|
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 28 2017 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:06 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. "There is some overt racism, though not much" See that's the type of overtly ignorant stuff people want me to pretend isn't radically offensive and fundamentally uninformed. or you're just using the wrong definition of racism. and calling it radically offensive is just dumb. No, not even using the prejudice+power definition that's not wrong, just because white people say so. I'm using just flat out racism. First, not being a target of racism (as a black person) you have no god damn clue how often black people hear overtly racist slurs, get abused by police and other people in authority expressly because of their race, or any of the other ways black people experience "overt racism" (that meets some arbitrarily white-constructed threshold). And no, calling out the absurdity and radically offensive position that there is "not much" racism is not dumb. Being so ignorant as to not understand why saying there's "not much" racism is dumb. + Show Spoiler +(trying to say that saying there's "not much racism" is a dumb statement if that's not clear) I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're basing this both off your extensive experience and research around the experiences of racism in America and a general concept that it's less than when we had slavery and segregation, therefore it's "not much"?
could be; i'd change opinions based on numerical evidence; but at any rate, i'd already do extensive work to address all these issues; probably more than you would, considering your own considerable issues;
so your pointless and foolish berating adds nothing to my work to do so; you're not providing useful info to me or insight. you're just being obnoxious.
|
On May 28 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:13 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. Out of curiosity, what did you expect was GH's interpretation of the dominant perspective here? I didn't really give it all that much thought; probably something kinda cray-cray radical; or at least obnoxiously and aggressively phrased. what he has since wrote seems like what you'd expect of him. reminds me of the Boondocks a bit. It looks kind of weird from an outside perspective cause you're telling GH that he's wrong about the dominant perspective and then you describe the dominant perspective in an extremely similar fashion to what GH has been describing. Based on that it makes sense to me that you hadn't thought of it a whole lot.
from my perspective there are considerable differences between what i'm saying and what GH is saying. I wouldn't call them extremely similar at all.
|
Are the constitutional rights of minorities on average less respected than those of the majority? To be honest, I find that hard to believe. You know what's an actual problem though? Affirmative action. It's literally acknowledging minorities and giving them a pad on the shoulder for it. You know what else is a problem? Creating rifts between different groups of people because one group so desperately needs to confirm itself as different based on superficial properties. I'm 100% on board that the historical context and certain events created the present situation, but the way it's handled is not correct in any way. It's dividing instead of uniting.
In general, things are okay for minorities. You have the opportunities anyone else has, as long as you can recognize and take them. But you have fringe cases everywhere. Blowing up every case that fits your narrative skews perception.
I firmly believe that the socio-economic situation of minorities at the present is due to it is still catching up at the moment. But asking for a status quo for things that take a while to come to that level is simply shortsightedness.
|
On May 28 2017 09:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:13 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. Out of curiosity, what did you expect was GH's interpretation of the dominant perspective here? I didn't really give it all that much thought; probably something kinda cray-cray radical; or at least obnoxiously and aggressively phrased. what he has since wrote seems like what you'd expect of him. reminds me of the Boondocks a bit. It looks kind of weird from an outside perspective cause you're telling GH that he's wrong about the dominant perspective and then you describe the dominant perspective in an extremely similar fashion to what GH has been describing. Based on that it makes sense to me that you hadn't thought of it a whole lot. from my perspective there are considerable differences between what i'm saying and what GH is saying. I wouldn't call them extremely similar at all.
Did you question your perspective when you posted this and GH answered "You are confirming my assessment on the dominant perspective here." instead of "There are considerable differences between what you're saying and what I think"? If not, should you have?
