|
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 04:09 zf wrote:Show nested quote +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. 
I am a paralegal, not an attorney. And you need to have an exemption approved by a federal judge to do it and there needs to be overwhelming evidence. Otherwise nations are immune. The prevision already exists for these lawsuits to be brought if the evidence was sufficient.
And the goverment needs to be on board to go to bat for the plaintiff if they win.
|
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.
If it was passed unanimously, what is the point of vetoing it. Just let it pass, allow people to sue the Saudi government and have the courts throw it out because they have no jurisdiction. Then realize you'll have to ratify the international court of law to get anywhere (not sure the Saudis have ratified it either, though), and even then that sueing a nation is not going to get you anywhere, and good luck dragging King Abdullah to The Hague.
|
Without looking at the substance of the bill, it is entirely within Congress's power to create a private cause of action relative to a foreign entity's liability for particular acts that operates separately from pre-existing legal frameworks for holding foreign nation's accountable. Additionally, the bill almost certainly delineates the specific scope of its grant of jurisdiction in terms of available remedies, which would likely be purely monetary in nature and reliant on court attachment of Saudi properties.
|
On May 18 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not that. It's that racism was different in the 40s and 60s and today. When we grow up learning about racism, it's about lashings and the kkk. That racism is different from modern racism. It still exists, but it is different and takes different solutions. We need to be more specific about what we're fighting against.
|
On May 18 2016 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. It's not that. It's that racism was different in the 40s and 60s and today. When we grow up learning about racism, it's about lashings and the kkk. That racism is different from modern racism. It still exists, but it is different and takes different solutions. We need to be more specific about what we're fighting against.
Sort of. But its mostly about framing the racism in a way that doesn’t hurt white people’s feelings, which is what GH is talking about. That becomes really tiresome over time, since its not like you can just do it on mass.
|
What if you were told the US Navy is legally permitted to harass, injure or kill nearly 12 million whales, dolphins, porpoises, sea lions and seals across the North Pacific Ocean over a five-year period?
It is true, and over one-quarter of every tax dollar you pay is helping to fund it.
A multistate, international citizen watchdog group called the West Coast Action Alliance (WCAA), tabulated numbers that came straight from the Navy's Northwest Training and Testing EIS (environmental impact statement) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Letters of Authorization for incidental "takes" of marine mammals issued by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.
A "take" is a form of harm to an animal that ranges from harassment, to injury, and sometimes to death. Many wildlife conservationists see even "takes" that only cause behavior changes as injurious, because chronic harassment of animals that are feeding or breeding can end up harming, or even contributing to their deaths if they are driven out of habitats critical to their survival.
Karen Sullivan, a spokesperson for the WCAA, is a former endangered species biologist and assistant regional director at the US Fish and Wildlife Service; she is now retired.
"The numbers are staggering," she told Truthout, speaking about the number of marine mammals the Navy is permitted to take. "When you realize the same individual animals can be harassed over and over again as they migrate to different areas, there is no mitigation that can make up for these losses except limiting the use of sonar and explosives where these animals are trying to live."
Yet the aforementioned staggering numbers are still lower-end estimates, as they do not include dozens of other military projects in the same areas, such as construction using underwater pile driving, and they only apply to marine mammals, not other species.
Source
|
On May 18 2016 04:19 farvacola wrote:
Without looking at the substance of the bill, it is entirely within Congress's power to create a private cause of action relative to a foreign entity's liability for particular acts that operates separately from pre-existing legal frameworks for holding foreign nation's accountable. Additionally, the bill almost certainly delineates the specific scope of its grant of jurisdiction in terms of available remedies, which would likely be purely monetary in nature and reliant on court attachment of Saudi properties.
I am sure some attorney could bring the action and get a judgment. I just question their ability to collect. Maybe they could put a lien on the property and hope to collect when the property sells.
|
On May 18 2016 04:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. It's not that. It's that racism was different in the 40s and 60s and today. When we grow up learning about racism, it's about lashings and the kkk. That racism is different from modern racism. It still exists, but it is different and takes different solutions. We need to be more specific about what we're fighting against. Sort of. But i ts mostly about framing the racism in a way that doesn’t hurt white people’s feelings, which is what GH is talking about. That becomes really tiresome over time, since its not like you can just do it on mass.
