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 November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
You really sound like you want some sort of praise for posting as an African-American. Stop playing into the stereotype.
Well all the Americans here are "African Americans" so I certainly wouldn't expect anything around that.
On November 13 2015 14:05 Deathstar wrote: Just because blacks face systemic racism from whites doesn't mean blacks can't be racist. I am referencing the notion that blacks can't be racist, because racism has to do as much about power as prejudice. A notion believed by quite a few people here, and the people in the youtube video earlier.
This is just a deliberately contrived misunderstanding over word usage here. Imagine if we'd gone with racism1 and racism2 and one side was arguing that black people can be racism1 but can't be racism2 and the other side was claiming that racism2 should be an entirely different word.
You seem to be arguing that blacks can be racism1 (also known as bigoted for the racism2 believers) and literally nobody is disagreeing with that. Not the people in the youtube video, nor the people in the topic. The people in the youtube video were going "that's great, blacks can be racism1 but we were trying to have a conversation about racism2".
On November 13 2015 13:26 KwarK wrote: [quote] I think we're a little beyond quoting dictionaries here. However I did look up the word dictionary in merriam-webster and you'll be surprised to learn that in no way does it claim that a dictionary is anything more than a reference book containing information. So, if the dictionary is to be trusted then you could reference a dictionary for information about racism but you should not expect the dictionary to provide you with a clear definition. The dictionary describing itself thinks it doesn't give a clear definition.
The point was that talking about power is not necessary to answering the question of "Is this person a racist". And a dictionary is a good place to start, unless we're going to start making up words now.
How on earth do you think words happen if people don't make them up? English majors don't track them down and capture them for selective breeding and dissemination to society. They don't run wild and they're not a mineral. Every word is made up.
I don't think a majority of white americans recognize the racism=power+prejudice definition. When you start telling someone a word doesn't mean what they and most people they know think it means and start redefining you come across as an arrogant ivory tower jerk who redefines words to suit a narrative. If you actually care about getting through to people, it'd be much more effective to just...not define racism that way and use a different word.
Okay. I'll let the word catchers know to go back out into the field and find us a new word to refer to it with.
Incidentally a majority of white Americans used to think that laws against interracial marriage weren't racist etc. A system where white Americans exclusively get to define racist systems would be an excellent candidate for that new word, once we've found it.
Cute rhetoric. Good luck accomplishing anything when you have a powder keg that derails meaningful discussion and immediately pisses off the opposing side and makes them not want to see your point. Obviously many people will be racist despite your best efforts, but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I have no idea what you mean by
but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I'll try to explain it more clearly. "White people can't be racist" is a very provocative statement because the people saying it know the average joe doesn't know about the racism=power+prejudice concept. Or perhaps I'm being too assuming in thinking they know the average person doesn't know. Regardless, it's a very inflammatory statement. You piss people off and immediately make them feel as though they're under attack for being white. People aren't going to listen to your excellent points about the systemic racism minorities face if they feel as though you're demonizing them.
Who claimed that white people can't be racist? I'm sure I didn't. Where are you getting this from?
Seriously, you are having an argument with someone who isn't me but I appear to still be involved. What is going on here?
Am I misunderstanding something? I was under the assumption you were advocating for the "racism=power+prejudice" definition of racism, correct?
I don't have a horse in this race but even if I was, surely I would then be arguing that black people can't be racist. You've come out of nowhere, picked me and started telling me I think that white people can't be racist and that's really confusing.
This is just two sets of monkeys arguing about who that mirror is a picture of at this point though. Everyone knows that every human being everywhere is capable of being bigoted and equally that the history of the United States has created systems and structures which disproportionately favour some groups over others. There's not actually a debate about that going on, there's a debate about who owns which words.
On November 13 2015 13:34 Deathstar wrote: [quote]
The point was that talking about power is not necessary to answering the question of "Is this person a racist". And a dictionary is a good place to start, unless we're going to start making up words now.
How on earth do you think words happen if people don't make them up? English majors don't track them down and capture them for selective breeding and dissemination to society. They don't run wild and they're not a mineral. Every word is made up.
I don't think a majority of white americans recognize the racism=power+prejudice definition. When you start telling someone a word doesn't mean what they and most people they know think it means and start redefining you come across as an arrogant ivory tower jerk who redefines words to suit a narrative. If you actually care about getting through to people, it'd be much more effective to just...not define racism that way and use a different word.