NewSunshine with what I can only assume is a troll post? I'm not sure what the utility of that was, especially not if you really plan not to answer anymore...
|
Canada11355 Posts
On May 28 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 05:10 Adreme wrote:On May 28 2017 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 01:09 Adreme wrote:On May 28 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 00:44 ShoCkeyy wrote:
GH no one got shot in the video? ;l Exactly. So your point is what exactly? That you can find videos of police not shooting white people. I can find videos of police not shooting people of all colors but most of the posts reek of confirmation bias which is a thing that massively hinders fighting against racism in america. When I say that I mean that not every action against a minority is based on race but when those that are not are called racism and are lumped with the ones that are it taints the entire pool so suddenly everyone stops listening. It was the same problem i posted about almost a year ago when I said the term racist is being overused to apply to pretty every single mispoken line someone says and it taints everything. Its harder now to truly ostracize racists from modern society when everything is being called racial even when it is not. Not every police shooting is a murder but many of the ones that get focused on are not the problem ones. No. And @Zero, this isn't supposed to be a critique of Portland police. I actually applaud them for getting him into custody without killing him. It was much closer to: On May 28 2017 01:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2017 00:44 ShoCkeyy wrote:
GH no one got shot in the video? ;l I think the point was that his life was sparred (after actually killing people already) whereas a black dude simply existing in the wrong neighborhood has been enough for a black dude to be killed. While people were whining about the unfairness of some small group in Portland raising a stink about appropriated food/culture for profit, a cop in another state in America got off after an unarmed black man who was simply needing AAA got murdered in cold blood by the officer. And then the later in the day, in the same city, a known white-supremacist verbally assaults two young Muslim women and stabs 2 people to death wounding a third and threatens officers with a weapon and is taken into custody without being killed. Yet people have the gall to suggest that we should go back at least 60 years to find real racism, that racism/xenophobia aren't significant and immediate problems, expressing more concern over the rhetoric of BLM than those who embolden white-supremacist terrorists like this tool, on and on and on, and then complain about my tone... It's absurd. You dont have to go back 60 years to find racism, it 100% does exist today though it suffers a bit from boy who cried wolf syndrome which causes people to overlook it. It certainly does seem though that in certain areas of the country the policing is to be polite lacking in terms of skill whereas in other areas it seems to be excellent. I am not one to paint with a broad brush nor am I one to quickly assume that you can cast a net on all these shootings and call them racial profiling. I am sure many are but when you start just grouping everything together the off cases taint the entire est. I prefer to take each case an region individually and that does not mean you can not focus on multiple things at once. It is completely possible to care about both Portland and those that died. Just as it is possible for me to want to help the homeless and support a cleaner environment. Neither thing has to take the place of another and both can be tackled at the same time. There is no need to go "well you cant do x until y is done" Some people jock specifically did, and want to know what boy who cried wolf is? It's complaining about protests against white owned restaurants as racism. Not pointing out that a systemic and institutionalized racism that has been with this country since it's founding results in racist transgressions of every shape size and severity. I'm not sure which broad brushes your accusing me of painting with or if you're just speaking generically about something you read, but while I applaud Portland for not killing a suspect (and generally less than many departments of comparable size/ratios), I seem to have missed when they came out against police unions negotiating the ability to hide crimes (like DUI) or any of the other countless times they've remained silent about the rampant abuses by their brothers in arms across the country. While it certainly is possible to care about some insatiably stupid whining about white people being discouraged from selling other ethnicity's foods for profit, AND about white supremacist terrorists killing people, it's quite clear which folks think is more worth discussion. Indeed the world is full of possibilities.
I don't really understand your argument. It's natural to react to and discuss something that seems absurd. All the more so, if multiple persons jump in to defend the seemingly absurd position: people want to know how one could hold such a position. The more someone continues to defend the original point, the more additional people will want to put their two bits in. It's controversial, therefore more discussion results. I mean, even a few posts back, you couldn't help but include the phrase white's "appropriated food/culture for profit". So while you supposedly backed off in saying it's not of much importance, that doesn't seem very true as you seem to believe it enough to keep bringing it back up. I don't think you can have it both ways, not the way you have been arguing it. You can't dismiss people for continuing to argue something that you keep slipping into your own posts.
Whereas, the racist man who stabbed some people- in this thread that is considered universally bad. I will say it now- I think that was an evil act. But as no one stepped up to defend the racist, and I think most would see that as example of modern racism, there was simply less to discuss this time.
