|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour.
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue.
|
On May 13 2015 23:47 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 23:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Yet all scientific evidence points towards race as being a non-factor for determining whether a police encounter will end violently. Guess what were the two most important ones? Socioeconomic status and geographical area (poor neighborhoods). That the investigations are happening as they are isn't because of racism. The same issues arise when it is a poor white person being shot. It is because of a rotten culture of the police. Any source for this? I have to actually disagree here, I attend a college that happens to have a lot of cops and I've noticed that there seems to be some prejudice against blacks who act "thugish" primarily. Although this could just be my own personal experiences, but I have to say I've met quite a lot of cops here.
Please note that what you are talking about is racial profiling for stopping likely suspects (which definitely exists) and what I'm talking about is violent outcomes of police encounters. This is a decent write-up in laymans terms and links to some of the scientific studies.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-race-research-review-statistics
|
On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue.
What makes it not 'real'?
|
It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread?
But to be real here: i think 2 changes would help the policing situation in the us already tremendously:
- nationalize the jail/prison system (if you want at the state level), seriously for profit prisoning is a terrible idea in every single aspect
- split police up: seperate the institutions that design, control and investigate police conduct from the police in a meaningful way, and seperate the code enforcement from the police (the system of german Ordnungsamt is quite nice) which reduces incentives for police to "hunt" people for state money
|
Further propositions:
Make sure that your system is generally set up in a way that does not make cities rely on fees to make money. Generally speaking, the people who issue the fines should not be the ones that get it. The point of a fine is to punish offenders and make them less likely to reoffend, not to fix your budget. This might mean additional taxes. Generally speaking, all of the ways that governments in the US make money besides taxes tend to be horribly disgusting.
Every time an officers kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by an outside force. That force needs to be organised in such a way that they do not have any relations to the policemen they investigate besides the investigation.
Stop the war on drugs, completely. It serves no purpose and makes everyone miserable, both in the US and in Mexico.
|
On May 14 2015 03:05 puerk wrote:
It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread?
But to be real here: i think 2 changes would help the policing situation in the us already tremendously:
- nationalize the jail/prison system (if you want at the state level), seriously for profit prisoning is a terrible idea in every single aspect
- split police up: seperate the institutions that design, control and investigate police conduct from the police in a meaningful way, and seperate the code enforcement from the police (the system of german Ordnungsamt is quite nice) which reduces incentives for police to "hunt" people for state money
lol that sentiment is so common I didn't realize you were being facetious.
Yeah people seem to not realize one of the reason black people are hesitant for it to turn into a generic 'clean up police" issue is because one major reason this is getting any traction at all is the no-knocks and generic fuck-ups are happening frequently enough to white people also that they finally acknowledge a multi-decade-long problem (this shit didn't start in the 21st century, some people just refused to acknowledge it until they started seeing it every other week on camera and saw it happening to white people).
If shit goes back to where white people don't feel concerned it might happen to them then too many will go right back to believing black people are just making shit up (even though some never stopped thinking that).
If the disparity doesn't get cleared up now it certainly wont get better when it's even harder for white people to imagine it happening to them (If we cut police abuse by ~50% across the board).
Suddenly the conversation will switch to "Police brutality stats are down 50% why are black people complaining?!?" Neglecting that the disparity remains, which was the main qualm in the first place. Sure black people are against brutality etc... But we don't need police to stop all brutality for it to get better for us, we just need the police to treat us like white people and the abuse would drop immediately.
|
On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'?
Your ability to read?
He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist.
|
On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist.
I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'?
|
Replace "real" with "primary". I think that's what he's getting at...
|
On May 14 2015 03:35 DannyJ wrote:
Replace "real" with "primary". I think that's what he's getting at...
we can replace words in xdaunts posts now? if i had only known earlier... the possibilities 
|
On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white.
