|
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 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on.
That's not exactly how racism works...
Racist => Something intentionally harming a race
Institutionalized Racism => A protected system that, without intervention, creates an environment that allows one race to succeed over another
Bill Clinton's Bill fit neither definitions. He saw a pattern (increased crime) collected data both anecdotal and from experts, then attempted to solve the observed issue (increased crime) using tactics that his experts prescribed.
The side effect was that sub groups with institutionalized racism (state and local authorities) gained more resources and so were able to perpetuate problems they already had prior.
Bill Clinton, however, is a bigger name and so people are more likely to attack him since he's more visible. But blaming him for not vetoing a bill is like blaming art school for not liking hitler's shitty paintings. Its just too far removed.
Racism is when the action or intent is more directly involved with you. As an example, if a police officer grabs his gun a half second faster when facing a black suspect than a white suspect, or a crime witness describing a black perpetrator in a more brutish manner than a white one, or a school that accepts more white students than black students, etc.... When the decision and action is more directly involved with you, that is when you can start discussing if something is racist or is simple affected by institutionalized racism.
As another example: cotton farming is not racist. having slaves in a cotton farm is not racist. even having black slaves in a cotton farm is not racist. It isn't racist until you start favoring having black slaves, over white slaves. Its not racist until you start breeding black slaves, and not white slaves. Its not racist until you actually start making decisions and distinctions based on race.
|
On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. By its nature, it can be unconscious or simply systematic. The Trevor Noah discussed in an interview with NPR and that they were not receiving auditions from black comedians. And the reason was that the show worked through agents and most black comedians can’t get agents. That is the system being biased against blacks simply because no one asked “Why do we not receive black auditions? We should be receiving more.” No one is at fault there, unless someone was completely in denial that there might be a flaw in the system causing them to not receive auditions from black comedians. And we are all racist. We make unconscious judgment based on race all the time. The key to combating racism is to be aware that we are doing it and review why we make those judgments. The Bill Clinton crime bill ended up being racist, though that was likely not his intent. But the failure to admit and address its clear flaws only adds to the problem.
Careful, you might hurt xDaunt's feelings : )
|
I prefer to use another word than "racism" for various systemic bias issues.
|
I agree with most of your points and we are simply debating the finer semantics at this point. I am willing to use whatever language makes people comfortable to allow the discussion to continue, as I have no specific attachments to systematic racism or just plain racism as terms.
However, Clinton’s crime bill created a system that disproportionally harmed blacks and also created the larger problem of the private prison system. It is a case of unintended systematic racism.
|
Language games surrounding the precise use and meaning of the term "racism" do very little other than distract from the issues related to the term.
|
It is the problem with the discussion. People say that racism get thrown around to much, but don’t provide a term they would make them feel comfortable. But sometimes that is the point of the complaint, to avoid the discussion about the larger issue by focusing on the term racism.
|
I feel like feminism and racism just need to be scrapped as words. So much bullshit associated with both of those words that we need new ones to discuss modern issues.
|
Both of those terms are facing the same bullshit they have always faced. Nothing is new. People have been calling feminist man hating shrews since the term was coined. The language people use is identical to what it was 100 years ago. The same with racism and peoples denial that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. So there is very little reason to ditch the words, because the same arguments will be grafted onto the new terms.
|
On May 18 2016 03:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:41 cLutZ wrote:On May 18 2016 02:37 farvacola wrote:
To be frank, this nation desperately needs schools like Burlington College to close, regardless of who leads them.
There are too many goddamn schools and not enough people getting educated. What is amazing is that you are able to sink the finances of a college given that the Federal government gives out loans, that you don't even have to back, for nearly 100% of the cost of your product. While I agree with you in essence, it's worth mentioning that federal indebtedness weighs heavily on a school's ability to procure what ends up being relatively small but integral funding from other sources, which is likely what happened with Burlington once the bungled real estate scheme did its damage.
Burlington had no endowment, so it funded operations basically from tuition. So in that steady state it was pretty ok. However when you take a $10m loan the interest payment on that is going to throw your budget way out of whack.
Jane Sanders was supposed to secure funds from donors ahead of time for the purchase, and she apparently lied about it which led to the college needing to take the loan. After that it was pretty much racing against time to find an actual source of funds or default.
It's not that it's hard for colleges to get loans, it's that Burlington College didn't have any shit in assets or income and their cash flows were probably minimal. I know my alma mater has a couple $100m+ credit facilities out, but that's because we have a multi billion dollar endowment.
|
How are you to change implicit bias when in a city say your black population is 10-30% of your population but is committing 80% of your violent acts? How are you to change police attitude? The police can't turn off pattern recognition in their brains. That's literally how we learn.
This police chief seems really sensible and like he cares a great deal. He knows the problems and he says it directly. What more should be done? He explains how the media takes an issue with how he seems like he's doing his job, when he was actually just doing his job.
