|
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 August 29 2017 08:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 08:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 06:07 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second. Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views. For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America. This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing for Nazi free speech when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. The news isn't an external agent, it's a reflection of the priorities of the consumers of the news. The reason the news doesn't just consist of nothing but "holy shit people in Africa are dying all the fucking time because the entire village lacks a well that would cost like $500 to drill, watch as we interview this guy shitting to death" is because we have collectively decided that we just don't really care that much. That we're basically fine with that happening. I'll willingly admit my own complicity in that. I could save a bunch of Africans. I choose not to. The logical conclusion is that I just don't like Africans very much. The news runs "white conservative guy fired from Google" and people are really worked up about it and want to know more. The news runs with "black people still can't fucking vote" and nobody gives a shit. Civil rights violations in America don't make the news daily because on the whole the country has accepted that they're not happening to people like them. Meanwhile if a white conservative could get fired from Google then that could happen to someone like you. It's shitty but it's the world we live in. That's why the shit happening in Ferguson got absolutely no notice by anyone until the riot. "Local police department targets African Americans" isn't a story that people want to hear, it's just not interesting. MLK said it best when he said "a riot is the language of the unheard". We're trapped in a loop where the racist status quo is left unchanged by a majority who basically don't give a shit because it's not happening to them but will then lose their shit if a football player takes a knee in protest. Universal rights are ignored as "identity politics" until the social contract has been completely destroyed by state violence against minorities, at which point it'll inevitably tip into a popular protest. Then the voices who ignored the status quo for so long will show up and happily condemn the protesters, insisting that no matter how much abuse they receive from society they are still obliged to uphold their end of a bankrupt social contract. And those same voices will cheer for an end of the "war on police" and attack "identity politics". What I'm describing isn't an intentional process by the average citizen, although the likes of Fox News are certainly complicit, but that doesn't make it excusable. Accidental racism stemming from ignorance doesn't have any less of a racist outcome. I don't think that you do have a priority list for civil rights that lists all the different violations on it and orders them by how much of a shit you give. But that list absolutely exists, and the people who select your news for you have a pretty good idea of where things rank on it. My issue with this is that I rarely come across clear cut issues of civil rights violations that aren't already in the legal system or already resolved. If they're so widespread, would you (or someone else) be able to point some out? My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. The problem is that it is never really clear what people like Kwark or GH are talking about when they decry "racism." Are we talking about good ol' fashioned intentional discrimination? Or are we talking about the facially neutral that happens to have a disparate impact? This is particularly true when we have to parse what statements like Kwark's "the status quo is racist" mean. Often times, I find that it isn't really worth the effort. Too often it all just comes back to the now-famous "definition of racism" discussion in this thread. Which, frankly, just isn't much fun to read though.
As I said earlier, talking about racism makes people uncomfortable. The debate about what is racism is the purest representation of that discomfort. The push back to having the definition of racism expanded beyond what they were comfortable with. Because a tightly defined version of racism is easy to avoid. There can be a prescribed path to avoid being racists and if someone does that, they are good. The very idea that being racist doesn't require intent to be racist makes people uncomfortable. People are very protective of intent, like a safety blanket against being accidentally racist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one.
|
The courts don't get to define what constitutes racism. Laws written by elected officials do that. There is no independent group of judges that is going to have these discussions for us. It is an important topic we avoid discussing because it is hard. The desire to avoid the topic is not racist. But don't expect anyone to pat you on the back for avoid it.
|
Well...Trump apparently pardoned Arpaio because ratings are important?
|
On August 29 2017 09:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one.
i mean yeah why try to understand the basis for one of the largest political movements in the country right now when we have more important things to think about like exactly how much of a hack elon musk is
|
On August 29 2017 09:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one. i mean yeah why try to understand the basis for one of the largest political movements in the country right now when we have more important things to think about like exactly how much of a hack elon musk is
You seriously think we'll move to understanding it here ... nay, even understanding what the hell you mean by 'one of the largest political movements in the country.' You got your Kwarks that say racists didn't vote Obama and it's half the Republican party, you got the trolls that think xDaunt's "vermin" is the useful definition, you got your ChristianS generalizers that will caterwaul about disparate impact and disparate time-spent-on-issue racism. IgnE, I seriously thought your comprehension of what debate looks like in this thread to put you above making such a ridiculous one-liner. A thousand monkeys hitting keys at random on a typewriter for a year might do a better job than this forum typing out the synopsis on race and political movements.
|
On August 29 2017 08:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:
My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. Then you come back in a year and it'll be "mozoku refuses to show the same amount of attention to the trampling of African American rights" when it's just GH on his usual half truths. I couldn't even pull him in talking about the problems with police brutality because he only wanted to separate out black victims//make it a race issue instead of a universal issue.