Okay. I'll let the word catchers know to go back out into the field and find us a new word to refer to it with.
Incidentally a majority of white Americans used to think that laws against interracial marriage weren't racist etc. A system where white Americans exclusively get to define racist systems would be an excellent candidate for that new word, once we've found it.
Cute rhetoric. Good luck accomplishing anything when you have a powder keg that derails meaningful discussion and immediately pisses off the opposing side and makes them not want to see your point. Obviously many people will be racist despite your best efforts, but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I have no idea what you mean by
but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I'll try to explain it more clearly. "White people can't be racist" is a very provocative statement because the people saying it know the average joe doesn't know about the racism=power+prejudice concept. Or perhaps I'm being too assuming in thinking they know the average person doesn't know. Regardless, it's a very inflammatory statement. You piss people off and immediately make them feel as though they're under attack for being white. People aren't going to listen to your excellent points about the systemic racism minorities face if they feel as though you're demonizing them.
Who claimed that white people can't be racist? I'm sure I didn't. Where are you getting this from?
Seriously, you are having an argument with someone who isn't me but I appear to still be involved. What is going on here?
Am I misunderstanding something? I was under the assumption you were advocating for the "racism=power+prejudice" definition of racism, correct?
I don't have a horse in this race but even if I was, surely I would then be arguing that black people can't be racist. You've come out of nowhere, picked me and started telling me I think that white people can't be racist and that's really confusing.
This is just two sets of monkeys arguing about whose that mirror is a picture of at this point though. Everyone knows that every human being everywhere is capable of being bigoted and equally that the history of the United States has created systems and structures which disproportionately favour some groups over others. There's not actually a debate about that going on, there's a debate about who owns which words.
WHOOPS. Too much LotV campaign grind, I meant "Black people can't be racist" is the provocative inflammatory statement. I should error check better, apologies
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
You really sound like you want some sort of praise for posting as an African-American. Stop playing into the stereotype.
Well all the Americans here are "African Americans" so I certainly wouldn't expect anything around that.
What stereotype is that?
Us against the world attitude is played out man. At least irl it is an escape, on an online forum that features gaming... no so much.
On November 13 2015 14:05 Deathstar wrote: Just because blacks face systemic racism from whites doesn't mean blacks can't be racist. I am referencing the notion that blacks can't be racist, because racism has to do as much about power as prejudice. A notion believed by quite a few people here, and the people in the youtube video earlier.
Yes, but systematic racism is something that can be combated and addressed. People being asshats for whatever reason is not something that we can really find a solution to.
Black people are human, they can be jerks. But that has little to do with the topic of systematic racism.
On November 13 2015 14:05 Deathstar wrote: Just because blacks face systemic racism from whites doesn't mean blacks can't be racist. I am referencing the notion that blacks can't be racist, because racism has to do as much about power as prejudice. A notion believed by quite a few people here, and the people in the youtube video earlier.
Yes, but systematic racism is something that can be combated and addressed. People being asshats for whatever reason is not something that we can really find a solution to.
Might feel a bit off topic, but people being asshats can be solved imo. Legalism- practiced in police states like North Korea pretty much removes all the asshats except for the very few at the top of the food chain. Not a great solution, but a solution.
On November 13 2015 14:05 Deathstar wrote: Just because blacks face systemic racism from whites doesn't mean blacks can't be racist. I am referencing the notion that blacks can't be racist, because racism has to do as much about power as prejudice. A notion believed by quite a few people here, and the people in the youtube video earlier.
Yes, but systematic racism is something that can be combated and addressed. People being asshats for whatever reason is not something that we can really find a solution to.
Black people are human, they can be jerks. But that has little to do with the topic of systematic racism.
I agree with all of this. The trouble that we run into the debates is prescriptive redefining words in a language that is notoriously descriptive. (I think we're going to lose the proper meaning of 'literally.' We don't have the French equivalent of the immortals to protect our language.) I think it was worth a shot in changing the definition to make racism mean something more- it's perhaps possible that some words can be consciously redefined. However, having seen the result and the sorts of distracting argument it tends to engender, I personally, will stick to talking about systematic racism or racism + power and leave the redefining of words to someone else.
