|
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 10:12 Uldridge wrote: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.
imho, possibility also should include some measure of the chance of that opportunity; I'd agree they have the chance to find success in things; but, my impression at least, is that those chances are lower than someone in an equivalent situation who's white would have.
reminds me of those studies on the use of alternate races names in hiring and seeing how the callback rates varied based on the race of the applicant for what were otherwise identical resumes. though iirc there were some arguable methodological issues with those.
have you read those? if not I could probably dig them up.
wow, we've had 3k pages since then, which is only august 2016; whereas post 1 from this thread is 2012 (and 4500 pages further back). a high density posting year.
|
Trying to draw conclusions from a single case in which some white guy didn't get shot (apparently by a police department which doesn't do much shooting of people) and a single case in which a black guy did get shot is an argument without worth.
Redefining the meaning of the word "racism" to suit yourself while confusing everybody else in the discussion is also unproductive.
Arguing with somebody who is contributing in good faith and trying to tell them what they said, rather than trying to understand what they intended to say, is both very rude and unproductive.
I appreciate that you are angry and that you have a right to be GreenHorizons... but that does not give you a license to say whatever you want and not have it be challenged.
And before you say it... do not mistake my intolerance for unproductive and fallacious arguments for "white fragility".
|
On May 28 2017 08:32 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't even touch what you're on about anymore GH. It feels like no matter what I could say, you'll dismiss it out of hand because there's something "more worthy of discussion". I had this same problem with Danglars, the conversation always starts out as one thing, and then you insist it becomes about what you want it to be about, but conversations don't work that way. It's not worth it for me at this point.
On May 11 2017 03:08 NewSunshine wrote:
As much as xDaunt and Danglars are playing the lunatic in their staunch defense of almost certain treason, they're serving the important reminder that not everybody sees it that way. Which is its own kind of awful.
On May 11 2017 06:07 NewSunshine wrote:
Yet if you ask someone like Danglars it had nothing to do with this investigation.
On May 14 2017 06:59 NewSunshine wrote:
You know, Danglars, you are honestly starting to exhaust me. Not everything I say needs to be an argument..
Don't be sore just because you made some wild accusations and people didn't immediately pick up on them. It might be worth future interactions with people that think wildly different than you to keep your cool and understand sometimes you both leave as firm in your convictions as when you started ... and maybe understand better why both arrive at their points of view. Also, a friendly reminder that conversations that base themselves on different conceptions of events typically drift to those bases. Don't be so dismissive, NewSunshine.
|
On May 28 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:
imho, possibility also should include some measure of the chance of that opportunity; I'd agree they have the chance to find success in things; but, my impression at least, is that those chances are lower than someone in an equivalent situation who's white would have.
reminds me of those studies on the use of alternate races names in hiring and seeing how the callback rates varied based on the race of the applicant for what were otherwise identical resumes. though iirc there were some arguable methodological issues with those.
have you read those? if not I could probably dig them up.
wow, we've had 3k pages since then, which is only august 2016; whereas post 1 from this thread is 2012 (and 4500 pages further back). a high density posting year.
I'm not a big sociology or anthropology guy, so I'm not that invested in all those articles relating race. I follow stories and people's thoughts on the matter and the odd study here and there. So no, I haven't read those. You don't have to bother with them, although if you do, I will read them.
|
On May 28 2017 10:37 Aquanim wrote:
Trying to draw conclusions from a single case in which some white guy didn't get shot (apparently by a police department which doesn't do much shooting of people) and a single case in which a black guy did get shot is an argument without worth.
Redefining the meaning of the word "racism" to suit yourself while confusing everybody else in the discussion is also unproductive.
Arguing with somebody who is contributing in good faith and trying to tell them what they said, rather than trying to understand what they intended to say, is both very rude and unproductive.
I appreciate that you are angry and that you have a right to be GreenHorizons... but that does not give you a license to say whatever you want and not have it be challenged.
And before you say it... do not mistake my intolerance for unproductive and fallacious arguments for "white fragility".
No one is drawing conclusions from a single case, that you would suggest so indicates to me that you haven't at all followed the conversation before joining.