I just specifically asked you what components I am not seeing and your first reply was this, lol.
Kwark laid it out pretty plainly and be clear, with a patience and detail that is often requested, but seemingly the same effectiveness as my more succinct versions.
mozoku seems to be intentionally misconstruing my factual point that arrest and conviction rates aren't accurate measures of crime commission rates for a variety of reasons, but systemic racism would certainly be one.
I'm actually amused at this point the contortions people feel they need to go through to just say they'd prefer BLM get their way over Nazis.
As was said it's a softball (Unless you're like Danglars) and it's because I suspected it would be this (okay not this hard) for them to say they would prefer a world where BLM got their way more than those Nazis
I think my point was made more clear to some, but unsurprisingly it's completely bypassed the people for whom I was foolishly optimistic for a moment of realization.
Also, Kwark's personal position isn't that far from what you were saying legal, he just owns it instead of trying to make it about other people being irrationally sensitive about not having rights.
|
On August 29 2017 09:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one. i mean yeah why try to understand the basis for one of the largest political movements in the country right now when we have more important things to think about like exactly how much of a hack elon musk is
Then go ahead and have the discussion using facts instead of moral judgments. Most on the Left seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between the two at this point.
|
On August 29 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 08:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 29 2017 08:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 06:07 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second. Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views. For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America. This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing for Nazi free speech when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. The news isn't an external agent, it's a reflection of the priorities of the consumers of the news. The reason the news doesn't just consist of nothing but "holy shit people in Africa are dying all the fucking time because the entire village lacks a well that would cost like $500 to drill, watch as we interview this guy shitting to death" is because we have collectively decided that we just don't really care that much. That we're basically fine with that happening. I'll willingly admit my own complicity in that. I could save a bunch of Africans. I choose not to. The logical conclusion is that I just don't like Africans very much. The news runs "white conservative guy fired from Google" and people are really worked up about it and want to know more. The news runs with "black people still can't fucking vote" and nobody gives a shit. Civil rights violations in America don't make the news daily because on the whole the country has accepted that they're not happening to people like them. Meanwhile if a white conservative could get fired from Google then that could happen to someone like you. It's shitty but it's the world we live in. That's why the shit happening in Ferguson got absolutely no notice by anyone until the riot. "Local police department targets African Americans" isn't a story that people want to hear, it's just not interesting. MLK said it best when he said "a riot is the language of the unheard". We're trapped in a loop where the racist status quo is left unchanged by a majority who basically don't give a shit because it's not happening to them but will then lose their shit if a football player takes a knee in protest. Universal rights are ignored as "identity politics" until the social contract has been completely destroyed by state violence against minorities, at which point it'll inevitably tip into a popular protest. Then the voices who ignored the status quo for so long will show up and happily condemn the protesters, insisting that no matter how much abuse they receive from society they are still obliged to uphold their end of a bankrupt social contract. And those same voices will cheer for an end of the "war on police" and attack "identity politics". What I'm describing isn't an intentional process by the average citizen, although the likes of Fox News are certainly complicit, but that doesn't make it excusable. Accidental racism stemming from ignorance doesn't have any less of a racist outcome. I don't think that you do have a priority list for civil rights that lists all the different violations on it and orders them by how much of a shit you give. But that list absolutely exists, and the people who select your news for you have a pretty good idea of where things rank on it. My issue with this is that I rarely come across clear cut issues of civil rights violations that aren't already in the legal system or already resolved. If they're so widespread, would you (or someone else) be able to point some out? My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. The problem is that it is never really clear what people like Kwark or GH are talking about when they decry "racism." Are we talking about good ol' fashioned intentional discrimination? Or are we talking about the facially neutral that happens to have a disparate impact? This is particularly true when we have to parse what statements like Kwark's "the status quo is racist" mean. Often times, I find that it isn't really worth the effort. Too often it all just comes back to the now-famous "definition of racism" discussion in this thread. Which, frankly, just isn't much fun to read though. As I said earlier, talking about racism makes people uncomfortable. The debate about what is racism is the purest representation of that discomfort. The push back to having the definition of racism expanded beyond what they were comfortable with. Because a tightly defined version of racism is easy to avoid. There can be a prescribed path to avoid being racists and if someone does that, they are good. The very idea that being racist doesn't require intent to be racist makes people uncomfortable. People are very protective of intent, like a safety blanket against being accidentally racist.