"Privilege" is a just term lazy social justice warriors use because they don't know how to do real research and analysis.
|
On May 14 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 22:41 coverpunch wrote:
How far we've slid back from acknowledging socioeconomic class as the primary driver of bias rather than race. It seems to me that education and culture are much more important to societal acceptance than the color of one's skin.
Bringing it back to the original issue, white cops killing black kids is not an example of institutional racism because they aren't ordered as a matter of policy to arrest and attack blacks. At worst, and it remains to be seen in the outcome of this latest case, it's just plain old racism. it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist. I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'?
The issue that affects the everyone. I mean, he literally already said that:
It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread?
Based on what he wrote, he believes police brutality as a whole is the "real" issue. Focusing only on the racial aspect misses the overarching issue that police in general are just too prone to using violence.
It's like only saying we need to help black people in poverty when in reality poverty is an issue for all races.
|
On May 14 2015 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white. "Privilege" is a just term lazy social justice warriors use because they don't know how to do real research and analysis.
Come on man, you know better than that. I know that, as a white straight male, my path through life is easier than it would be if I were not white, not straight, and not male. That's all privilege is. You just don't want to hear the actual message because you don't like the people spouting it.
|
On May 14 2015 03:59 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:
[quote]
it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist. I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'? The issue that affects the everyone. I mean, he literally already said that: Show nested quote +It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread? Based on what he wrote, he believes police brutality as a whole is the "real" issue. Focusing only on the racial aspect misses the overarching issue that police in general are just too prone to using violence. It's like only saying we need to help black people in poverty when in reality poverty is an issue for all races.
Me and other people choosing to focus on what we see as an important aspect doesn't stop anyone from advocating for the other important and often overlapping causes.
What many are actually arguing (you seem to be also) is more like
"Stop talking about which cancer 'breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer,' I've said several times breast cancer is real. The real/primary problem is obviously cancer cells. All this cancer baiting saying this cancer kills 10x the amount of that cancer, or this cancer is much more treatable/preventable or that non-cancer patients who have extremely limited experience with cancer should realize their perspective is limited in a particular way makes it no wonder why they are turned off from doing something about cancer. Who want's to work with people who care more about breast cancer than prostate cancer... so CANCERIST/SEXIST!.
|
On May 14 2015 03:59 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 13 2015 23:08 puerk wrote:
[quote]
it is institutional precisely because there are coverups, delayed and bungled investigations and every police officer can rest assured that he can act as racist as he wants without repercussion. And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist. I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'? The issue that affects the everyone. I mean, he literally already said that: Show nested quote +It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread? Based on what he wrote, he believes police brutality as a whole is the "real" issue. Focusing only on the racial aspect misses the overarching issue that police in general are just too prone to using violence. It's like only saying we need to help black people in poverty when in reality poverty is an issue for all races.
Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Forcing race into the equation obfuscates the root problems and divides people, thereby preventing meaningful discourse that will lead to the best solutions.
|
On May 14 2015 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:59 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:On May 13 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
And why exactly are we still presuming that this is an issue of institutional racism as opposed to institutional brutality? Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast). Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist. I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'? The issue that affects the everyone. I mean, he literally already said that: It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread? Based on what he wrote, he believes police brutality as a whole is the "real" issue. Focusing only on the racial aspect misses the overarching issue that police in general are just too prone to using violence. It's like only saying we need to help black people in poverty when in reality poverty is an issue for all races. Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself. Forcing race into the equation obfuscates the root problems and divides people, thereby preventing meaningful discourse that will lead to the best solutions.
See. I'll translate.
Forcing different cancers into the equation obfuscates the root problems and divides people, thereby preventing meaningful discourse that will lead to the best solutions.
While there is certainly a grain of truth to both the emphasized part is one of several patently bullshit concepts. The racial aspect shouldn't stop remotely capable adults from meaningful discourse, that's a lazy as crap cop-out, give it up.
|
On May 14 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white. "Privilege" is a just term lazy social justice warriors use because they don't know how to do real research and analysis. Come on man, you know better than that. I know that, as a white straight male, my path through life is easier than it would be if I were not white, not straight, and not male. That's all privilege is. You just don't want to hear the actual message because you don't like the people spouting it.