So what? If people are being idiots and there is a way to have a conversation with them that doesn't make them walk from the discussion, what's the harm? Conversations do not go well when you are trying to convince someone they are racist. I would argue it would be significantly easier to solve unfair shittiness that black people encounter by not calling it racism. My point is that there is so much history with the words racism and feminism that people have instinctual responses. If the goal is to improve the lives of black people, do what it takes to make that happen instead of trying to strangle a confession out of someone. People won't budge. Frame the argument in a more modern and specific way. When people hear "racism", their mind goes somewhere totally different. This is still someone you need to be working with to improve our society. So find a way to more constructively talk with them instead of fighting the wrong way.
I encountered a fair amount of "racism" growing up, but it was nothing like burning crosses in my front yard. It was more subtle and general and I would not say the people in my neighborhood were racists.
|
On May 18 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote: I am sure some attorney could bring the action and get a judgment. I just question their ability to collect. Maybe they could put a lien on the property and hope to collect when the property sells.
That's exactly what they'd do. That's what plaintiffs do in foreign debt cases. The property doesn't necessarily need to be within the United States either, just somewhere that's willing to enforce a U.S. judgment.
Just skimmed at the bill. It's a pretty straightforward overrule of the Second Circuit's decision in the September 11 litigation.
|
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.
I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities.
It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs.
I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life.
Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history.
Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own.
I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong.
|
Yes, but at some point it crosses the line where every single person you meet has to have their “learning experience” through you. That 80% of your time is spend attempting address peoples personal hang ups on the words, rather than discussing the problem. And people are shitty learners.
I only deal with this a little and its tiresome. Especially since I have done several in this thread alone and the same people are still getting super offended over the use of term racism.
SolaR: You came off like an asshole. But don't worry, I don't think any less of you than I did previously.
|
On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote: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. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong.
I know what you're talking about but I don't think Plan quite fits in that box, but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. Meaning there is truth to the idea that progress isn't made without enough white people pulling their head out.
|
Exactly. I understood what racism was and how it worked. I just assumed I wasn’t part of the problem and was part of the solution by avoiding racism. But in reality, I learned later on, that being “not racist” is the bare minimum I could. And getting bent out of shape every time someone talks me benefiting from a racist system or having racial bias was just holding back progress so I could feel good about myself.
|
I maintain that using the word "bias" instead of racism would be sufficient, especially "implicit bias" and such.
|
On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote: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. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people.
No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness.
|
On May 18 2016 05:06 zlefin wrote:
I maintain that using the word "bias" instead of racism would be sufficient, especially "implicit bias" and such.
I think what you'll end up doing is making it to where people hear bias and think racism rather than get them to get over their fragility around discussing the racist roots with which this nation is firmly grounded.
|
You're going to have to point out particular issues in the racist system and pinpoint exact spots otherwise people will never ever deal with it. When that BLM spokesperson went onto Colbert, he made a complete ass of himself. He was polite and cordial, but he made 0 relevant points. It was a complete failure. He had 8 minutes to get a point across, and got none across. Ferguson and Baltimore were complete jokes as well. Black mayors, black city councils, black police chiefs, with a black president in office and they feel white racism was to blame.
To bring up racism the best thing you can do is not talk in these vague terms. You have to pinpoint exact issues, like the NPR agent issue. Otherwise you will never, ever, be taken seriously.
Relevant:
+ Show Spoiler +
As for the sensitivities of white people comment.. white people are not sensitive. Cracka and honkey can be said all day. We could care less.
|
On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote: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. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness.
The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes.
Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word.
|
Testie -> how was Ferguson a complete joke?
There were legitimate issues that needed to be dealt with.
|
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. Marching through the streets of NY saying, 'what do we want? DEAD COPS! when do we want it? NOW!' makes the movements lose all credibility.
The fact that they've mixed up the death of criminals with innocent men in their cause really hurt them as well. They tacked more dead men on to make their movement more justified, but instead it hurt the message they are trying to convey because people are like.. 'well.. at least 30%-50% of those killings were justified..' or whatever number it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
20096
1474
1421
EPT