It's not white fragility that reacted in this thread, but rather a firm belief that the Portland boycott list was exactly the wrong method to combat racism. It's just wrong, whether it targetted whites specifically or not because it sets out to undue cultural exchange, dividing along ethnic lines in the same way race realists would love to. The discussion had more legs because there were both defenders and opposers.
|
On May 28 2017 09:32 Uldridge wrote:
Are the constitutional rights of minorities on average less respected than those of the majority? To be honest, I find that hard to believe. You know what's an actual problem though? Affirmative action. It's literally acknowledging minorities and giving them a pad on the shoulder for it. You know what else is a problem? Creating rifts between different groups of people because one group so desperately needs to confirm itself as different based on superficial properties. I'm 100% on board that the historical context and certain events created the present situation, but the way it's handled is not correct in any way. It's dividing instead of uniting.
In general, things are okay for minorities. You have the opportunities anyone else has, as long as you can recognize and take them. But you have fringe cases everywhere. Blowing up every case that fits your narrative skews perception.
I firmly believe that the socio-economic situation of minorities at the present is due to it is still catching up at the moment. But asking for a status quo for things that take a while to come to that level is simply shortsightedness.
from the statistical analysis and tests I've seen (of a scholarly and rigorous nature); they are indeed less respected (though it varies considerably by minority and location; blacks in general do get the worst of it).
the opportunities are similar, but not the same, and the studies i've seen on the issue show some real differences; it's not just an issue of catching up. sadly I don't have such sources handy to provide citations.
|
On May 28 2017 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. "There is some overt racism, though not much" See that's the type of overtly ignorant stuff people want me to pretend isn't radically offensive and fundamentally uninformed. You are confirming my assessment on the dominant perspective here. Let me help by placing one of the key's here: "If Black people better messaged their request for their constitutional rights to be respected white people would be more inclined to listen" That's a pretty universally held position here (save P6 maybe)
I wouldn't hold that position at all. I very much doubt white people could be drawn out of their apathy and ignorance about racial issues by a slick marketing campaign.
|
On May 28 2017 09:25 NewSunshine wrote:
My last response to you on this topic: openly attacking people who want to have the discussion with you, because they aren't as aware of the problem as you are is never going to get you anywhere. If you want to help, your job is to educate people, not attack them for being uneducated, and then pull the victim card. It makes it impossible to talk to you.
Bruh, first he posted basically exactly what I was saying was the dominant perspective as if he were refuting it. Within it he managed to whimsically dismiss the overwhelming experience of black people in America to assure us that while they almost universally agree there is a lot of racism, in fact, from his (and from the general consensus perspective here) there's "not much" racism.
In the same week a white supremacist verbally assaults 2 young Muslim girls and then stabs 3 people killing 2 in a hate crime (in one of the most liberal states in the country), and a white cop gets off for executing a black man in need of roadside assistance and is already back at work, you're going to tell me suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't offensive?
Which again confirms my other main point that there's near universal consensus that the reason that black people still don't get to enjoy our constitutional rights is because we don't ask in the right ways.