I disagree here. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but are there laws against actual "racism"? The laws on the books that I'm aware of are generally about discrimination. That makes sense as discrimination is an action. Racism, on the other hand, as an idea. Laws wouldn't police racism because there's no thought police (though it can be immoral and is imo). Since racism is an idea that requires someone to believe in it, then it certainly does require "intent" (at least to accuse some one of it).
This also jibes with why "racism" such an effective political accusation (as its fundamentally a personal charge), while accusations of "discrimination" aren't nearly as effective.
|
On August 29 2017 10:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On August 29 2017 08:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 29 2017 08:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 06:07 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second. Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views. For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America. This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing for Nazi free speech when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. The news isn't an external agent, it's a reflection of the priorities of the consumers of the news. The reason the news doesn't just consist of nothing but "holy shit people in Africa are dying all the fucking time because the entire village lacks a well that would cost like $500 to drill, watch as we interview this guy shitting to death" is because we have collectively decided that we just don't really care that much. That we're basically fine with that happening. I'll willingly admit my own complicity in that. I could save a bunch of Africans. I choose not to. The logical conclusion is that I just don't like Africans very much. The news runs "white conservative guy fired from Google" and people are really worked up about it and want to know more. The news runs with "black people still can't fucking vote" and nobody gives a shit. Civil rights violations in America don't make the news daily because on the whole the country has accepted that they're not happening to people like them. Meanwhile if a white conservative could get fired from Google then that could happen to someone like you. It's shitty but it's the world we live in. That's why the shit happening in Ferguson got absolutely no notice by anyone until the riot. "Local police department targets African Americans" isn't a story that people want to hear, it's just not interesting. MLK said it best when he said "a riot is the language of the unheard". We're trapped in a loop where the racist status quo is left unchanged by a majority who basically don't give a shit because it's not happening to them but will then lose their shit if a football player takes a knee in protest. Universal rights are ignored as "identity politics" until the social contract has been completely destroyed by state violence against minorities, at which point it'll inevitably tip into a popular protest. Then the voices who ignored the status quo for so long will show up and happily condemn the protesters, insisting that no matter how much abuse they receive from society they are still obliged to uphold their end of a bankrupt social contract. And those same voices will cheer for an end of the "war on police" and attack "identity politics". What I'm describing isn't an intentional process by the average citizen, although the likes of Fox News are certainly complicit, but that doesn't make it excusable. Accidental racism stemming from ignorance doesn't have any less of a racist outcome. I don't think that you do have a priority list for civil rights that lists all the different violations on it and orders them by how much of a shit you give. But that list absolutely exists, and the people who select your news for you have a pretty good idea of where things rank on it. My issue with this is that I rarely come across clear cut issues of civil rights violations that aren't already in the legal system or already resolved. If they're so widespread, would you (or someone else) be able to point some out? My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. The problem is that it is never really clear what people like Kwark or GH are talking about when they decry "racism." Are we talking about good ol' fashioned intentional discrimination? Or are we talking about the facially neutral that happens to have a disparate impact? This is particularly true when we have to parse what statements like Kwark's "the status quo is racist" mean. Often times, I find that it isn't really worth the effort. Too often it all just comes back to the now-famous "definition of racism" discussion in this thread. Which, frankly, just isn't much fun to read though. As I said earlier, talking about racism makes people uncomfortable. The debate about what is racism is the purest representation of that discomfort. The push back to having the definition of racism expanded beyond what they were comfortable with. Because a tightly defined version of racism is easy to avoid. There can be a prescribed path to avoid being racists and if someone does that, they are good. The very idea that being racist doesn't require intent to be racist makes people uncomfortable. People are very protective of intent, like a safety blanket against being accidentally racist. I disagree here. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but are there laws against actual "racism"? The laws on the books that I'm aware of are generally about discrimination. That makes sense as discrimination is an action. Racism, on the other hand, as an idea. Laws wouldn't police racism because there's no thought police (though it can be immoral and is imo). Since racism is an idea that requires someone to believe in it, then it certainly does require "intent" (at least to accuse some one of it). This also jibes with why "racism" such an effective political accusation (as its fundamentally a moral charge), while accusations of "discrimination" aren't nearly as effective.
