, it's a people problem.

While there are rules in place that have been used to stick it to the black folk, the problem was with the application of those rules rather than the rules themselves. A good example of this is the Texas Shuffle. Traditionally white prosecutors could just use peremptory challenges to get rid of black jurors. Batson changed that. The solution was to look at the panel, and if the first guys up were black, request the jury be renumbered at random and hope that more white folk are seated at the front. You had a law that was being exploited, so it was changed, so then the people found a new way to exploit the system. That was changed, too, incidentally. In neither of these instances were the laws actually setup for racial animus. In fact, the Texas Shuffle could be just as easily exploited for the defense (try and get a bunch of white guys moved out of the front rows). It's just the way they were used. That's a people problem.

I've got no beef with you when it comes to systemic racism. It is real and it is a problem. I don't even have a beef with you insofar as there being systemic racism in the justice system. I just don't think citing 42 vs 13.4 really means much. In this instance it's not so much that the system is buggered, but rather that it's being operated by a bunch of fucking savages.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on April 28, 2021, 02:26:10 PM

I do not think it is as pervasive as some think. 


Said the white lawyer.  ;)


No offense, counselor but you are pretty far off the mark with this one.  If it's not as big a problem as "some" think how do you explain the fact that we incarcerate people of color at nearly 5 times the rate of white people?


Quote
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states. This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.
Source (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/)


I'm too lazy to go find more examples but I could fill this entire board up with examples of not just some institutional racism in the United States.  No, the United States is possibly the most racist country on earth.  It permeates every social strata. 


We still don't have a federal law against lynching for chrissakes.


We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.




To start, I'm not at all arguing that systematic racism in the judicial system doesn't exist, it obviously does. But simply saying that there are disproportionate levels of POC in prison does not prove systematic racism. It is possible that black people simply commit more crimes and thus deserve to be in prison at higher rates.

The numbers to me that show systematic racism are the stats that show that black people get harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes. White people are more likely to be let off with a warning where black people are more likely to get a ticket/fine/jail time for the same types of infractions. Black people are targeted more by police for minor infractions that whites get away with all the time. That type of thing, which I know exist.


wow  ??? :eek
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on April 28, 2021, 02:51:17 PM

I do not think it is as pervasive as some think. 


Said the white lawyer.  ;)


No offense, counselor but you are pretty far off the mark with this one.  If it's not as big a problem as "some" think how do you explain the fact that we incarcerate people of color at nearly 5 times the rate of white people?


Quote
African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at more than five times the rate of whites, and at least ten times the rate in five states. This report documents the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.
Source (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/)


I'm too lazy to go find more examples but I could fill this entire board up with examples of not just some institutional racism in the United States.  No, the United States is possibly the most racist country on earth.  It permeates every social strata. 


We still don't have a federal law against lynching for chrissakes.


We incarcerate 5 times as many blacks as whites, while blacks only make up 13.4% of our population but you're gonna say the problem is overblown?  Really?  :facepalm:


Currently 42% of the inmates on death row are black while they make up just 13.4% of the population at large.




To start, I'm not at all arguing that systematic racism in the judicial system doesn't exist, it obviously does. But simply saying that there are disproportionate levels of POC in prison does not prove systematic racism. It is possible that black people simply commit more crimes and thus deserve to be in prison at higher rates.

The numbers to me that show systematic racism are the stats that show that black people get harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes. White people are more likely to be let off with a warning where black people are more likely to get a ticket/fine/jail time for the same types of infractions. Black people are targeted more by police for minor infractions that whites get away with all the time. That type of thing, which I know exist.


wow  ??? :eek
It's an unpleasant, but unfortunately valid question. The sad part is that it's a necessary topic, but one we can't discuss out of misguided fear. And I say misguided because, thanks to the systemic racism that we generally all agree does exist, it needn't be a judgmental question. I have no problem accepting that we've created a system where dealing rock might be the best option for a certain person, and I can understand why he does that. He won't get any flack from me for taking the obvious course. We can't have it both ways, though. If we've created a system that made criminality his best career move, we can't then turn around and use that as an indictment against the CJ system that exists to imprison criminals. Of course the reality is that there will be problems on both sides. Finding out where the crossover point is seems like a helpful thing to do, but good luck trying to broach that subject. Right now we're only allowed to consider these problems from one vantage point.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on April 28, 2021, 02:55:47 PM
Maybe it's possible that the police are biased against black people and investigate /arrest them at a much, much higher rate than white in Oakland a black man is eight times more likely to be pulled over than a white man. I'd gather this statistic holds in some manner nationwide,hence the racism is intrinsic to the system, and breeds it in the populace into thinking that 'black people commit more crimes'
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 28, 2021, 03:20:05 PM
But I think El Barto is closer to the answer.   The question, and the answer, are still valid questions that have so much baggage, they can't be asked.   

We know for a fact that men commit crimes at a far higher rate than the demographic breakdown (51/49%) should suggest (https://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-between-male-female-offending-patterns.html), and we know this is true in all countries for which data are available, and across all racial and ethnic groups, as well as over time.  So why would it necessarily be different for race, especially if we don't exclude other racial impacts like economics?   I'm not suggesting that LordXizor is right, but it's a legit question to ask in order to find the solution to the problem.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on April 29, 2021, 06:22:15 AM
I think the phrase "deserve to be in prison" is possibly the point of contention.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lordxizor on April 29, 2021, 09:11:38 AM
I think the phrase "deserve to be in prison" is possibly the point of contention.
Please note that I wasn't suggesting that is the case, just pointing out that it is one explanation for why there is a disproportionate amount of black people in prison. By "deserve" I simply meant that they committed crimes that by law lead to prison time.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 29, 2021, 09:53:17 AM
Systemic Racism doesn't happen now as much as it did back then before the civil rights act. Hell that isn't even 100 years old yet, so how can people expect racism to be completely gone in our lifetimes. It won't and will never be. This is a problem that takes generations to actually see the effect.

We are getting closer, but that doesn't mean the problems won't still be here.

