|
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 September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media.
Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency.
It doens't seem like they are; but not interested in getting into them.
Mostly I'm here to note that part of the problem is that some people insist on a binary racist/not-racist classification, without considering the more complex reality of hte situation. It's more of a gradation really.
|
On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental.
Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless.
|
Canada11328 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental.
Because if they aren't racist we are being untruthful and obscuring the issue? I don't understand the question. I think precision actually matters rather than hitting it with scattershot. Also, can racism be accidental? Because if it can, I think we need more words with better precision in gradation to describe what we are talking about.
|
On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder?
Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings.
[quote]
Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing.
[quote]
So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless.
So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism?
On September 26 2017 08:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder?
Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings.
[quote]
Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing.
[quote]
So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if they aren't racist we are being untruthful and obscuring the issue? I don't understand the question. I think precision actually matters rather than hitting it with scattershot. Also, can racism be accidental? Because if it can, I think we need more words with better precision in gradation to describe what we are talking about.
I am not a Racist. I have said, believed and done racist things in error and through ignorance. That does not make me a member of the KKK, but it does mean I fucked up.
|
On September 26 2017 08:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder?
Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings.
[quote]
Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing.
[quote]
So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:
[quote]
My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if they aren't racist we are being untruthful and obscuring the issue? I don't understand the question. I think precision actually matters rather than hitting it with scattershot. Also, can racism be accidental? Because if it can, I think we need more words with better precision in gradation to describe what we are talking about.
This is my point exactly.
I don't see what's so hard about saying systemic racism, unconscious racism etc.
The only sensible justification I've heard for calling people racist is that it makes them uncomfortable, which they should be because they're racist (spot the circular logic there). Fine, if that's the only reason go ahead, but don't complain when they get uncomfortable if that's the only reason you were calling them racist in the first place.
|
On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation.
Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism?
Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism?
|
Canada11328 Posts
without considering the more complex reality of hte situation. It's more of a gradation really.
Well, I think that's part of the problem. Some of the words we use are pretty binary. X is a racist. That's pretty binary category of racist/ not-racist. But it's weird because you'll have people talking about how bad racism is (and agreed, it is bad), but they'll simultaneously argue that you should just admit to being a racist because it's not that bad and basically every white person is a little. ....well, unless you are certain lecturers and then white people are 'devils and not really human.' But ignoring those anomalies it doesn't seem very consistent to see racism argued as one of the worst things ever, but don't worry about falling under racist category, everyone is and any resistance to the label... that's just you being fragile. Maybe it's resistance due to fragility. But how do you discern the difference between resistance due to fragility versus resistance to an untruthful statement. The outworkings could look pretty similar. But we can go nuevo-Freud on your unconscious biases now and counter your resistance to the accusation.
|
On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs.
Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example.
So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism?
It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread.
Also, "not being racist" isn't that impressive. That is the base line for not being terrible.
|
On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread.
There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well).
There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive.
On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:
Also, "not being racist" isn't that impressive. That is the base line for not being terrible.
Perfect. You have completely proven the point that both falling and I have been making.
Onthe one hand, we all do racist things, and we are all racists.
On the other hand, not being racist is the base line for not being terrible.
Ergo, we are all terrible. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this.
Here, it isn't the language that is the problem, its the failure to grasp the basic meanings of the way you are using the words. Simple logical connections have gone out of the window.
This is pretty exasperating to be honest.
Despite all this, I am fully with you on America's need to get a grip on its rampant institutional and systemic racism. It'll be a long process. I would suggest starting by avoiding the logical assumption that everyone is terrible.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe, just maybe, crying racist at everything that moves, accuracy be damned, makes the claim "he's a racist" that much more meaningless.
|
We need a process to identify racist and non-racists. That way we can maintain the cordiality. Because you see, while they (you) agree with the goal we seek, they (you) disagree with our methods of direct action.
Is that about right Falling?
|
Canada11328 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread.
Likely because it's intrinsically linked. If you want to effectively hunt down the Nazis, better figure out who and who are not the Nazis. If you want to hunt down the bourgesoisie, better figure out who are and who are not the bourgesoisie. So on and so forth. If you want to solve the problem, better actually identify the problem rather than pulling in not-problems into the problem and making more problems.
On September 26 2017 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
See, we need a process to identify racist and non-racists. That way we can maintain the cordiality. Because you see, while they agree with the goal we seek, they disagree with our methods of direct action.
Is that about right Falling?
Maintenance of cordiality is pretty irrelevant. I mean it's preferable, but we can let it go to figure out some really tough things and shake things up. Like some ideas really require battles of words- to really wrestle through ideas and that'll generate tenseness for a time- that's okay.
But I think methods matter, yes. I do not believe the ends justify the means; I never have, and I don't think I ever will change that belief. But it's not a matter of comfortability, but truth. Are you actually identifying and fixing the problem? Is it possible for well meaning people to get lost in the weeds? I think so. Just because you intend to enact good change, doesn't mean you've dug down and found the right source of the problem, nevermind come up with the right solution. That doesn't mean inaction- we'll never get it totally right- but it does mean listening when people say, 'hey, what about this. This seems to be getting off track." Targets need adjusting- you don't always get them right the first time, so course correction is good. Action, reflection, and adjustment. We need it, so we can actually advance a just society for all ethnic groups.
|
On September 26 2017 09:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump.
I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months.
[quote]
Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers.
You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive.
I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism.
|
On September 26 2017 09:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 09:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country.
Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one.
[quote]
You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive. I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism.
Driving your car into a wall is uncomfortable too, but it doesn't get you where you want to go either.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
|
On September 26 2017 09:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 09:06 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 09:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:
[quote]
I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive. I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism. Driving your car into a wall is uncomfortable too, but it doesn't get you where you want to go either.
I don't see how that analogy holds up at all.
Meanwhile, former presidents are banding together to do more than our current, actual president:
(Not sure why the link does that, but it seems legit)
|
On September 26 2017 09:03 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump.
I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months.
[quote]
Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers.
You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. Likely because it's intrinsically linked. If you want to effectively hunt down the Nazis, better figure out who and who are not the Nazis. If you want to hunt down the bourgesoisie, better figure out who are and who are not the bourgesoisie. So on and so forth. If you want to solve the problem, better actually identify the problem rather than pulling in not-problems into the problem and making more problems.
DId you know that Boston is still segregated. Heavily. If we correctly identify all the racists in the city of Boston, do you think that problem will go away? Is the person who pushes to stop low income housing in their neighborhood is a racist? Low income housing is primarily used by blacks in Boston. If they rally the community behind it and stop the low income housing from being built, is that racist? Can we call their plan racist?
|
On September 26 2017 09:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 09:06 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 09:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:
[quote]
I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive. I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism. Driving your car into a wall is uncomfortable too, but it doesn't get you where you want to go either.
Allow MLK Jr., the guy we're to emulate, explain it.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the [country] is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which [Black people] passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
|
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either.
So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is:
1: Inaccurate (ie untrue)
2: unproductive - I would say counter productive
3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable.
I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
|
On September 26 2017 09:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 09:06 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 09:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:56 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:49 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2017 08:38 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:
[quote]
I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency. Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental. Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless. So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism? Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism? It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread. There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive. I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism. Driving your car into a wall is uncomfortable too, but it doesn't get you where you want to go either.
Being critical of our world views is not driving into a wall. But some people like to act like its the worst thing that could ever happen to them.
Edit: As GH points out, its really not a big ask. Just read MLK's writings in their non-sanitized format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