On May 28 2017 09:37 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 05:10 Adreme wrote:On May 28 2017 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 01:09 Adreme wrote:On May 28 2017 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 00:44 ShoCkeyy wrote:
GH no one got shot in the video? ;l Exactly. So your point is what exactly? That you can find videos of police not shooting white people. I can find videos of police not shooting people of all colors but most of the posts reek of confirmation bias which is a thing that massively hinders fighting against racism in america. When I say that I mean that not every action against a minority is based on race but when those that are not are called racism and are lumped with the ones that are it taints the entire pool so suddenly everyone stops listening. It was the same problem i posted about almost a year ago when I said the term racist is being overused to apply to pretty every single mispoken line someone says and it taints everything. Its harder now to truly ostracize racists from modern society when everything is being called racial even when it is not. Not every police shooting is a murder but many of the ones that get focused on are not the problem ones. No. And @Zero, this isn't supposed to be a critique of Portland police. I actually applaud them for getting him into custody without killing him. It was much closer to: On May 28 2017 01:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2017 00:44 ShoCkeyy wrote:
GH no one got shot in the video? ;l I think the point was that his life was sparred (after actually killing people already) whereas a black dude simply existing in the wrong neighborhood has been enough for a black dude to be killed. While people were whining about the unfairness of some small group in Portland raising a stink about appropriated food/culture for profit, a cop in another state in America got off after an unarmed black man who was simply needing AAA got murdered in cold blood by the officer. And then the later in the day, in the same city, a known white-supremacist verbally assaults two young Muslim women and stabs 2 people to death wounding a third and threatens officers with a weapon and is taken into custody without being killed. Yet people have the gall to suggest that we should go back at least 60 years to find real racism, that racism/xenophobia aren't significant and immediate problems, expressing more concern over the rhetoric of BLM than those who embolden white-supremacist terrorists like this tool, on and on and on, and then complain about my tone... It's absurd. You dont have to go back 60 years to find racism, it 100% does exist today though it suffers a bit from boy who cried wolf syndrome which causes people to overlook it. It certainly does seem though that in certain areas of the country the policing is to be polite lacking in terms of skill whereas in other areas it seems to be excellent. I am not one to paint with a broad brush nor am I one to quickly assume that you can cast a net on all these shootings and call them racial profiling. I am sure many are but when you start just grouping everything together the off cases taint the entire est. I prefer to take each case an region individually and that does not mean you can not focus on multiple things at once. It is completely possible to care about both Portland and those that died. Just as it is possible for me to want to help the homeless and support a cleaner environment. Neither thing has to take the place of another and both can be tackled at the same time. There is no need to go "well you cant do x until y is done" Some people jock specifically did, and want to know what boy who cried wolf is? It's complaining about protests against white owned restaurants as racism. Not pointing out that a systemic and institutionalized racism that has been with this country since it's founding results in racist transgressions of every shape size and severity. I'm not sure which broad brushes your accusing me of painting with or if you're just speaking generically about something you read, but while I applaud Portland for not killing a suspect (and generally less than many departments of comparable size/ratios), I seem to have missed when they came out against police unions negotiating the ability to hide crimes (like DUI) or any of the other countless times they've remained silent about the rampant abuses by their brothers in arms across the country. While it certainly is possible to care about some insatiably stupid whining about white people being discouraged from selling other ethnicity's foods for profit, AND about white supremacist terrorists killing people, it's quite clear which folks think is more worth discussion. Indeed the world is full of possibilities. I don't really understand your argument.
That is correct.
|
On May 28 2017 09:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:30 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:13 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. Out of curiosity, what did you expect was GH's interpretation of the dominant perspective here? I didn't really give it all that much thought; probably something kinda cray-cray radical; or at least obnoxiously and aggressively phrased. what he has since wrote seems like what you'd expect of him. reminds me of the Boondocks a bit. It looks kind of weird from an outside perspective cause you're telling GH that he's wrong about the dominant perspective and then you describe the dominant perspective in an extremely similar fashion to what GH has been describing. Based on that it makes sense to me that you hadn't thought of it a whole lot. from my perspective there are considerable differences between what i'm saying and what GH is saying. I wouldn't call them extremely similar at all. Did you question your perspective when you posted this and GH answered "You are confirming my assessment on the dominant perspective here." instead of "There are considerable differences between what you're saying and what I think"? If not, should you have? NewSunshine with what I can only assume is a troll post? I'm not sure what the utility of that was, especially not if you really plan not to answer anymore...
for some reason I'm having trouble parsing your question; so I'm not sure I'm going to answer it right.
I'd say my perspective that there are considerable differences between my and GHs views would be more strongly justified by GH's response, which would indicate he does not consider waht I said to be similar to his own views.
I don't see how newsunshine's post is a torll post; but I'm not sure which one you're referring to; sometimes simply letting someone know you're going to stop responding to them can be considered a courtesy of discussion.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On May 28 2017 09:37 Falling wrote:
Show nested quote +
I don't really understand your argument.