The Prison System was used to incarcerate us Natives in the past because we didn't abide or submit to their rules and laws. In those times, in modern words, us Natives were labelled Criminals and Thugs, just like people label the Black People incarcerated now, because they broke the law.

We had to assimilate and abide by their laws and rules, only then were we considered "Civilized"....and honestly, I don't see much difference today, it's just evolved and made modern using modern terminology.

The issue with this is Self-Responsibilty. Not anything to do with race. It's basically, What are you doing for yourself to improve yourself and better the community itself. And right now, most are not being responsible and are being immature and taking the handout and wanting an easy way and don't want to put in the effort because it's hard. They like the comforts that distract them from achieving the self-responsibility. Which is what many Adults in the black community at trying to do, and teach their youth to have more self-responsibility. Because children imitate what's on TV, and we all know whats on that TV.....

How would you feel if all that was plastered on TV for the White race was nothing but the Hillbilly lifestyle? Because that is how Media portrays people and the youth eat that up.

Also, there are stigmas within the race itself that prevents that race from bettering themselves. Which is..."Oh that's, white man's stuff, or white man's music" we are finally seeing this stigma being broken within the black community as more youth and people are showing that they are more than capable of doing that. And these stigmas prevented them from achieving them.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on April 29, 2021, 10:46:45 AM
As much as I would love to see it eradicated - it's a negative on every level, from factual, social, human rights, economics, practicalities, logic - I fear it's actually going to get worse.   It seems to me, the more we know - the more we learn about the roots and multipliers of racist/bigoted behavior - the less we do about it (my guess only, because the work is harder and less immediate).  It's at heart a problem of psychology, and unless and until we can get our arms around that, we're going to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of solving the problem and that makes me sad.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Ben_Jamin on April 29, 2021, 04:04:08 PM
As much as I would love to see it eradicated - it's a negative on every level, from factual, social, human rights, economics, practicalities, logic - I fear it's actually going to get worse.   It seems to me, the more we know - the more we learn about the roots and multipliers of racist/bigoted behavior - the less we do about it (my guess only, because the work is harder and less immediate).  It's at heart a problem of psychology, and unless and until we can get our arms around that, we're going to continue to shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of solving the problem and that makes me sad.

The more I get into the issues of Racism, the more and more I realize it is a psychological issue. One that involves both the self and the other.

I say this too because of how BLM and those people are responding to this racism issue. What are they doing to better themselves, because all these opportunities are there. Or is it the Stigma that is caused by your own people that is preventing you from accessing these opportunities that are there?

One is placing blame on "The Other",  while the other places blame on "The Self".

It's one question I asked about myself and my people, and to analyze which problems are in fact because of Racism/Prejudices or problems caused of our own volition.

It's seeing and recognizing what really is caused by systemic racism and what is caused by ones own self actions...

I'd say, this article and what happened to the people is a good example of Systemic Racism

Quote
Today, the business of the sugarbush, or iskigamizigan in the Ojibwe language, also has an element of Indigenous activism. Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota have rights to hunt and gather on ceded lands affirmed by the Treaties of 1836, 1837 and 1842. Until the 1980s, however, after tribes sued for those rights in federal courts, both states prevented Ojibwe citizens from hunting, gathering or fishing off reservation lands. Iskigamizigan is an affirmation of treaty rights, emphasizing Ojibwe’s inherent rights to healthy sustainable subsistence foodstuffs.

Ojibwe have long relied on the maple tree - known as ininaatiq or man tree - for food and a product with which to barter or sell. Unlike white sugar, maple syrup and maple sugar contain riboflavin, thiamine, manganese, zinc, magnesium, calcium, iron, selenium and potassium. According to research funded by the Federation of Quebec Maple Producers, maple syrup also has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties as well as polyphenols, which inhibit the enzymes responsible for converting carbohydrates to sugars, offering a possible method for managing Type 2 diabetes.

According to historical data collected by Paul DeMain of the Oneida and Ojibwe tribes, a typical Ojibwe family during the late 19th century produced around 1,000 pounds of maple sugar. Since about 40 gallons of sap are required to make one gallon of syrup or eight pounds of sugar, the family would have tapped about 900 trees. DeMain is an avid proponent of food sovereignty in which Native peoples use local resources to feed themselves.


But as settlers began to cut the forests for timber and states grew more restrictive toward tribal hunting, fishing and gathering rights, Ojibwe began to move away from the sugarbush, relying instead on store-bought sugar.

https://indiancountrytoday.com/.amp/news/sugarbush-brings-healing-sweet-maple-syrup?__twitter_impression=true&s=04


Because the settlers, wanted to basically live and survive, they took the lumber that the natives relied on for their sugar and always have, and due to this, had to rely on "The Other" sugar product which caused the people to become diabetic. When these people were using perfectly healthy sugars that didn't make them fat, and how and why they have a process to get that Sap and make it into Sugar....in turn the Settlers detrimented a peoples health and caused them sickness because they took all the Maple Trees for their own lumber, when the natives could've helped them and told them about the Maple Sugar and the settlers could've learned how to build homes without lumber from the Maple Trees.....
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 03, 2021, 01:19:42 PM
I think you're spot on, Stadler.  It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and if you don't believe that, just look at what's happening right now in the Republican Party.   Us Democrats have our fair share of issues but nothing anywhere even remotely close to this.


70% of Republicans (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/politics/cnn-poll-voting-rights/index.html) actually believe Joe Biden was not the legitimate winner of the election.


7 out of every 10 Republicans!  And here's what's really scary about that.  This is only speculation but I am convinced that many -if not most- of the people who responded that way to the poll know deep down that it's a lie, they just don't care.  The way they see things is from now on they're just not going to accept any election outcome in which the Republican is the loser.


And there's a reason this is happening and it really ties in to the massive amount of racism that permeates the Republican Party now.  I mean, their entire platform for the election was "agree 100% with Trump on everything" and IT STILL IS! 


This is an incredibly dangerous and perilous time for the United States when you have one of the two major parties animated mostly by white grievance and fidelity to a racist criminal who incited a riot that threatened the lives of many in congress and the senate as well as the Vice President who the crowd was chanting about hanging. 