Racism isn't a legal concept, and never really was.
|
On August 29 2017 10:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On August 29 2017 08:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 29 2017 08:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 06:07 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second. Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views. For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America. This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing for Nazi free speech when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. The news isn't an external agent, it's a reflection of the priorities of the consumers of the news. The reason the news doesn't just consist of nothing but "holy shit people in Africa are dying all the fucking time because the entire village lacks a well that would cost like $500 to drill, watch as we interview this guy shitting to death" is because we have collectively decided that we just don't really care that much. That we're basically fine with that happening. I'll willingly admit my own complicity in that. I could save a bunch of Africans. I choose not to. The logical conclusion is that I just don't like Africans very much. The news runs "white conservative guy fired from Google" and people are really worked up about it and want to know more. The news runs with "black people still can't fucking vote" and nobody gives a shit. Civil rights violations in America don't make the news daily because on the whole the country has accepted that they're not happening to people like them. Meanwhile if a white conservative could get fired from Google then that could happen to someone like you. It's shitty but it's the world we live in. That's why the shit happening in Ferguson got absolutely no notice by anyone until the riot. "Local police department targets African Americans" isn't a story that people want to hear, it's just not interesting. MLK said it best when he said "a riot is the language of the unheard". We're trapped in a loop where the racist status quo is left unchanged by a majority who basically don't give a shit because it's not happening to them but will then lose their shit if a football player takes a knee in protest. Universal rights are ignored as "identity politics" until the social contract has been completely destroyed by state violence against minorities, at which point it'll inevitably tip into a popular protest. Then the voices who ignored the status quo for so long will show up and happily condemn the protesters, insisting that no matter how much abuse they receive from society they are still obliged to uphold their end of a bankrupt social contract. And those same voices will cheer for an end of the "war on police" and attack "identity politics". What I'm describing isn't an intentional process by the average citizen, although the likes of Fox News are certainly complicit, but that doesn't make it excusable. Accidental racism stemming from ignorance doesn't have any less of a racist outcome. I don't think that you do have a priority list for civil rights that lists all the different violations on it and orders them by how much of a shit you give. But that list absolutely exists, and the people who select your news for you have a pretty good idea of where things rank on it. My issue with this is that I rarely come across clear cut issues of civil rights violations that aren't already in the legal system or already resolved. If they're so widespread, would you (or someone else) be able to point some out? My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. The problem is that it is never really clear what people like Kwark or GH are talking about when they decry "racism." Are we talking about good ol' fashioned intentional discrimination? Or are we talking about the facially neutral that happens to have a disparate impact? This is particularly true when we have to parse what statements like Kwark's "the status quo is racist" mean. Often times, I find that it isn't really worth the effort. Too often it all just comes back to the now-famous "definition of racism" discussion in this thread. Which, frankly, just isn't much fun to read though. As I said earlier, talking about racism makes people uncomfortable. The debate about what is racism is the purest representation of that discomfort. The push back to having the definition of racism expanded beyond what they were comfortable with. Because a tightly defined version of racism is easy to avoid. There can be a prescribed path to avoid being racists and if someone does that, they are good. The very idea that being racist doesn't require intent to be racist makes people uncomfortable. People are very protective of intent, like a safety blanket against being accidentally racist. I disagree here. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but are there laws against actual "racism"? The laws on the books that I'm aware of are generally about discrimination. That makes sense as discrimination is an action. Racism, on the other hand, as an idea. Laws wouldn't police racism because there's no thought police (though it can be immoral and is imo). Since racism is an idea that requires someone to believe in it, then it certainly does require "intent" (at least to accuse some one of it).This also jibes with why "racism" such an effective political accusation (as its fundamentally a moral charge), while accusations of "discrimination" aren't nearly as effective.