+ Show Spoiler +
There is no solution to fix a problem of disproportionate crime until violent crime is represented equally in all races. It isn't. I feel I may be misunderstanding what you're saying as well so take this post with a grain of salt. But is the problem 'disproportionately hurting X group of people'?
|
All the problems that can be attributed to race are also attributed to poverty. It’s not like the Irish arrived in the US and were all law abiding citizens that were not prone to gang violence and other crimes. But then the discrimination against them slowly dwindled and faded. That didn’t happen for blacks in the US. We have ongoing issues, both intentional and unintentional. Including an incarceration rate that completely unacceptable for any modern nation.
|
"The Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday that would allow families of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to hold the government of Saudi Arabia legally accountable — setting up a showdown with the White House, which has opposed the bill.
The measure, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
"If the Saudis did not participate (in the Sept. 11 attacks) they have nothing to worry about," Schumer said at a news conference Tuesday. "If they did, they should be held accountable."
The legislation would prevent governments complicit in terrorist attacks in the United States from invoking so-called “sovereign immunity” as a legal shield. It would also allow civil litigation against foreign entities complicit in terrorism to proceed. The measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in January.
Family members of several Sept. 11 victims praised the passage of the legislation Tuesday, saying "The American people, as well as our families, deserve the truth about Sept. 11 and those responsible deserve to be held to account."
The Schumer-Cornyn bill "promises us the truth, accountability and a strong warning that the United States finally will stand behind its promise of justice to those who were injured and the survivors of the 3,000 children, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands who were murdered in our homeland on Sept. 11," said the family members.
Source
|
On May 18 2016 03:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +"The Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday that would allow families of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to hold the government of Saudi Arabia legally accountable — setting up a showdown with the White House, which has opposed the bill.
The measure, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
"If the Saudis did not participate (in the Sept. 11 attacks) they have nothing to worry about," Schumer said at a news conference Tuesday. "If they did, they should be held accountable."
The legislation would prevent governments complicit in terrorist attacks in the United States from invoking so-called “sovereign immunity” as a legal shield. It would also allow civil litigation against foreign entities complicit in terrorism to proceed. The measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in January.
Family members of several Sept. 11 victims praised the passage of the legislation Tuesday, saying "The American people, as well as our families, deserve the truth about Sept. 11 and those responsible deserve to be held to account."
The Schumer-Cornyn bill "promises us the truth, accountability and a strong warning that the United States finally will stand behind its promise of justice to those who were injured and the survivors of the 3,000 children, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands who were murdered in our homeland on Sept. 11," said the family members. Source
Saudi Arabia promptly threatened to sell off US debt, which was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Oh, you're going to sell off a few hundred billions of the world's most stable asset at a discount? Gee whiz.
|
On May 18 2016 03:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +"The Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday that would allow families of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to hold the government of Saudi Arabia legally accountable — setting up a showdown with the White House, which has opposed the bill.
The measure, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
"If the Saudis did not participate (in the Sept. 11 attacks) they have nothing to worry about," Schumer said at a news conference Tuesday. "If they did, they should be held accountable."
The legislation would prevent governments complicit in terrorist attacks in the United States from invoking so-called “sovereign immunity” as a legal shield. It would also allow civil litigation against foreign entities complicit in terrorism to proceed. The measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in January.
Family members of several Sept. 11 victims praised the passage of the legislation Tuesday, saying "The American people, as well as our families, deserve the truth about Sept. 11 and those responsible deserve to be held to account."
The Schumer-Cornyn bill "promises us the truth, accountability and a strong warning that the United States finally will stand behind its promise of justice to those who were injured and the survivors of the 3,000 children, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands who were murdered in our homeland on Sept. 11," said the family members. Source
Do they not understand that we can’t do this? That citizens can’t make a civil claim against another nation? The court has no power over other sovereign nations.
|
US courts have very little personal jurisdiction over the Saudis. What they do have, however, is in rem jurisdiction over Saudi property that is located in the United States.
|
Plansix -> I'd like to use the terms "bias" or "implicit bias"
SK -> the problem is that what the police do often goes beyond what the statistics would indicate.
also, the effects of small, unintentional biases, can really add up over time.
|
Pretty sure the Saudis could do the exact same thing to US properties and businesses on their soil without that pesky legal process. This law is designed to force Obama to veto it because it is so stupid.
|
On May 18 2016 04:02 Plansix wrote:Do they not understand that we can’t do this? That citizens can’t make a civil claim against another nation? The court has no power over other sovereign nations.
Of course they can! I thought you were an attorney. 
|
On May 18 2016 04:09 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure the Saudis could do the exact same thing to US properties and businesses on their soil without that pesky legal process. This law is designed to force Obama to veto it because it is so stupid.
Great idea piss off the nation that you rely on for defense contracts etc which you need to keep your population in check.
|
On May 18 2016 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like feminism and racism just need to be scrapped as words. So much bullshit associated with both of those words that we need new ones to discuss modern issues.
This makes me laugh how more non POC get more upset about the use of the word racism than they do of the actual racism.
White fragility dictates we need a softer word that doesn't make people feel so bad, that way it's easier to tell POC to just suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