On November 13 2015 13:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] How on earth do you think words happen if people don't make them up? English majors don't track them down and capture them for selective breeding and dissemination to society. They don't run wild and they're not a mineral. Every word is made up.
I don't think a majority of white americans recognize the racism=power+prejudice definition. When you start telling someone a word doesn't mean what they and most people they know think it means and start redefining you come across as an arrogant ivory tower jerk who redefines words to suit a narrative. If you actually care about getting through to people, it'd be much more effective to just...not define racism that way and use a different word.
Okay. I'll let the word catchers know to go back out into the field and find us a new word to refer to it with.
Incidentally a majority of white Americans used to think that laws against interracial marriage weren't racist etc. A system where white Americans exclusively get to define racist systems would be an excellent candidate for that new word, once we've found it.
Cute rhetoric. Good luck accomplishing anything when you have a powder keg that derails meaningful discussion and immediately pisses off the opposing side and makes them not want to see your point. Obviously many people will be racist despite your best efforts, but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I have no idea what you mean by
but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I'll try to explain it more clearly. "White people can't be racist" is a very provocative statement because the people saying it know the average joe doesn't know about the racism=power+prejudice concept. Or perhaps I'm being too assuming in thinking they know the average person doesn't know. Regardless, it's a very inflammatory statement. You piss people off and immediately make them feel as though they're under attack for being white. People aren't going to listen to your excellent points about the systemic racism minorities face if they feel as though you're demonizing them.
Who claimed that white people can't be racist? I'm sure I didn't. Where are you getting this from?
Seriously, you are having an argument with someone who isn't me but I appear to still be involved. What is going on here?
Am I misunderstanding something? I was under the assumption you were advocating for the "racism=power+prejudice" definition of racism, correct?
I don't have a horse in this race but even if I was, surely I would then be arguing that black people can't be racist. You've come out of nowhere, picked me and started telling me I think that white people can't be racist and that's really confusing.
This is just two sets of monkeys arguing about whose that mirror is a picture of at this point though. Everyone knows that every human being everywhere is capable of being bigoted and equally that the history of the United States has created systems and structures which disproportionately favour some groups over others. There's not actually a debate about that going on, there's a debate about who owns which words.
WHOOPS. Too much LotV campaign grind, I meant "Black people can't be racist" is the provocative inflammatory statement. I should error check better, apologies
And one set of monkeys says "well they obviously can" and the other says "ahh, but that's not racism". It's not a debate about the real world, it's a debate about which mouth sounds to use to describe the real world. It's a colossal non issue.
Why any of this matters is because the things that one side wants to call racism, the structures and institutions built to advantage some races over others, the other side wants to call nothing at all. The "blacks can't be racist" crowd are calling one thing bigotry and the other racism whereas the "blacks can totally be racist" crowd don't disagree that the first happens but want to call the first thing racism and the second thing "nothing to see here folks, move along". I don't have a horse in the "what should we call it" race, racism1 and racism2 would work for me.
As we progress on race issues this is a fairly expected and my comparison with rape earlier is fitting in my opinion. Back in the day rape used to strictly mean a violent sexual assault by a stranger. Unfortunately the majority of non consensual sex experienced by women didn't fit that definition and worse, the people in power defining the words didn't really care. As we progressed on gender issues and started listening to women explain what they thought rape was we had the same arguments about what "real rape" is and how this newfangled "marital rape" isn't really rape. We're a few years from that now but we still have real politicians who will really argue that rape that doesn't involve physical coercion isn't rape, even if there has been explicit non consent.
It's perfectly normal to start with one word which narrowly defines what the people in power want to talk about and have it widened as the people who experience it educate the people in power. And it's also perfectly normal for the people in power to resist and to claim that their narrow definition of what the people who actually experience it experience is the correct one. With rape we saw categories emerge in parallel, date rape, marital rape, "real" rape and so forth and then an eventual acceptance that all of these things were actually rape. The college kids here seem to want bigotry and institutional racism to be different categories within the greater umbrella of racism. I couldn't give a shit what we call them as long as we're aware that they exist and that they're problems.
This argument where two sides agree but insist they disagree because they refuse to use common language has to stop though.
On November 13 2015 13:45 MattBarry wrote: [quote] I don't think a majority of white americans recognize the racism=power+prejudice definition. When you start telling someone a word doesn't mean what they and most people they know think it means and start redefining you come across as an arrogant ivory tower jerk who redefines words to suit a narrative. If you actually care about getting through to people, it'd be much more effective to just...not define racism that way and use a different word.