That is correct.
Well, thank you for clarifying.
|
On May 28 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:25 NewSunshine wrote:
My last response to you on this topic: openly attacking people who want to have the discussion with you, because they aren't as aware of the problem as you are is never going to get you anywhere. If you want to help, your job is to educate people, not attack them for being uneducated, and then pull the victim card. It makes it impossible to talk to you. Bruh, first he posted basically exactly what I was saying was the dominant perspective as if he were refuting it. Within it he managed to whimsically dismiss the overwhelming experience of black people in America to assure us that while they almost universally agree there is a lot of racism, in fact, from his (and from the general consensus perspective here) there's "not much" racism. In the same week a white supremacist verbally assaults 2 young Muslim girls and then stabs 3 people killing 2 in a hate crime (in one of the most liberal states in the country), and a white cop gets off for executing a black man in need of roadside assistance and is already back at work, you're going to tell me suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't offensive? Which again confirms my other main point that there's near universal consensus that the reason that black people still don't get to enjoy our constitutional rights is because we don't ask nicely enough.
how was my statement on the dominant perspective "as if I was refuting it"?
I thought I was simply stating what I thought the dominant perspective was.
that you choose to call something racism does not mean it is; you have a long history of bias on the subject; some people overestimate things, some underestimate. I also don't consider your statements to be a very definitive source of how all (most) black people in america feel.
mostly though, you're confirming my initial point; you're using a different definition of racism.
also, citing anecdotes isn't very helpful due to the law of large numbers.
|
On May 28 2017 09:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:36 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:30 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:13 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 09:09 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2017 09:02 zlefin wrote:On May 28 2017 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 08:56 zlefin wrote:
white fragility? I find that term absurd and amusing.
also, gh, you're wrong, the dominant perspective here really isn't like that at all. but you won't listen, so not much point engaging. White fragility isn't a term for your amusement, it describes the phenomena of white people growing up in circumstances that facilitate a particular type of conversation around racial topics. But I'm not surprised you'd find it amusing. Really, enlighten me as to your interpretation of the dominant perspective here? my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias. i'm not sure which other aspects of the perspective I should elaborate upon. Out of curiosity, what did you expect was GH's interpretation of the dominant perspective here? I didn't really give it all that much thought; probably something kinda cray-cray radical; or at least obnoxiously and aggressively phrased. what he has since wrote seems like what you'd expect of him. reminds me of the Boondocks a bit. It looks kind of weird from an outside perspective cause you're telling GH that he's wrong about the dominant perspective and then you describe the dominant perspective in an extremely similar fashion to what GH has been describing. Based on that it makes sense to me that you hadn't thought of it a whole lot. from my perspective there are considerable differences between what i'm saying and what GH is saying. I wouldn't call them extremely similar at all. Did you question your perspective when you posted this and GH answered "You are confirming my assessment on the dominant perspective here." instead of "There are considerable differences between what you're saying and what I think"? If not, should you have? NewSunshine with what I can only assume is a troll post? I'm not sure what the utility of that was, especially not if you really plan not to answer anymore... for some reason I'm having trouble parsing your question; so I'm not sure I'm going to answer it right. I'd say my perspective that there are considerable differences between my and GHs views would be more strongly justified by GH's response, which would indicate he does not consider waht I said to be similar to his own views. I don't see how newsunshine's post is a torll post; but I'm not sure which one you're referring to; sometimes simply letting someone know you're going to stop responding to them can be considered a courtesy of discussion.
my impression is that the dominant perspective here would be that there are substantial real issues to address concerning race; especially with respect to the law, but also with employment and other areas. there is some overt racism, though not much; but there is substantial bias.
I agree that is basically the dominant perspective here. that's what he's trying to explain to you.
Of course I think that it's wrong for many reasons, some of which I've mentioned.