You know who didn't get any input when "racism" was first defined? Yeah, I think it needs to be given a definition that isn't exclusively determined by the people fearful of it's application. But for those sensitive to this, I use the term raycism to avoid the confusion.
That they think they are contributing in what they believe to be good faith isn't enough for them to be making a statement that isn't offensive or absent appropriate consideration. As such I'm not going to accept that this is the first time they have confronted the idea that suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't a good faith position, or that if it is, that can only be a result of what I described as white fragility.
I'm not angry and I expect to be challenged, but yes, your post does sound a lot like white fragility.
|
On May 28 2017 10:26 Falling wrote: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: What are the racist things that all people fall short on? Show nested quote + 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.
Jockmcplop had the useful reminder that this is best understood as a set of religious beliefs. Subliminal racism/unconscious racism/implicit biases is original sin that you're essentially born into with society. The path to redemption is changing, but generally involves confession of white privilege. GH has a focus on identifying and rectifying behavior that stems from white fragility. He also advocates disproportionate focus on unarmed black men beaten or killed by police. Others focus on awareness of intersectionality in hate speech because it perpetuates discriminatory power structures. At least in southern california college towns from personal experience. You can see how preaching the religious precepts turns people off in this very thread.
|
Others focus on awareness of intersectionality in hate speech because it perpetuates discriminatory power structures.
Let's be straight, white people refusing to act right perpetuates discriminatory power structures, your "intersectional hate speech" is just an excuse many use not to change.
But to not be dickish, the rest was reasonably accurate, though I would disagree with the word "disproportionate", and of course I disagree with your and Jock's conclusion.
|
On May 28 2017 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
No one is drawing conclusions from a single case, that you would suggest so indicates to me that you haven't at all followed the conversation before joining.
I probably worded this poorly.
You know who didn't get any input when "racism" was first defined? Yeah, I think it needs to be given a definition that isn't exclusively determined by the people fearful of it's application. But for those sensitive to this, I use the term raycism to avoid the confusion.
Making up your own words for an already existing concept while changing the existing word's definition to suit yourself doesn't avoid confusion at all. Using your own word for your own concept would be far less confusing.
That they think they are contributing in what they believe to be good faith isn't enough for them to be making a statement that isn't offensive or absent appropriate consideration. As such I'm not going to accept that this is the first time they have confronted the idea that suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't a good faith position, or that if it is, that can only be a result of what I described as white fragility.
"What they believe to be good faith" is a nonsensical statement. "Good faith" is entirely defined by their own intention. Being mistaken or offensive is completely irrelevant to acting in good faith.
I'm not angry and I expect to be challenged, but yes, your post does sound a lot like white fragility.
I have no interest in discussing ANYTHING, racism or otherwise, with somebody whose position is "Agree with me or get lost/I dismiss your viewpoint as 'white fragility' ". Just because this discussion happens to be about racism doesn't make it suddenly about my "white fragility" rather than my dislike for intolerance of others' views.
|
On May 28 2017 11:02 Aquanim wrote:
Making up your own words for an already existing concept while changing the existing word's definition to suit yourself doesn't avoid confusion at all. Using your own word for your own concept would be far less confusing.
You appear not to know that this isn't GH against the world, this is an ongoing debate. GH did not come up with the idea that racism and racism+power were different ideas (and to be honest I find it inconceivable that people disagree with the idea that racism and racism+power are two different ideas). This isn't GH trying to confuse you, this is you being ignorant of a situation, and yet feeling like you get to make sweeping statements about it.
|
On May 28 2017 11:02 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
No one is drawing conclusions from a single case, that you would suggest so indicates to me that you haven't at all followed the conversation before joining.