Pardon the ignorance, but what does qualify as intent ?
|
A Colorado man who claimed that someone had stabbed him because he looked like a “neo-Nazi” fabricated the story after he accidentally cut his hand with a knife, according to police.
Joshua Witt, who has been arrested on false reporting charges, admitted to law enforcement in Sheridan, Colorado, that he lied to officers when he alleged that a black man had attacked him for having a haircut associated with white supremacists, police officials said Monday.
Witt’s original allegations went viral on social media this month, garnering press coverage across the globe, particularly from conservative newspapers that cited the stabbing as an example of violent leftwing activists attacking white people.
Witt – a 26-year-old originally from San Diego, California – told officers on 16 August that a suspect came up to him as he was getting out of his car in the parking lot of a burger restaurant. Witt, according to police, reported that the man said, “Are you [one] of them neo-Nazi?” and then tried to stab him with a small knife. Witt said that he was cut while trying to block the knife with his hand.
Witt described the attacker as a black man in his mid 20s, 5ft 10in, wearing a green shirt and blue pants, and claimed that the suspect ran off toward a bike path along a nearby river.
Sheridan police chief Mark Campbell said in an interview Monday that officers were immediately suspicious of Witt’s story, since the attack allegedly happened in a very busy parking lot and police received no other reports of an assault.
“No one else called this in,” he said. “No one heard him scream. No one saw any type of altercation. That was the first red flag.”
Although Witt posted photos on Facebook showing a lot of blood, the actual wound was very minor, Campbell said. Witt has since taken down his Facebook post, which was shared tens of thousands of times over several days.
Campbell said surveillance footage of the lot did not show any evidence of a suspect running from the scene. Police did, however, question someone who fit Witt’s description – a man who appeared to be homeless and possibly lived nearby, Campbell said. But Witt could not identify the man in a line-up and police cleared him, according to the chief.
Campbell also noted that, as Witt’s mugshot reveals, at the time of the alleged attack, he did not have a haircut resembling the side fade that has recently become associated with neo-Nazis. In his Facebook profile photo, however, his hair was styled that way.
Police also found footage of Witt buying a small knife at a nearby sports store.
When officers brought Witt in for another interview last week, he admitted that he had lied, police said.
“He was opening up the knife package in the car and he cut himself,” Campbell said, adding, “I don’t believe he showed any remorse. Our take is he kind of made this up and it kind of got out of control when it went on Facebook.”
Witt was arrested last week and could face a fine of $2,650 and up to a year in jail if convicted of false reporting.
Campbell said there was no evidence that Witt had any ties to white supremacist or neo-Nazi groups and that he works as a heating and air conditioning technician.
Witt could not be immediately reached for comment.
Source
|
On August 29 2017 10:11 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 10:06 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On August 29 2017 08:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 29 2017 08:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2017 08:18 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 06:23 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 06:07 mozoku wrote:On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second. Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views. For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America. This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing for Nazi free speech when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. The news isn't an external agent, it's a reflection of the priorities of the consumers of the news. The reason the news doesn't just consist of nothing but "holy shit people in Africa are dying all the fucking time because the entire village lacks a well that would cost like $500 to drill, watch as we interview this guy shitting to death" is because we have collectively decided that we just don't really care that much. That we're basically fine with that happening. I'll willingly admit my own complicity in that. I could save a bunch of Africans. I choose not to. The logical conclusion is that I just don't like Africans very much. The news runs "white conservative guy fired from Google" and people are really worked up about it and want to know more. The news runs with "black people still can't fucking vote" and nobody gives a shit. Civil rights violations in America don't make the news daily because on the whole the country has accepted that they're not happening to people like them. Meanwhile if a white conservative could get fired from Google then that could happen to someone like you. It's shitty but it's the world we live in. That's why the shit happening in Ferguson got absolutely no notice by anyone until the riot. "Local police department targets African Americans" isn't a story that people want to hear, it's just not interesting. MLK said it best when he said "a riot is the language of the unheard". We're trapped in a loop where the racist status quo is left unchanged by a majority who basically don't give a shit because it's not happening to them but will then lose their shit if a football player takes a knee in protest. Universal rights are ignored as "identity politics" until the social contract has been completely destroyed by