On May 28 2017 09:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 09:25 NewSunshine wrote:
My last response to you on this topic: openly attacking people who want to have the discussion with you, because they aren't as aware of the problem as you are is never going to get you anywhere. If you want to help, your job is to educate people, not attack them for being uneducated, and then pull the victim card. It makes it impossible to talk to you. Bruh, first he posted basically exactly what I was saying was the dominant perspective as if he were refuting it. Within it he managed to whimsically dismiss the overwhelming experience of black people in America to assure us that while they almost universally agree there is a lot of racism, in fact, from his (and from the general consensus perspective here) there's "not much" racism. In the same week a white supremacist verbally assaults 2 young Muslim girls and then stabs 3 people killing 2 in a hate crime (in one of the most liberal states in the country), and a white cop gets off for executing a black man in need of roadside assistance and is already back at work, you're going to tell me suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't offensive? Which again confirms my other main point that there's near universal consensus that the reason that black people still don't get to enjoy our constitutional rights is because we don't ask nicely enough. how was my statement on the dominant perspective "as if I was refuting it"? I thought I was simply stating what I thought the dominant perspective was. that you choose to call something racism does not mean it is; you have a long history of bias on the subject; some people overestimate things, some underestimate. I also don't consider your statements to be a very definitive source of how all (most) black people in america feel. mostly though, you're confirming my initial point; you're using a different definition of racism. also, citing anecdotes isn't very helpful due to the law of large numbers.
Goodness... You said I was wrong about the dominant perspective, then you confirmed it, but you still seem to think you were proving that I was wrong.
It's not my statement, it's any and every time you ask black people in any poll and basically any way you ask the question.
Also your definition of racism must be wrong if it's not either the common form or the one I refer to as "raycism"
|
I think saying there's "not much" racism depends on your definition of how much "much" is. There's probably a lot less of it than there was in the 50s, at least, right? In the case of cops, pointless violence against blacks gets highlighted a lot more now (smartphones, BLM, lots of factors are contributing to this now) which makes it seem like there's more, but I'm assuming that this violence has always been there, just largely unreported. So that makes this increased media presence essentially a good thing that makes people more aware of it, which should lead to solutions (eventually - it takes time for the system that instituted the racism to respond). It's unfortunate that Trump is soaking up so much media energy lately.
|
On May 28 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
from the statistical analysis and tests I've seen (of a scholarly and rigorous nature); they are indeed less respected (though it varies considerably by minority and location; blacks in general do get the worst of it).
the opportunities are similar, but not the same, and the studies i've seen on the issue show some real differences; it's not just an issue of catching up. sadly I don't have such sources handy to provide citations.
An established group of people that could thrive over another one until basically one generation ago, will of course still show signs of that today. However, there is widespread change. I think it's a very difficult social problem to assess because large discrepancies and inconsistencies can be found everywhere.
The USA doesn't have a homogeneous infrastructure, which reflects on its non-homogeneous social structure, which in turn makes it very difficult to assess something like opportunity or some socially related issue.
|
On May 28 2017 09:53 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
from the statistical analysis and tests I've seen (of a scholarly and rigorous nature); they are indeed less respected (though it varies considerably by minority and location; blacks in general do get the worst of it).
the opportunities are similar, but not the same, and the studies i've seen on the issue show some real differences; it's not just an issue of catching up. sadly I don't have such sources handy to provide citations. An established group of people that could thrive over another one until basically one generation ago, will of course still show signs of that today. However, there is widespread change. I think it's a very difficult social problem to assess because large discrepancies and inconsistencies can be found everywhere. The USA doesn't have a homogeneous infrastructure, which reflects on its non-homogeneous social structure, which in turn makes it very difficult to assess something like opportunity or some socially related issue.
i've seen studies that account for those effects and still find considerable differences; at any rate, there's no reason to assume equality rather than study it thoroughly. on what rigorous basis would you conclude they have just as much opportunity? I assume you're at least going off numerous studies assessing the issue, rather than just your own impression (I also assume that, like me, you don't remember the studies well enough to cite them).