Okay. I'll let the word catchers know to go back out into the field and find us a new word to refer to it with.
Incidentally a majority of white Americans used to think that laws against interracial marriage weren't racist etc. A system where white Americans exclusively get to define racist systems would be an excellent candidate for that new word, once we've found it.
Cute rhetoric. Good luck accomplishing anything when you have a powder keg that derails meaningful discussion and immediately pisses off the opposing side and makes them not want to see your point. Obviously many people will be racist despite your best efforts, but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I have no idea what you mean by
but I know you piss off otherwise reasonable people when you tell them they can't be racist.
I'll try to explain it more clearly. "White people can't be racist" is a very provocative statement because the people saying it know the average joe doesn't know about the racism=power+prejudice concept. Or perhaps I'm being too assuming in thinking they know the average person doesn't know. Regardless, it's a very inflammatory statement. You piss people off and immediately make them feel as though they're under attack for being white. People aren't going to listen to your excellent points about the systemic racism minorities face if they feel as though you're demonizing them.
Who claimed that white people can't be racist? I'm sure I didn't. Where are you getting this from?
Seriously, you are having an argument with someone who isn't me but I appear to still be involved. What is going on here?
Am I misunderstanding something? I was under the assumption you were advocating for the "racism=power+prejudice" definition of racism, correct?
I don't have a horse in this race but even if I was, surely I would then be arguing that black people can't be racist. You've come out of nowhere, picked me and started telling me I think that white people can't be racist and that's really confusing.
This is just two sets of monkeys arguing about whose that mirror is a picture of at this point though. Everyone knows that every human being everywhere is capable of being bigoted and equally that the history of the United States has created systems and structures which disproportionately favour some groups over others. There's not actually a debate about that going on, there's a debate about who owns which words.
WHOOPS. Too much LotV campaign grind, I meant "Black people can't be racist" is the provocative inflammatory statement. I should error check better, apologies
And one set of monkeys says "well they obviously can" and the other says "ahh, but that's not racism". It's not a debate about the real world, it's a debate about which mouth sounds to use to describe the real world. It's a colossal non issue.
Why any of this matters is because the things that one side wants to call racism, the structures and institutions built to advantage some races over others, the other side wants to call nothing at all. The "blacks can't be racist" crowd are calling one thing bigotry and the other racism whereas the "blacks can totally be racist" crowd don't disagree that the first happens but want to call the first thing racism and the second thing "nothing to see here folks, move along". I don't have a horse in the "what should we call it" race, racism1 and racism2 would work for me.
As we progress on race issues this is a fairly expected and my comparison with rape earlier is fitting in my opinion. Back in the day rape used to strictly mean a violent sexual assault by a stranger. Unfortunately the majority of non consensual sex experienced by women didn't fit that definition and worse, the people in power defining the words didn't really care. As we progressed on gender issues and started listening to women explain what they thought rape was we had the same arguments about what "real rape" is and how this newfangled "marital rape" isn't really rape. We're a few years from that now but we still have real politicians who will really argue that rape that doesn't involve physical coercion isn't rape, even if there has been explicit non consent.
It's perfectly normal to start with one word which narrowly defines what the people in power want to talk about and have it widened as the people who experience it educate the people in power. And it's also perfectly normal for the people in power to resist and to claim that their narrow definition of what the people who actually experience it experience is the correct one. With rape we saw categories emerge in parallel, date rape, marital rape, "real" rape and so forth and then an eventual acceptance that all of these things were actually rape. The college kids here seem to want bigotry and institutional racism to be different categories within the greater umbrella of racism. I couldn't give a shit what we call them as long as we're aware that they exist and that they're problems.
This argument where two sides agree but insist they disagree because they refuse to use common language has to stop though.
I think that's a fair and thoughtful take on the issue. I still disagree with defining racism with power+prejudice purely on the grounds that it's impractical to fulfilling the goal of ending racism.
So where is the systemic racism on the college campuses? The only thing close to that was the athletic director being racist to student athletes...very thing else seems to fall more into the asshattery category
I mean it exists to some degree, but there seems to be some conflation between systemic racism and asshattery in these protests.