I probably worded this poorly. Show nested quote +You know who didn't get any input when "racism" was first defined? Yeah, I think it needs to be given a definition that isn't exclusively determined by the people fearful of it's application. But for those sensitive to this, I use the term raycism to avoid the confusion. Making up your own words for an already existing concept while changing the existing word's definition to suit yourself doesn't avoid confusion at all. Using your own word for your own concept would be far less confusing. Show nested quote +That they think they are contributing in what they believe to be good faith isn't enough for them to be making a statement that isn't offensive or absent appropriate consideration. As such I'm not going to accept that this is the first time they have confronted the idea that suggesting that there is "not much" racism isn't a good faith position, or that if it is, that can only be a result of what I described as white fragility. "What they believe to be good faith" is a nonsensical statement. "Good faith" is entirely defined by their own intention. Being mistaken or offensive is completely irrelevant to acting in good faith. Show nested quote +I'm not angry and I expect to be challenged, but yes, your post does sound a lot like white fragility. I have no interest in discussing ANYTHING, racism or otherwise, with somebody whose position is "Agree with me or get lost/I dismiss your viewpoint as 'white fragility' ". Just because this discussion happens to be about racism doesn't make it suddenly about my "white fragility" rather than my dislike for intolerance of others' views.
You did.
I didn't make up the definition of racism= Prejudice + Power, the scholars who study this stuff did so they could more clearly discuss among themselves the complexities of racism, prejudice, bias, etc... That most of white America prefers their archaic and often abused definition to the one used by the people who study the field is wholly unsurprising.
But like I said, when I use racism I'm meaning the same racism you all are thinking of as the "real racism" otherwise I use raycism to describe prejudice +power because it's abundantly clear people here can't accept the definition of racism being taken out of the exclusive hands of white people and given to the academics that study it.
As for your argument, I'm not dismissing it because it sounds fraught with white fragility, I'm disagreeing with it because I believe it is wrong or poorly formed, which isn't entirely unrelated to it's roots in white fragility.
|
United States43953 Posts
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.
I mean Alabama still limits the franchise using rules deliberately and explicitly designed to "achieve white supremacy" by denying the vote to African Americans. And that quote isn't my words, it's the words of the guy who wrote the law that stops African Americans in Alabama from voting. So yeah, kinda.
|
On May 28 2017 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
But like I said, when I use racism I'm meaning the same racism you all are thinking of as the "real racism" otherwise I use raycism to describe prejudice +power
If that's the case then I think I've misread. Apologies.
As for your argument, I'm not dismissing it because it sounds fraught with white fragility, I'm disagreeing with it because I believe it is wrong or poorly formed, which isn't entirely unrelated to it's roots in white fragility.
Then I suggest that in future when discussing this topic with people you either
(a) point out where it is wrong or poorly formed, and if you must classify it as "white fragility" then do it when you think there is no further benefit in continuing the discussion, because a discussion on any topic is unlikely to be worthwhile once one participant has dismissed the other's point of view in such a way
(b) if they're not worth talking to, dismiss them with whatever generalisation you like and disengage.
Anyway, I think this conversation has reached the end of its utility.
|
On May 28 2017 11:15 KwarK wrote:
I mean Alabama still limits the franchise using rules deliberately and explicitly designed to "achieve white supremacy" by denying the vote to African Americans. And that quote isn't my words, it's the words of the guy who wrote the law that stops African Americans in Alabama from voting. So yeah, kinda.
Of course I should've taken into account the overly racist states. How foolish of me to think that a black man could lead a quiet fulfilling life in Alabama. And the thing is that I've read that stuff months before now, on this very thread.
It's just sad that stuff like that just isn't dealt with. How can it be dealt with? Perhaps just let all the racists have their little state, while the rest build a wall around that?
|
On May 28 2017 11:27 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
But like I said, when I use racism I'm meaning the same racism you all are thinking of as the "real racism" otherwise I use raycism to describe prejudice +power If that's the case then I think I've misread. Apologies. Show nested quote +As for your argument, I'm not dismissing it because it sounds fraught with white fragility, I'm disagreeing with it because I believe it is wrong or poorly formed, which isn't entirely unrelated to it's roots in white fragility. Then I suggest that in future when discussing this topic with people you either (a) point out where it is wrong or poorly formed, and if you must classify it as "white fragility" then do it when you think there is no further benefit in continuing the discussion, because a discussion on any topic is unlikely to be worthwhile once one participant has dismissed the other's point of view in such a way (b) if they're not worth talking to, dismiss them with whatever generalisation you like and disengage. Anyway, I think this conversation has reached the end of its utility.