I know i'ts hard to assess; but there's a lot of known statistical and sociological tools to assess such things.
it is of course hard to assess what the rate of improvement is, and due to the ongoing and rapidly changing nature of society, there can be considerable lags in getting good data.
|
On May 28 2017 09:49 a_flayer wrote:
I think saying there's "not much" racism depends on your definition of how much "much" is. There's probably a lot less of it than there was in the 50s, at least, right? In the case of cops, pointless violence against blacks gets highlighted a lot more now (smartphones, BLM, lots of factors are contributing to this now) which makes it seem like there's more, but I'm assuming that this violence has always been there, just largely unreported. So that makes this increased media presence essentially a good thing that makes people more aware of it, which should lead to solutions (eventually - it takes time for the system that instituted the racism to respond). It's unfortunate that Trump is soaking up so much media energy lately.
Yeah, see the "its not as bad as the 1950's america so it's 'not much'" is not something everyone (particularly non-white people) are willing to accept as a concept. But it's pretty universally accepted by white people for obvious reasons, and by some older upper income black people.
That's what I mean by white fragility, they aren't exposed to a room full of people who when the suggestion that there is "not much" racism confront them as abruptly and frequently as the notion that there is "a lot" of racism would be in the rooms they're used to.
If you asked an 18 year old black person "how much racism is there" they would first probably tell you that's a stupid question, but when pressed would probably say something like 'too much' or 'I don't know, I experience it somewhere between daily and weekly?'
Now folks here would say "but that's not racism", which is what was said about segregation when it was then compared to "real racism" (slavery). But let's say that most of the negative consequences of the hate/discrimination/prejudice/bias/etc... aren't bad enough to meet this ethereal threshold of "racism". It's still racism to that 18 year old who can't compare it to being a slave or being legally segregated 50's style (though this is basically still happening in some places), he or she knows today's racism.
+ Show Spoiler +Deleted because I don't even want to argue it.
|
What level of racism wouldn't be 'too much' for you?
|
I've seen numbers and I do remember that minorities feel discrimination on a (somewhat) regular basis. I think it was something of around 2/3 of all black people have at least faced discrimination once.
With opportunity I mean the possibility. It doesn't necessarily mean equal chances to find success in something. I haven't seen studies that account for geographical, infrastructural and social setting however, so I will refrain from my opinion until I have more information on this topic.
Is being able to become the president as a black man proof for opportunity? Or is that just a testament of how much/long/hard a minority has to struggle before getting in such a position, or is he a fringe case?
Edit: goodness, zlefin, I'm on track to have the exact same conversation with you as almost 1 year ago lol.
+ Show Spoiler +
I must say, my opinion has become slightly more nuanced, but the complex issues have not yet been answered.
I'm still convinced that we're making more of a rift than actually uniting people.
|
On May 28 2017 10:10 a_flayer wrote:
What level of racism wouldn't be 'too much' for you?
That's an interesting question in that it's impossible to answer. Ridding this country of racism sounds nice but wholly implausible, so alas, like starvation, any is too much in one way, but I grew up around racism so I don't personally mind some of the more playful racially charged situations.
If you want to ask what is a reasonable expectation? I'd say getting an overwhelming majority of people to understand what P6 said about racism being acts and not soul defining character flaws combined with specific hate filled racially directed actions.
That we all do racist things and that simply doing them isn't the problem. Like all mistakes it's fine to make them occasionally, or in front of close friends and family, etc... But what we have is a bunch of people belligerently drunk on whiteness declaring they don't have a drinking problem while shitting on the living room rug.
|
Canada11355 Posts
So is it a sort of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory" view of racism? "Hate the racist act, not the racist" in a sense? If that being so: That we all do racist things and that simply doing them isn't the problem. What are the racist things that all people fall short on?
But what we have is a bunch of people belligerently drunk on whiteness declaring they don't have a drinking problem while shitting on the living room rug. I presume you are talking about the average person (the unregenerate man) not the KKK member, so the above question would apply to this statement as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