state violence against minorities, at which point it'll inevitably tip into a popular protest. Then the voices who ignored the status quo for so long will show up and happily condemn the protesters, insisting that no matter how much abuse they receive from society they are still obliged to uphold their end of a bankrupt social contract. And those same voices will cheer for an end of the "war on police" and attack "identity politics". What I'm describing isn't an intentional process by the average citizen, although the likes of Fox News are certainly complicit, but that doesn't make it excusable. Accidental racism stemming from ignorance doesn't have any less of a racist outcome. I don't think that you do have a priority list for civil rights that lists all the different violations on it and orders them by how much of a shit you give. But that list absolutely exists, and the people who select your news for you have a pretty good idea of where things rank on it. My issue with this is that I rarely come across clear cut issues of civil rights violations that aren't already in the legal system or already resolved. If they're so widespread, would you (or someone else) be able to point some out? My expectation is that it'll be the stuff that GH constantly talks about, and last time I was in discussion with him involving with race he tried to tell me that the actual homicide rate for blacks is lower than whites, but the racist police force was miscounting or something. Something unbelievable to the point where I wasn't interested in continuing the conversation,. The problem is that it is never really clear what people like Kwark or GH are talking about when they decry "racism." Are we talking about good ol' fashioned intentional discrimination? Or are we talking about the facially neutral that happens to have a disparate impact? This is particularly true when we have to parse what statements like Kwark's "the status quo is racist" mean. Often times, I find that it isn't really worth the effort. Too often it all just comes back to the now-famous "definition of racism" discussion in this thread. Which, frankly, just isn't much fun to read though. As I said earlier, talking about racism makes people uncomfortable. The debate about what is racism is the purest representation of that discomfort. The push back to having the definition of racism expanded beyond what they were comfortable with. Because a tightly defined version of racism is easy to avoid. There can be a prescribed path to avoid being racists and if someone does that, they are good. The very idea that being racist doesn't require intent to be racist makes people uncomfortable. People are very protective of intent, like a safety blanket against being accidentally racist. I disagree here. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but are there laws against actual "racism"? The laws on the books that I'm aware of are generally about discrimination. That makes sense as discrimination is an action. Racism, on the other hand, as an idea. Laws wouldn't police racism because there's no thought police (though it can be immoral and is imo). Since racism is an idea that requires someone to believe in it, then it certainly does require "intent" (at least to accuse some one of it).This also jibes with why "racism" such an effective political accusation (as its fundamentally a moral charge), while accusations of "discrimination" aren't nearly as effective. Pardon the ignorance, but what does qualify as intent ?
Absolute certainty of intent can only come from the actor himself. Otherwise, like a criminal trial, the judgment comes down to meeting some burden of certainty. How strong that burden should be is personal to the person judging.
As I consider racism to be a strong moral charge, I prefer a high burden of certainty when I'm judging. Of course, my (and everyone else's) judgments are irrelevant for society as society is correctly instead concerned with discrimination.
|
Intent doesn't matter when discussing racism. I have said racist things without intending to be racist. Laws can disproportionately impact a minority group in a negative fashion without the author intending it to be racist.
Intent doesn't matter when it comes to racism. We can be racist without meaning to do so, and we can correct that mistake without being a Racist.
|
Okay not to get off topic too much, but place your bets his church gets the personal info for each person seeking shelter to lobby for donations and so forth.
|
Can't you thaw that cold heart of yours enough to bring in notions of Christian charity? I've seen reams and reams of personal testimony of community and individual sacrifice for their neighbors throughout this event.
|
On August 29 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:Can't you thaw that cold heart of yours enough to bring in notions of Christian charity? I've seen reams and reams of personal testimony of community and individual sacrifice for their neighbors throughout this event.
He was basically shitcanned on social media for refusing to opening his megachurch. This isn't anything other than a PR stunt to save face.
|
I have to agree with Blue on this one. You open up the mega church on day one of the crisis, not day three after massive blow back.
|
Yup, have to go with that too. This is not "sacrifice" or christian charity.
Sidenote, that guy has a 10.5m mansion. How the fuck is that even possible. Is he a televangelist or something?
|
He is the alpha and the omega of modern day televangelist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen
It is sort of mind boggling how huge he is. But in the world of christian huge people, he is mostly harmless and just wants money. Not really my brand of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