Come on man, you should know better than that. Try school. It's both popular and fun.
User was warned for this post
|
GH -> I don't think that comparison case really holds.
Unlike the cancer case, in social issues, race discussions can disrupt meaningful discourse, and there are populations from all sides which use it to exacerbate racial tensions.
Also, I recommend being less aggressive about attacking people over minor semantic quibbles, and focus more on discussing the actual solutions.
|
On May 14 2015 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 03:59 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 03:24 killa_robot wrote:On May 14 2015 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 01:37 Nyxisto wrote:On May 14 2015 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 14 2015 00:04 puerk wrote:
[quote]
Because blacks get disproportionally singled out for stop and frisk and general controls. police just poke them more often which creates conflict, which because of very poor police training and 0 anti escalation policies in place, escalates much to often (and much to fast).
Just because there is a breakdown at 3 different stages of police work doesn't mean the racist reason for the first step of the chain is to be ignored. And the fact that Baltimore and its police department are predominantly administered by black people doesn't matter in your analysis? Well and Turkey had a female Prime Minister once, that doesn't mean that the country is more progressive than the US when it comes to women's rights. That some cities are administered by black people doesn't mean that those black people actually care about the problems of their black communities. It wouldn't be the first time in history that politicians don't really care about the poorest people in their communities, no matter what skin colour. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I have said repeatedly that there clearly is. I'm only arguing that institutionalized racism isn't the real issue. What makes it not 'real'? Your ability to read? He said it's not the real issue, not that it isn't real. His claim is that we should focus on fixing other things, not that it doesn't exist. I'm saying what makes something 'the real issue'? How is the racial aspect less real than whatever he imagines is 'the real issue'? The issue that affects the everyone. I mean, he literally already said that: It only affects minorities. Policy improvements have to help everyone at once, focussing on a disadvantaged group is affirmative action and reverse racism. Have you not read the thread? Based on what he wrote, he believes police brutality as a whole is the "real" issue. Focusing only on the racial aspect misses the overarching issue that police in general are just too prone to using violence. It's like only saying we need to help black people in poverty when in reality poverty is an issue for all races. Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself. Forcing race into the equation obfuscates the root problems and divides people, thereby preventing meaningful discourse that will lead to the best solutions. See. I'll translate. Forcing different cancers into the equation obfuscates the root problems and divides people, thereby preventing meaningful discourse that will lead to the best solutions.While there is certainly a grain of truth to both the emphasized part is one of several patently bullshit concepts. The racial aspect shouldn't stop remotely capable adults from meaningful discourse, that's a lazy as crap cop-out, give it up.
Your parallel is so wrong that the best you can do is to refrain from EVER making a parallel involving biology again.
|
On May 14 2015 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On May 14 2015 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 19:10 kwizach wrote:On May 13 2015 13:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 13 2015 13:26 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 13:16 Wegandi wrote:
Check your privilege is incredibly racist towards all those poor white people that have none of this 'privilege' you speak of. Properly described, it encompasses all forms of privilege. Your idea that it is intrinsically racist is a disservice to the notion. Do tell what are these privileges poor Appalachian whites have that are exclusive to white folk? You know who needs some real help in this country? Native Americans. Now, there is some goddamn racism. Here you go. "White privilege" isn't an absolute but a relative notion. The point is that all other things being equal, being white is overall an advantage in our societies compared to not being white. "Privilege" is a just term lazy social justice warriors use because they don't know how to do real research and analysis. Come on man, you know better than that. I know that, as a white straight male, my path through life is easier than it would be if I were not white, not straight, and not male. That's all privilege is. You just don't want to hear the actual message because you don't like the people spouting it. Come on man, you should know better than that. Try school. It's both popular and fun.
You don't know anything about me.
But if you honestly believe that being a straight white male isn't the easiest combination of those three attributes in our day and age, I can see why people struggle to communicate with you in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