What's absolutely mind-boggling to me is none of this is hyperbole at all.  It's real.  We are in deep, deep shit and it's not all because of Donald Trump.  He's the most glaring symptom of the problem but the problem really ties back to this nationalist, nativist, white grievance-based anger-fueled, resentment-fueled movement that's happening in the Republican Party. 


It has seeped into all corners of the conservative movement to the point where conservatism has been completely twisted into the most clear and present danger to our Democracy since the Civil War.  It's no longer about small government, fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.  It's now all about holding on to power by any means necessary in a very rapidly browning America and they are all absolutely petrified that the demographics of the country are changing and they're going to become a permanent minority.  But even in the minority they can do serious damage, look no further than Amy Coney Barrett sitting in a literally stolen SCOTUS seat.


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 03, 2021, 01:24:25 PM
Never, ever thought I would say this but I agree with George W. Bush  :eek


https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/bush-gop-white-anglo-saxon-protestantism/index.html





Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on May 03, 2021, 02:11:24 PM
Never, ever thought I would say this but I agree with George W. Bush  :eek


https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/bush-gop-white-anglo-saxon-protestantism/index.html

I've said that a few times these past couple of years, and I had to double take myself each time  :lol
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 03, 2021, 02:47:33 PM
I think you're spot on, Stadler.  It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and if you don't believe that, just look at what's happening right now in the Republican Party.   Us Democrats have our fair share of issues but nothing anywhere even remotely close to this.


70% of Republicans (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/politics/cnn-poll-voting-rights/index.html) actually believe Joe Biden was not the legitimate winner of the election.


7 out of every 10 Republicans!  And here's what's really scary about that.  This is only speculation but I am convinced that many -if not most- of the people who responded that way to the poll know deep down that it's a lie, they just don't care.  The way they see things is from now on they're just not going to accept any election outcome in which the Republican is the loser.


And there's a reason this is happening and it really ties in to the massive amount of racism that permeates the Republican Party now.  I mean, their entire platform for the election was "agree 100% with Trump on everything" and IT STILL IS! 


This is an incredibly dangerous and perilous time for the United States when you have one of the two major parties animated mostly by white grievance and fidelity to a racist criminal who incited a riot that threatened the lives of many in congress and the senate as well as the Vice President who the crowd was chanting about hanging. 


What's absolutely mind-boggling to me is none of this is hyperbole at all.  It's real.  We are in deep, deep shit and it's not all because of Donald Trump.  He's the most glaring symptom of the problem but the problem really ties back to this nationalist, nativist, white grievance-based anger-fueled, resentment-fueled movement that's happening in the Republican Party. 


It has seeped into all corners of the conservative movement to the point where conservatism has been completely twisted into the most clear and present danger to our Democracy since the Civil War.  It's no longer about small government, fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.  It's now all about holding on to power by any means necessary in a very rapidly browning America and they are all absolutely petrified that the demographics of the country are changing and they're going to become a permanent minority.  But even in the minority they can do serious damage, look no further than Amy Coney Barrett sitting in a literally stolen SCOTUS seat.

I understand most of all of that,  I don't agree with all of it - what "damage" has Amy Coney Barrett (who didn't herself steal anything) caused? - but I understand it.   Except:   the leap to racism.   We're seeing the worst of the worst on the media.   We know the media is out for sensationalism and eyeballs.  Racism is a hot-button issue right now, and so it "mobilizes".  It "outrages".   I don't have a ton of friends I'd call conservative - most of my friends are Biden liberals, i.e. moderates  - but of those I do, not one jives with that stereotype of renegade conservative gun-toting racist maniac.   They might misunderstand "communism" or "socialism" (to a point that Dave makes a lot) but the outright "I Will Not Comply" racist?  I've not met them (and I think I would have, given that in the press, they don't seem shy).  I'm finding it hard to believe - even having relatives in Florida, having lived in Atlanta and Charlotte - that that's driving 70 million people.   I think, respectfully, you underestimate how someone can be scared of someone like an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 04, 2021, 11:18:19 AM
The damage is the type of politics that withholds a nomination hearing for a SCOTUS vacancy 9 months before a presidential election citing the proximity of the election as the rationale while a Democrat was in office and then cynically filling a SCOTUS seat 2 months before the very next presidential election while a Republican is in office.  To me, that kind of politics is damaging to the country because that's not how the system is supposed to work.  It's cynical and dishonest and hypocritical.  Basically what I see of the Republican party these days backing that lunatic, credibly-accused rapist, "individual #1" serial philanderer, porn-star banging and hush-money paying pathalogical lying, insurrection-inspiring former guy who can't accept that he lost the election by almost 8 million votes and pretty much the entire Republican party in our government following this insanity that the 2020 election was "fraudulent" (because they don't like the outcome) it's all been extremely damaging and it continues to this very moment.  It's a slow-moving evaporation of democracy happening before our eyes right here and now.  This country is in a serious crisis and it's all on the Republicans who are propping this fucking guy up.


I'm sorry but those are just the facts on the ground and no amount of veering into inconsequential tangential subjects is going to change any of it.  The former guy is literally trying to destroy our democracy and one of the two major parties is aiding and abetting in plain view.  I'd call that damaging, yes. 


Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 04, 2021, 02:23:40 PM
The damage is the type of politics that withholds a nomination hearing for a SCOTUS vacancy 9 months before a presidential election citing the proximity of the election as the rationale while a Democrat was in office and then cynically filling a SCOTUS seat 2 months before the very next presidential election while a Republican is in office.  To me, that kind of politics is damaging to the country because that's not how the system is supposed to work.  It's cynical and dishonest and hypocritical.  Basically what I see of the Republican party these days backing that lunatic, credibly-accused rapist, "individual #1" serial philanderer, porn-star banging and hush-money paying pathalogical lying, insurrection-inspiring former guy who can't accept that he lost the election by almost 8 million votes and pretty much the entire Republican party in our government following this insanity that the 2020 election was "fraudulent" (because they don't like the outcome) it's all been extremely damaging and it continues to this very moment.  It's a slow-moving evaporation of democracy happening before our eyes right here and now.  This country is in a serious crisis and it's all on the Republicans who are propping this fucking guy up.