I appreciate the desire for civility but I already know that's how you feel, and addressed that very argument about 3 times now.
I'm not "dismissing it" I'm telling you it's both ill informed, and wrong. Due to white fragility, you are unaware of how unpopular your interpretation is outside of people who look and think like you. I'm sorry if that is too affronting to continue dialogue, but it's no more offensive (significantly less if you ask me) than the passively understood faux reality that is widely accepted here that there is "not much" racism or some variation.
EDIT: Like right now many people have watched these discussions and thought "wow GH has a radical POV that isn't really shared by anyone"
Except that's just here, in a forum dominated by white men, they think this is a board with diverse opinions and experiences running a wide gamut, to a large degree it is, except when it comes to the black experience in America, you all have 1 voice here for that, so you can't possibly gain any semblance of the diversity of opinion among POC by looking at the conversations here.
So fine if you're asking is it true that most white people think there is "not much" racism, than yes that's true here and elsewhere, but if one can't see how a bunch of white people assuring themselves of the conclusion that there is not much racism is problematic, than I'm going to call that the foolishness it is.
|
On May 28 2017 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 11:27 Aquanim wrote:On May 28 2017 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
But like I said, when I use racism I'm meaning the same racism you all are thinking of as the "real racism" otherwise I use raycism to describe prejudice +power If that's the case then I think I've misread. Apologies. As for your argument, I'm not dismissing it because it sounds fraught with white fragility, I'm disagreeing with it because I believe it is wrong or poorly formed, which isn't entirely unrelated to it's roots in white fragility. Then I suggest that in future when discussing this topic with people you either (a) point out where it is wrong or poorly formed, and if you must classify it as "white fragility" then do it when you think there is no further benefit in continuing the discussion, because a discussion on any topic is unlikely to be worthwhile once one participant has dismissed the other's point of view in such a way (b) if they're not worth talking to, dismiss them with whatever generalisation you like and disengage. Anyway, I think this conversation has reached the end of its utility. I appreciate the desire for civility but I already know that's how you feel, and addressed that very argument about 3 times now. I'm not "dismissing it" I'm telling you it's both ill informed, and wrong. Due to white fragility, you are unaware of how unpopular your interpretation is outside of people who look and think like you. I'm sorry if that is too affronting to continue dialogue, but it's no more offensive (significantly less if you ask me) than the passively understood faux reality that is widely accepted here that there is "not much" racism or some variation. EDIT: Like right now many people have watched these discussions and thought "wow GH has a radical POV that isn't really shared by anyone" Except that's just here, in a forum dominated by white men, they think this is a board with diverse opinions and experiences running a wide gamut, to a large degree it is, except when it comes to the black experience in America, you all have 1 voice here for that, so you can't possibly gain any semblance of the diversity of opinion among POC by looking at the conversations here. So fine if you're asking is it true that most white people think there is "not much" racism, than yes that's true here and elsewhere, but if one can't see how a bunch of white people assuring themselves of the conclusion that there is not much racism is problematic, than I'm going to call that the foolishness it is.
You'll do well to note that a good deal of the people trying to have discussions with you are not from the United States, and thus whose only notion of racism in the US is through 2nd hand accounts. In fact, in these last few pages, the large majority are not even from North America, and likely have no direct stake in the issue other than the discussion itself.
Dismissing opinions from across the world as "1 voice" is entirely on your shoulders, not anyone else's.
|
On May 28 2017 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:So fine if you're asking is it true that most white people think there is "not much" racism, than yes that's true here and elsewhere, but if one can't see how a bunch of white people assuring themselves of the conclusion that there is not much racism is problematic, than I'm going to call that the foolishness it is.
I never expressed any opinion on that topic. To be explicit about what my opinion is, I think that racism is a problem which at the current time greatly negatively impacts the lives of many people and that that is not an acceptable state of affairs.