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
GH, you are dangerously close to the point where I call you out on being a douchebag.
He's been a non-contributor to discussions for a very long time now. Much like clutz and Danglars can be counted on to wrap everything until a ideological cocoon of "Libertarianism solves everything", GH can be counted on to only discuss racism and how no one else understands it.
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
GH, you are dangerously close to the point where I call you out on being a douchebag.
He's been a non-contributor to discussions for a very long time now. Much like clutz and Danglars can be counted on to wrap everything until a ideological cocoon of "Libertarianism solves everything", GH can be counted on to only discuss racism and how no one else understands it.
Lol Kwark summed it up pretty well, but thanks for the riveting analysis.
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
GH, you are dangerously close to the point where I call you out on being a douchebag.
He's been a non-contributor to discussions for a very long time now. Much like clutz and Danglars can be counted on to wrap everything until a ideological cocoon of "Libertarianism solves everything", GH can be counted on to only discuss racism and how no one else understands it.
I just have more reason to trash modern socialism and whatever you want to call what the Democrat party stands for today. If the libertarian and leftist populations were reversed, I'd spend all day here trashing libertarian institutions and ideas. What was it that farva said a while back ... perhaps you need a finer brush with which to paint your opposition.
On November 13 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote: a useful question is, how did you personally come to believe in the need for antiracist movement. the key experiences and ideas are what is needed to be communicated and shared. protest has its place but attitude change takes learning
It comes from listening to the people who are protesting or talking to people who experience racism. And accepting that you(if you are white) don't' experience systematic racism and can't fully understand it. But that process is hard and requires a lot of introspection and a general acceptable that you benefited from an unfair system. And that the fact that racism exists doesn't diminish your personal struggles, but those struggles are not an argument against why racism isn't an issue.
But mostly you need to be open to listening.
And here lies the great hypocrisy of the antiracist/PC movement. I, as the outsider who is afflicted with white heterosexual male privilege, am automatically disqualified from questioning the foundation of the platform of the proponents of the current antiracist/PC movement. If I voice anydissent, I am automatically branded a racist (or whatever-ist), thus no one should listen to me. Nevertheless, I am obliged to be "open to listening" to some of the most intolerant and illiberal assholes in the country today.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone is at least a little bit racist, even minorities against their own minority group. It's just how the human brain works, and it doesn't make you a bad person.
On the other hand it does make you a jerk if you refuse to admit it and take steps to correct your own subconscious racial prejudices.
Also if you are too sensitive about the word "racism" to engage in a robust intellectual debate on the subject we can just call it "implicit bias" instead. I wouldn't want you to take offense, because we all know how annoyed you are with people who take offense at small things like terminology : )
Believing that everyone is "a little bit racist" against minority groups because of the human brain doesn't really make any sense at all to me. Just because a group is not the plurality does not mean they are systematically persecuted by or discriminated against everyone in society (which is what you're saying).
In fact, I can easily visualize human societies where there is racism against the plurality by a minority. Just look at the societies of Southern plantations.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is current institutionalized or societal racism in the United States, but I really just wanted to try to understand this viewpoint. Unless you're talking about specific minorities (in which case it sounds like you're saying the human brain is wired to discriminate against black people or other specific groups of people...which is patently absurd). Humans might be hardwired to fear the "other" but that's not "the plurality."
I was referring to implicit racial bias, AKA unconscious racism. You can find a lot of good explainers online, but what it boils down to is that human brains make snap decisions based upon stereotypes all the time, for evolutionary reasons. This causes problems when popular culture portrays groups in certain ways, thereby creating stereotypes. These stereotypes affect human behavior - people behave in a racist manner even though they don't mean to.
The effects of this can be relatively harmless (e.g., people tend to believe Asians are better at math) or really really awful (e.g., people, including police officers tend to view black people as more threatening or dangerous).
Here's a link that GH posted a while back which leads to quizzes that test your personal implicit biases:
Obviously the methodology isn't perfect, but at least when I took the test, I could tell that my brain wanted to make certain associations based on race/gender/etc. I believe in racial equality (heck, genetically speaking, I don't think race is even really a thing) and I consider myself a feminist, but if I'm remembering correctly the tests said that I was subconsciously slightly racist, and moderately sexist.