I'm sorry but those are just the facts on the ground and no amount of veering into inconsequential tangential subjects is going to change any of it.  The former guy is literally trying to destroy our democracy and one of the two major parties is aiding and abetting in plain view.  I'd call that damaging, yes.

I'm not going to disagree with anything you've said here Barry.....but just want to point out that the Democrats spent 4 years and invented reasons to try and impeach trump because they couldn't handle the fact that hilary lost. At every turn when it was proven that whatever 'case' they had against trump was false or flimsy they just pivoted to another sketchy batch of reasons why he should be impeached and/or not be the president.

I get that there are some grossly hypocritical things that the repubs have done and agree that it's a bunch of crap. As long as it remains clear and we don't lose sight of the fact that each side is full of a bunch of out of touch elitists who are out to do nothing but serve themselves and the hands that feed them. It's painfully obvious that our leadership does not care about the average American. For every instance that 'you' can provide of a republican doing this or that things that is horrific and equally disgusting behavior and/or deep can be produced for a democratic leader. The fingers we're pointing shouldn't be at each party....it should be at the entirety of congress for their actions or non actions that have taken place over the past half century or so.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XJDenton on May 04, 2021, 04:44:36 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2021, 05:02:15 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?
Yeah, that's kind of a bad narrative. I think everybody but the loyalest Trumpers know that he did exactly what he was accused of. The issue was if there was proof that he committed a crime. I may be wrong, but my recollection was that Gary was in the "of course he did it" camp, but also thought there was no basis for an impeachment. That's all way cool with me. I've got no problem with the argument, though I may disagree with the conclusion. However, the notion that it was made up, or a witch hunt makes no sense. If he does something quite clearly criminal are they just supposed to ignore it? Moving ahead with a prosecution is just sour grapes?

Kind of reminds me of OJ, now that I think about it. We all felt the guy deserved to be in prison. He eventually committed a crime that landed him there. Is our satisfaction of his imprisonment simply the result of sour grapes? Was the burglary allegation invented out of malice? The Vegas thing had nothing to do with the stabbings, yet I suspect OJ would be the first one to say it was a witch hunt, invented by the people who wanted to see him convicted for the murders. Sometimes people you can't stand do bad things and you get to nail them for it. The fact that they've made themselves eminently hateable certainly shouldn't change that.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 04, 2021, 05:38:20 PM
For the life of me I've no idea why Trump didn't just pull a 'Few Good Men' Jack Nicholson moment on the first impeachment.

Prosecutor: "Did you suggest you'd withhold 'aid' to Ukraine if Zelensky didn't publicly announce an investigation into Biden?"

Trump: "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!"

Because whereas poor old Colonel Jessop got led away in handcuffs the GOP would have simply said "Meh, doesn't matter, we're acquitting him anyway". Lindsey Graham said even before the trial began, before a single piece of evidence had been presented, that he was going to acquit him (this is the same guy who loves to lecture Russia on how America is a "Country of Laws").

We've arrived at the part of American history where the most recent former president is saying the last election was "fraudulent" and his party is going along with it, because to promulgate this lie generates tens of millions a month in donations to the 'Save America' PAC, which is more than the RNC can generate with sensible facts. The impeachment trials were a farce, but not for the reason the MAGA folk think. They were a farce because if Trump had personally shot up a school the Republican-controlled Senate would still have acquitted him, safe in the knowledge that they can justify it by saying if he's removed from office then "radical left communists" are going to take over the country and confiscate your guns and your Jesus. Remember, these are the same people who took part in the absolutely shameful character assassination of Doug Jones in order to try and get Roy Moore elected. "Yeah he's a slimy racist homophobic tax-dodger with a catalogue of both adult and child sexual assault allegations against him, but he's a gun-toting Jesus-loving Christian, so let's destroy this other guy with made-up nonsense to keep us in power". I asked it at the time of the GOP: do you have even the slightest notion of how reprehensible you have to be in the eyes of voters that the people of Ala-freakin'-bama said enough is enough and elected a Democrat to the Senate over your guy Roy Moore? Did you not take that as some kind of sign that you were going way too far down the blind Trump-worship road?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on May 04, 2021, 05:40:45 PM
The ukranian thing was middle of the road impeachment, on par with lying to congress about a blow job. The Muller investigation, I mean that did produce multiple indictments and convictions, so there was something at the end of the trail of breadcrums.

The second impeachment...well...that should've been a slam dunk and shows just how deep in the shits the GOP is, the fact that they couldn't ditch donnie from the party after that shit show just proves to me that, as Dave has alluded to many times, Donnie's fundraising ability is more important to them than the sanctity of our democracy.


(Dave posted while I was typing this...so if his post refutes mine, go with him, he's much smarter in these circles than I)
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2021, 06:00:05 PM
For the life of me I've no idea why Trump didn't just pull a 'Few Good Men' Jack Nicholson moment on the first impeachment.

Prosecutor: "Did you suggest you'd withhold 'aid' to Ukraine if Zelensky didn't publicly announce an investigation into Biden?"

Trump: "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!"

Because whereas poor old Colonel Jessop got led away in handcuffs the GOP would have simply said "Meh, doesn't matter, we're acquitting him anyway". Lindsey Graham said even before the trial began, before a single piece of evidence had been presented, that he was going to acquit him (this is the same guy who loves to lecture Russia on how America is a "Country of Laws").
And the reason this is true is because of the false narrative that it was just the sore loser democrats making up an excuse they can to get rid of him. Say it enough times and people will start to believe it, and enough people believed it at that point to immediately dismiss the allegations against him without a second thought. Conservative talking heads were saying it over and over before he even took office, getting an early start knowing that it would probably become necessary.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Dave_Manchester on May 04, 2021, 06:03:51 PM
The ukranian thing was middle of the road impeachment, on par with lying to congress about a blow job. The Muller investigation, I mean that did produce multiple indictments and convictions, so there was something at the end of the trail of breadcrums.