I think that "not much racism" is an imprecise term and using it is likely to result in poor communication.
My end goal would be a world in which nobody is prejudiced against another because of race, not a world in which nobody is negatively impacted by power because of their race - because for the second to become a world with racism by anybody's definition again, all that is necessary is for the balance of power to shift. My preferred end goal informs what I would call "racism" or a lack thereof.
|
On May 28 2017 12:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2017 11:27 Aquanim wrote:On May 28 2017 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
But like I said, when I use racism I'm meaning the same racism you all are thinking of as the "real racism" otherwise I use raycism to describe prejudice +power If that's the case then I think I've misread. Apologies. As for your argument, I'm not dismissing it because it sounds fraught with white fragility, I'm disagreeing with it because I believe it is wrong or poorly formed, which isn't entirely unrelated to it's roots in white fragility. Then I suggest that in future when discussing this topic with people you either (a) point out where it is wrong or poorly formed, and if you must classify it as "white fragility" then do it when you think there is no further benefit in continuing the discussion, because a discussion on any topic is unlikely to be worthwhile once one participant has dismissed the other's point of view in such a way (b) if they're not worth talking to, dismiss them with whatever generalisation you like and disengage. Anyway, I think this conversation has reached the end of its utility. I appreciate the desire for civility but I already know that's how you feel, and addressed that very argument about 3 times now. I'm not "dismissing it" I'm telling you it's both ill informed, and wrong. Due to white fragility, you are unaware of how unpopular your interpretation is outside of people who look and think like you. I'm sorry if that is too affronting to continue dialogue, but it's no more offensive (significantly less if you ask me) than the passively understood faux reality that is widely accepted here that there is "not much" racism or some variation. EDIT: Like right now many people have watched these discussions and thought "wow GH has a radical POV that isn't really shared by anyone" Except that's just here, in a forum dominated by white men, they think this is a board with diverse opinions and experiences running a wide gamut, to a large degree it is, except when it comes to the black experience in America, you all have 1 voice here for that, so you can't possibly gain any semblance of the diversity of opinion among POC by looking at the conversations here. So fine if you're asking is it true that most white people think there is "not much" racism, than yes that's true here and elsewhere, but if one can't see how a bunch of white people assuring themselves of the conclusion that there is not much racism is problematic, than I'm going to call that the foolishness it is. You'll do well to note that a good deal of the people trying to have discussions with you are not from the United States, and thus whose only notion of racism in the US is through 2nd hand accounts. In fact, in these last few pages, the large majority are not even from North America, and likely have no direct stake in the issue other than the discussion itself. Dismissing opinions from across the world as "1 voice" is entirely on your shoulders, not anyone else's.
you have a point, I hope they take that into consideration as well when I posited that their opinions are ill informed (which is reasonable considering how little I know about race in their country/politics) and not be too offended by my noting their lack of understanding of both my argument and the reality of the situation in this country.
|
Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same)
Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors..  I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk.
Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil:
Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia
(and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
|
On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote:Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic)
Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated. Also I'm pretty sure our common ancestor goes a bit further than 10k years back. (though the odds change with two Americans)
|
On May 28 2017 14:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2017 14:07 thePunGun wrote:Being socially awkward, I've never understood the concept of racism and why different melanin levels are associated as a benchmark for race. (Because "race" or "ethnicity" are make believe, we all can be traced back to 1 ancestor 10K years ago so, we're on the larger scheme of things actually the same) Our skin colors are neither white nor black and both aren't even colors.. I'm probably one of the palest people out there, but my skin's not white it's right inbetween eggshell and chalk. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes and usually hate anything beyond their "personal hemisphere".. it's basically the golden formula for evil: Idiot + unknown = fear + anger <=> fear + anger = hate + ideology <=> hate + ideology = extremism/fundamentalism/xenophobia (and yes I like math, it breaks complicated topics beyond my reach into tiny bits of logic) Have you looked into the invention of "whiteness" or race? You find out it was a social construction basically designed to keep both white and black people (along with others) subjugated.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by designed to keep white people subjugated? Wasn't the concept nearly always used to favor and empower them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