That has nothing to do with minority/plurality positions, though, and everything to do with power dynamics. If a minority has power, and society is aware of it, there can easily be an implicit bias in favor of that group (even if purple haired people were only 1/10 of the U.S. population, if half of Hollywood had purple hair people would probably on average have an implicit bias for purple haired people).
Even if they are synonyms, you might be able to argue that on average everyone has an implicit bias against the group with less power or societal respect (even people in the group), but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has an implicit bias against that group. Implicit biases are augmented and altered by personal experiences, and someone with an extremely traumatic experience with the group in power may have a bias against the powerful group instead.
On November 13 2015 15:28 ticklishmusic wrote: So where is the systemic racism on the college campuses? The only thing close to that was the athletic director being racist to student athletes...very thing else seems to fall more into the asshattery category
I mean it exists to some degree, but there seems to be some conflation between systemic racism and asshattery in these protests.
Well really you have to think on a more meta-cultural level to make up a term. Very few people imo have the intention of suppressing minorities. But there are unconscious things people pick up from living in a society that lead them to make decisions that can lead to these things. Its really a mix of conscious and unconscious thought processes built from culturally transmitted information. Put that together with people who are imperfect with wildly differing levels of competency thinking, communicating, and acting on this large amount of social information and situations. From the side of the minority, direct and indirect means are used that discourage them to full participation in the society. So if someone says "yea but there aren't many black professors/students/professionals to hire" you have to ask yourself "why is this?". Why are blacks not choosing or able to engage in this aspect of culture (higher education/academia)? You can extend this out beyond to all aspects of society.
To use an unrelated example, there was a study done where two identical resumes were circulated to various professionals in a field and the only difference between the two was that one had a man's 1st name and the 2nd female. The resume with the male's name got a lot more positive reviews and recommendations than the females.
Focusing on potential faults of protests/protestors is silly because they are human and make mistakes. Asking for perfection among those who are disenfranchised (especially when the privileged fuck up all the time) is pretty disingenuous and merely a tactic to distract from the real issue. It also is an underwhelming argument when people try to group multiple groups of protesters together, considering they all have their own methods, feelings, and ideas about the issues.
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
GH, you are dangerously close to the point where I call you out on being a douchebag.
He's been a non-contributor to discussions for a very long time now. Much like clutz and Danglars can be counted on to wrap everything until a ideological cocoon of "Libertarianism solves everything", GH can be counted on to only discuss racism and how no one else understands it.
What's wrong about taking something at heart ? People in this forum really can't bear that people disagree. Thank god Danglars, GH and clutz (among others) are here, they are interesting to read and to talk to.
On November 13 2015 12:58 farvacola wrote: Self-appointed spokespersonhood on behalf of an entire racial group is a hell of a drug too
I hardly imagine myself as a spokesperson, there are just no other black people around whatsoever (the only other one got fed up and left).
I just can't stand idly by and watch the circle jerk without at least trying to interject some perspective (although I know it mostly falls on deaf ears).
Quite an assumption thinking that everyone here is white.
We've established there aren't any other black people who post in this thread. I'm well aware there are a few non-white posters though.
I am not "white"...
Congratulations!
GH, you are dangerously close to the point where I call you out on being a douchebag.
He's been a non-contributor to discussions for a very long time now. Much like clutz and Danglars can be counted on to wrap everything until a ideological cocoon of "Libertarianism solves everything", GH can be counted on to only discuss racism and how no one else understands it.
What's wrong about taking something at heart ? People in this forum really can't bear that people disagree. Thank god Danglars, GH and clutz (among others) are here, they are interesting to read and to talk to.
I agree with this, and would include xDaunt too. It's much more interesting having a discussion with two (or more) perspectives than one, imo. After a while, circle jerks just leave you raw.
Slaughter is pretty on point about the unconscious bias, which infects all parts of a given system. They did a study in Baltimore showing that the police has significant racial bias, even if the officers were black. In a follow up, the study found the main difference was that the black officers were more receptive to the idea that they had this unconscious bias.
Which is where the main conflict comes in, that there is a lot of resistance to the idea that the “system” is biased when people try to point it out. This happens for any number of reasons, from racism to the person being uncomfortable with the idea that they benefited from a bias system. And due to that, we get discussions like the one we have been having, where everyone needs to come to an agreement on the terms and how the topic will be addressed. Or people just refuse to listen and protests happen.
EPT