The second impeachment...well...that should've been a slam dunk and shows just how deep in the shits the GOP is, the fact that they couldn't ditch donnie from the party after that shit show just proves to me that, as Dave has alluded to many times, Donnie's fundraising ability is more important to them than the sanctity of our democracy.


(Dave posted while I was typing this...so if his post refutes mine, go with him, he's much smarter in these circles than I)
There are something like 10 different reasons why Trump should have been removed from office before the 2020 election (#1 being his Helsinki meeting with Putin at which he threw his country's intelligence agencies under the bus in front of the world's cameras). The Zelensky call is something like #6. The President of the United States does not have conversations like that with the 'leader' of a country like Ukraine. That was the first time in history a US president has tried to bargain with someone they have traditionally simply given orders to. Trump wanted a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at a time when Russia was wiping out Ukrainian forces in Luhansk and Donetsk and Zelensky was wondering if he'd even have a country left to lead in a month's time. It was a blatant attempt at blackmail, albeit a weak one (it was only ever a bluff, Trump was always going to give Zelensky the money no matter what he said, and the latter knew it).

What Trump did ought to have seen him convicted, because he put his own interests before his country's. In the grand scheme of his idiocy it's fairly low down the list, but it was grounds to remove him nonetheless. If a Democrat had done it Lindsey Graham would have given an ironclad case for why he or she was literally a traitor to American interests (and he'd have been right). But that isn't the America that exists anymore. It's not about the 'law' or 'American interests', it's about making sure your guys are the ones driving the gravy train no matter the cost.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on May 04, 2021, 07:16:15 PM
The ukranian thing was middle of the road impeachment, on par with lying to congress about a blow job. The Muller investigation, I mean that did produce multiple indictments and convictions, so there was something at the end of the trail of breadcrums.

The second impeachment...well...that should've been a slam dunk and shows just how deep in the shits the GOP is, the fact that they couldn't ditch donnie from the party after that shit show just proves to me that, as Dave has alluded to many times, Donnie's fundraising ability is more important to them than the sanctity of our democracy.


(Dave posted while I was typing this...so if his post refutes mine, go with him, he's much smarter in these circles than I)
There are something like 10 different reasons why Trump should have been removed from office before the 2020 election (#1 being his Helsinki meeting with Putin at which he threw his country's intelligence agencies under the bus in front of the world's cameras). The Zelensky call is something like #6. The President of the United States does not have conversations like that with the 'leader' of a country like Ukraine. That was the first time in history a US president has tried to bargain with someone they have traditionally simply given orders to. Trump wanted a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at a time when Russia was wiping out Ukrainian forces in Luhansk and Donetsk and Zelensky was wondering if he'd even have a country left to lead in a month's time. It was a blatant attempt at blackmail, albeit a weak one (it was only ever a bluff, Trump was always going to give Zelensky the money no matter what he said, and the latter knew it).

What Trump did ought to have seen him convicted, because he put his own interests before his country's. In the grand scheme of his idiocy it's fairly low down the list, but it was grounds to remove him nonetheless. If a Democrat had done it Lindsey Graham would have given an ironclad case for why he or she was literally a traitor to American interests (and he'd have been right). But that isn't the America that exists anymore. It's not about the 'law' or 'American interests', it's about making sure your guys are the ones driving the gravy train no matter the cost.

I forgot about that one...living through that shit storm day to day put me into a political stockholm syndrome...where you couldn't really dig into bullshit A because bullshit B was flying around the corner to smack you in the face. The most fitting meme from the whole Trump era was the Picard 'Damage Report' one...each day was just a matter of wtf now....there are countless shitstorms that are just long forgotten. Remember the Inauguration fiasco when they raised 107 million for a shit performance schedule of artists my local county fair wouldn't stoop low enough to book?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 04, 2021, 09:57:04 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?

While EB is right and I do think that trump most likely did something wrong somewhere along the lines......the dossier that kick started the entire first impeachment process what all fabrication and 1/4 truths. In other words.....invented. The Dems were talking impeachment before trump even won....and kept the ball rolling every step of the way with thin evidence and innuendo. There was never a real case against the guy......it only seemed that way thanks to a media that hated him just as much as the Dems did.

D bag of a person who had no clue how to be a leader......probably violate multiple laws a day.....but there was never substantial evidence brought to the surface. All media and dem driven hype.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2021, 10:02:24 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?

While EB is right and I do think that trump most likely did something wrong somewhere along the lines......the dossier that kick started the entire first impeachment process what all fabrication and 1/4 truths. In other words.....invented. The Dems were talking impeachment before trump even won....and kept the ball rolling every step of the way with thin evidence and innuendo. There was never a real case against the guy......it only seemed that way thanks to a media that hated him just as much as the Dems did.

D bag of a person who had no clue how to be a leader......probably violate multiple laws a day.....but there was never substantial evidence brought to the surface. All media and dem driven hype.
So I'll ask again, should the democrats have just ignored the whole thing? Decided "if we follow up on this we'll just look petty and vindictive, so I guess he gets a pass?" You agree that he very likely committed and impeachable act. So then what?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 04, 2021, 11:21:24 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?

While EB is right and I do think that trump most likely did something wrong somewhere along the lines......the dossier that kick started the entire first impeachment process what all fabrication and 1/4 truths. In other words.....invented. The Dems were talking impeachment before trump even won....and kept the ball rolling every step of the way with thin evidence and innuendo. There was never a real case against the guy......it only seemed that way thanks to a media that hated him just as much as the Dems did.

D bag of a person who had no clue how to be a leader......probably violate multiple laws a day.....but there was never substantial evidence brought to the surface. All media and dem driven hype.
So I'll ask again, should the democrats have just ignored the whole thing? Decided "if we follow up on this we'll just look petty and vindictive, so I guess he gets a pass?" You agree that he very likely committed and impeachable act. So then what?

I think they should have realized how flawed their approach and evidence was and not drawn a line in the sand that blew away at the slightest breeze.....only to draw another then another.

They should have taken their time and gathered credible evidence, stuff that would stick and developed a rock solid argument. Instead they endlessly cried wolf to where when there was a smidge of credibility hidden in the echo people like me didn’t care enough to listen. I found their approach to be akin to whining babies for 4+ years. And that was even with understanding what a horrible person trump is......the way they droned on and on about any little thing trump may or may not have done was maddening and made it impossible to take them serious.

Now the shoes just on the other foot. Different babies crying but the same outcome.....they’re showing their asses and picking up where the Dems left off by making a mockery of a system of government that when treated with dignity and respect is a great system to govern a country by.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 05, 2021, 02:44:20 PM
Wow, you actually believe all that?   ???


We are fucking doomed
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 05, 2021, 02:51:01 PM
Wow, you actually believe all that?   ???


We are fucking doomed

Ehh. Edit.......never mind. I forgot that everything you say and believe is gospel.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 05, 2021, 03:10:04 PM
I think we're doomed because honestly, Gary, it's like you're posting a word-for-word readout of Sean Hannity's show.  If you can refute anything I've posted in this thread go ahead and refute it.  But give me facts.  Don't give me "but the Democrats said mean things about Trump!"

















Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 05, 2021, 04:13:18 PM
I think we're doomed because honestly, Gary, it's like you're posting a word-for-word readout of Sean Hannity's show. If you can refute anything I've posted in this thread go ahead and refute it.  But give me facts.  Don't give me "but the Democrats said mean things about Trump!"

That's the thing though Barry.....I don't need to. It's proven that the dossier that was used as THE reason for the entire start of the russian probe was defunct and a bunch of crap. Furthermore......I learned my lesson long ago in this subforum that I could spend three hours crafting a post and linking this or that to 'refute' what you say with it only to be dismissed in a matter of a sentence or two. I could just as easily say the stuff you say is word for word from a Don Lemon broadcast or Bernie Sanders rally. What's it matter? You aren't going to drive me off of my beliefs and nor I you.
 
While I may have a vastly different life view than you or other 'liberal' minded people.....I'm self aware enough to know that the way I think or how I raise my kids or the way I handle myself day to day and treat people is FAR from 'dooming' the country. If anything what I do as a parent and a citizen should provide hope......but, you go ahead and keep making asshole comments.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 05, 2021, 04:21:26 PM
Yeah, I'll suggest to you both that today is probably not the day to be at each other.  :lol
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 05, 2021, 04:40:03 PM
Which reasons did the democrats invent in order to impeach Trump?

While EB is right and I do think that trump most likely did something wrong somewhere along the lines......the dossier that kick started the entire first impeachment process what all fabrication and 1/4 truths. In other words.....invented. The Dems were talking impeachment before trump even won....and kept the ball rolling every step of the way with thin evidence and innuendo. There was never a real case against the guy......it only seemed that way thanks to a media that hated him just as much as the Dems did.

D bag of a person who had no clue how to be a leader......probably violate multiple laws a day.....but there was never substantial evidence brought to the surface. All media and dem driven hype.
So I'll ask again, should the democrats have just ignored the whole thing? Decided "if we follow up on this we'll just look petty and vindictive, so I guess he gets a pass?" You agree that he very likely committed and impeachable act. So then what?

I think they should have realized how flawed their approach and evidence was and not drawn a line in the sand that blew away at the slightest breeze.....only to draw another then another.

They should have taken their time and gathered credible evidence, stuff that would stick and developed a rock solid argument. Instead they endlessly cried wolf to where when there was a smidge of credibility hidden in the echo people like me didn’t care enough to listen. I found their approach to be akin to whining babies for 4+ years. And that was even with understanding what a horrible person trump is......the way they droned on and on about any little thing trump may or may not have done was maddening and made it impossible to take them serious.

Now the shoes just on the other foot. Different babies crying but the same outcome.....they’re showing their asses and picking up where the Dems left off by making a mockery of a system of government that when treated with dignity and respect is a great system to govern a country by.
My take is that there are certain crimes that are, in essence, not crimes simply because they cannot be proven. It's illegal for a congressman to take money in exchange for a vote. We all know that. We all know that they do it anyway, we just can't prove it. Does that mean that we don't try to stop it? Do we decline to prosecute when we see it happen because it's not going to be provable? There was credible evidence that Trump had committed an impeachable offense. I still don't get what you think should have been done.

Also, I have no idea what the Steel Dossier has to do with the impeachment. Your original point was that the whole thing was a myth. It was a fabrication. I still can't get to why you think that. Mishandled? Sure. Politically motivated? Probably. Invented? Come again?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: lonestar on May 05, 2021, 05:12:35 PM
Yeah, I'll suggest to you both that today is probably not the day to be at each other.  :lol

 :lol
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 06, 2021, 10:19:44 AM
The damage is the type of politics that withholds a nomination hearing for a SCOTUS vacancy 9 months before a presidential election citing the proximity of the election as the rationale while a Democrat was in office and then cynically filling a SCOTUS seat 2 months before the very next presidential election while a Republican is in office.  To me, that kind of politics is damaging to the country because that's not how the system is supposed to work.  It's cynical and dishonest and hypocritical.  Basically what I see of the Republican party these days backing that lunatic, credibly-accused rapist, "individual #1" serial philanderer, porn-star banging and hush-money paying pathalogical lying, insurrection-inspiring former guy who can't accept that he lost the election by almost 8 million votes and pretty much the entire Republican party in our government following this insanity that the 2020 election was "fraudulent" (because they don't like the outcome) it's all been extremely damaging and it continues to this very moment.  It's a slow-moving evaporation of democracy happening before our eyes right here and now.  This country is in a serious crisis and it's all on the Republicans who are propping this fucking guy up.


I'm sorry but those are just the facts on the ground and no amount of veering into inconsequential tangential subjects is going to change any of it.  The former guy is literally trying to destroy our democracy and one of the two major parties is aiding and abetting in plain view.  I'd call that damaging, yes.

For the record, you say that a lot, and I'm not looking to 'veer into inconsequential tangential subjects".  If that information is enough for you, so be it, I'm never going to convince you otherwise (nor do I want to).  For others, including me, it's not determinative. Those are SOME of the facts on the ground, not ALL of the facts on the ground.  We can't ignore that which doesn't fit the worldview.  It doesn't stand alone.   Biden first proposed McConnell's strategy of "delay" (and for the record, I have a problem with Mitch playing both sides of the coin myself; I agree with you there), so it's not limited to "Republicans".   I respect your point of view, but I also think it's overly harsh to Republicans and overly forgiving to Democrats, many of whom do the exact same things you call "damaging".   

That's not "whataboutism".   That's the simple recognition that if it's a problem, it's a problem no matter who does it.   And if it's only a problem when SOME people do it, it's not really a problem.  I've given cites for this already:  about 50% of Democrats had the same feeling about the 2016 election, and many are STILL on the "not my President!" bandwagon, convinced he was installed by the Rooskies, even though there's about the same amount of evidence that the Russians changed vote totals in 2016 as there was that Democrats changed vote totals in 2020.   
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 06, 2021, 10:32:34 AM
The ukranian thing was middle of the road impeachment, on par with lying to congress about a blow job. The Muller investigation, I mean that did produce multiple indictments and convictions, so there was something at the end of the trail of breadcrums.

The second impeachment...well...that should've been a slam dunk and shows just how deep in the shits the GOP is, the fact that they couldn't ditch donnie from the party after that shit show just proves to me that, as Dave has alluded to many times, Donnie's fundraising ability is more important to them than the sanctity of our democracy.


(Dave posted while I was typing this...so if his post refutes mine, go with him, he's much smarter in these circles than I)
There are something like 10 different reasons why Trump should have been removed from office before the 2020 election (#1 being his Helsinki meeting with Putin at which he threw his country's intelligence agencies under the bus in front of the world's cameras). The Zelensky call is something like #6. The President of the United States does not have conversations like that with the 'leader' of a country like Ukraine. That was the first time in history a US president has tried to bargain with someone they have traditionally simply given orders to. Trump wanted a public announcement of an investigation into Biden at a time when Russia was wiping out Ukrainian forces in Luhansk and Donetsk and Zelensky was wondering if he'd even have a country left to lead in a month's time. It was a blatant attempt at blackmail, albeit a weak one (it was only ever a bluff, Trump was always going to give Zelensky the money no matter what he said, and the latter knew it).

What Trump did ought to have seen him convicted, because he put his own interests before his country's. In the grand scheme of his idiocy it's fairly low down the list, but it was grounds to remove him nonetheless. If a Democrat had done it Lindsey Graham would have given an ironclad case for why he or she was literally a traitor to American interests (and he'd have been right). But that isn't the America that exists anymore. It's not about the 'law' or 'American interests', it's about making sure your guys are the ones driving the gravy train no matter the cost.


But don't gloss over that it's not as one-sided as this narrative makes it sound. I too agree that Trump SHOULD have been impeached, but it was an impossible scenario.    Adam Schiff LIED UNDER OATH during the proceedings (https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-are-the-consequences-for-adam-schiffs-lies-11590174358). That's not an opinion, but a fact.   Why throw a bone to the other side when you're already behind the 8-ball?  And your scenario, yeah, you're probably right about the milquetoast Graham, but don't forget the other 99 Senators: had that been a Democrat, there would have been the same shenanigans pointing the other way.  Do you honestly see Chuck Schumer or Dick Blumenthal putting their party aside for the "good of the people"?  The three Supreme Court nominations show that.   There is no credible reason why ALL THREE were party line confirmations, when the ONLY question being asked is "are you qualified to be on the court"?   Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are not responsible for HOW their names got up there, only that they were, and yet the votes were a statement on something unrelated to the question at hand.   

We have a problem of divisiveness; we have a problem not of truth, per se, but of party, where the will of the people is less important than the position of the representative doing the voting.   I don't know how we necessarily break that, but unless and until it does, we're in this quagmire for the long haul.    I get party line votes on controversial, cutting edge legislation, but when the simple management of the country is being done on a party-line vote basis, we're in deep trouble.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 06, 2021, 01:27:50 PM
You're posting opinion articles in support of facts?  Really?  :lol   Then saying it's not an opinion, it's a fact?  lol
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: kirksnosehair on May 06, 2021, 01:30:17 PM
Also, no offense but this is exactly the kind of whataboutism I referred to before.


"Yeah, Trump is bad but WHAT ABOUT ADAM SCHIFF!!! hmmm?????"


Holy misdirection, batman. 


Even if Schiff DID lie, does it diminish or somehow negate Trump's crimes?  No, it does not.  End of story.  It's just whataboutism 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 07, 2021, 08:51:53 AM
Also, no offense but this is exactly the kind of whataboutism I referred to before.


"Yeah, Trump is bad but WHAT ABOUT ADAM SCHIFF!!! hmmm?????"


Holy misdirection, batman. 


Even if Schiff DID lie, does it diminish or somehow negate Trump's crimes?  No, it does not.  End of story.  It's just whataboutism

Barry, please.  If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't dismiss the argument on ad hominem grounds.  If we're just talking about "how bad Trump is" in a vacuum, you're right, it's useless information.  But we're NOT.  We're talking about - or at least I'M talking about - the nation, what's good for the nation, what's bad for the nation, and how we get out of this morass we're in.  Trump lied, no doubt, and Schiff's lying doesn't excuse that.  But it's BOTH MEN'S lying that is dangerous to the country, and that's what I'm getting at.

It's not "whataboutism" to question why "lying" is bad for one guy and not another.  If lying to the people for personal gain is bad, it's bad regardless of what party is doing the lying.   It's not "whataboutism" to ask why being divisive is bad for ONE side, but not the other.  If calling a subdemographic of our country "names" is bad, it's bad whether it's "criminals" or "deplorables".   You've freely admitted to being on a side - and seriously, I admire your passion and commitment to it - but you have to understand that not everyone looks at it that way.  I certainly don't.  Sure I have preferences in terms of what I'd like to see happen, but if I'm pointing to behavior I don't like, invariably I can find examples of that from all across the political spectrum.  I'm not "titting" your "tat", I'm pointing out broader examples that don't support your theory of "sides".

You should know this; pointing at the "other side" and lecturing them on how bad they are is almost never a path to a solution.   Very, very few people respond to "you're an ignorant racist bigot, and I'm smarter than you and morally superior, too!" with a "wow, you know, you're right! Tell me what to do next, and I'll do it!"    The American psyche is one of "Fuck you, I'll tell YOU what's what!".  That's what we celebrate, that's what we honor.  Watch any reality TV show, watch any interview with a pro athlete; the symbol of power and success is individuality, not kowtowing to the norm (not to mention, a ton of swearing). 

I don't view our problems as starting with Trump, or, really, "starting" anywhere.  They are a progression, a cycle of reactions from what came before.  Better or worse (and I'm not suggesting that he did anything BAD) but Trump was a REACTION to that which came before.   Trump didn't pop out of the ether because all of a sudden almost 10 million Obama voters turned "racist bigots".  They were voting out of self-interest and didn't like where they sat after 8 years of special interests and identity politics, no matter how necessary you feel those advancements were.   People in the middle of the country didn't give a RAT'S ASS what bathroom someone in NC used while their jobs were being shipped to Mexico, and their healthcare costs were going up while their outcomes were decreasing at an alarming rate (our healthcare outcomes are pretty crappy when compared to other, comparable countries (https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-healthcare-quality-and-access-haq-index-rating-2016).  Just like Obama was a national, compassionate reaction to what was perceived by many to be an aggressive, war-time Presidency (rightly or wrongly, I say that to observe, not judge), which in turn was a reaction to what many perceived as a aggressively youthful, aggressively reckless, Presidency before that, which in turn....    These are simplistic generalizations made to make a point, but I think you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 07, 2021, 09:09:37 AM
You're posting opinion articles in support of facts?  Really?  :lol   Then saying it's not an opinion, it's a fact?  lol

The opinion is about the CONSEQUENCES of that lying, and uses the FACTS of the lying to support that.

Nonetheless, there are numerous factual references to Schiff's lying (which, in part, he admits to) (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/impeaching-hearing-factcheck-adam-schiff-parody/4178449002/). 

There's also the fundamental mistruth, that Schiff was essentially, in part, trying to impeach Trump for exercising his rights to due process under the Constitution.   Schiff, repeatedly under oath, maintained that "As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committee’s undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry for various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. That has been proved. In response without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas."  This is from the transcript of his closing remarks (http://As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committee’s undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry for various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. That has been proved. In response without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas.).  Later, in that same transcript, he said again, "President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means. Number one, directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees... Directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the Department of State, the Office of Management Budget, Department of Energy and Department of Defense refused to produce a single record or document."

Those are lies.  At the time Schiff said that, Trump was lawfully and within his rights challenging those subpoenas in court.  The Court hearing that challenge had not weighed in yet, and determined whether Trump had to comply or not.   In fact, later, Trump won a lower court decision on that very issue (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/dc-circuit-panel-kills-house-subpoena-power-406140).  That's akin to arresting someone for not letting the police in their house without a warrant, or arresting them for challenging the efficacy of a warrant.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 09, 2021, 05:01:25 PM
I’m sure most are familiar with this quote by now:

Quote
In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, King wrote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

it’s amazing that King wrote that in 1963 and you could basically use it word for word as a reply on the internet in 2021. 
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: jammindude on May 09, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
I’m sure most are familiar with this quote by now:

Quote
In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, King wrote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

it’s amazing that King wrote that in 1963 and you could basically use it word for word as a reply on the internet in 2021.

In fact, it often is...
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2021, 01:26:24 PM
I’m sure most are familiar with this quote by now:

Quote
In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, King wrote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

it’s amazing that King wrote that in 1963 and you could basically use it word for word as a reply on the internet in 2021.

You could and you did.   It's a fallacy to consider that we're in the same state - and that he's talking about the same people - almost 60 years later.  "Justice" means something different in the vernacular of 2021. King's "justice" was predicated on "love", and thus was rooted at least as much socially and theologically than almost solely politically, as it is today.  There was no "vengeance" in King's justice, like there is today.   I believe he was talking more about ignoring the problem, sweeping it under the rug and hoping it would go away, which is the furthest thing from my point.  I think what I said was consistent with what King would call "direct action", but that doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore science.   And of course, as is usual with you, you miss the point being made here entirely: while I never spoke to the man myself, I'm fairly confident that he was a man of pragmatism, if nothing else.  If presented with a path to justice, King wouldn't get hung up on his preconceived notions and his need to be "right" and instead would embrace that path to justice with open arms.
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 10, 2021, 01:41:59 PM
or maybe he was talking about most of on here myself included
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2021, 02:34:43 PM
I’m sure most are familiar with this quote by now:

Quote
In his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail, King wrote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

it’s amazing that King wrote that in 1963 and you could basically use it word for word as a reply on the internet in 2021.
You certainly could, and you'd be wrong. I wasn't around in '63, so I can't say if he was right back then, but he wouldn't be right now. The current American idea of justice, you hit me so now I get to hit you back, is flawed, and I don't honestly think he'd be interested in the true meaning of justice, which is the fair and equal treatment of all people, including the assholes. The people who speak for him now sure as hell wouldn't, though.

Moreover, it's the moderates who are actually delivering for him at this point. You can't get 12 radicals on a jury. You have to settle for a cross-section, and those cross-sections, essentially moderate in the aggregate, actually are beginning to provide his flavor of justice.

Also, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’ is a perfectly acceptable point of view. For one, it's absolutely essential in some cases, and more importantly, assuming it's not is highly counterproductive. How many allies have rioters (of either side) actually made over the last 12 months? How many people have they pissed off?
Title: Re: Racism and Privilege
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 10, 2021, 02:48:08 PM
I just think it should give pause and self reflection to everyone even in this time far removed from the 60s.