Why I Disagree With The Racial Divide

[LockeeDeck]

This is part of the problem with the definition. I've heard it most often preceded by the phrase "black people cannot be racist".

Now, you're telling me it has nothing to do with race....power, that is.

I imagine they meant that black people in general do not hold positions of power and therefore under that definition cannot be racist. You would be right to point out the fallacy in this argument by them implying that no black person holds any position of power anywhere.

Power doesn't have anything to with race and everything to do with the amount of control one person has over another. It must be pointed out though that most of the positions of power are held by white people and that is a part of the discussion regarding race and racism.

If that's a real problem then yes....we would have to do something about it. Obviously we would all like it if the police were perfect, but since they're human, that's not possible...especially in a police force so large.

We cannot also expect them to not have to ever use deadly force. They get shot at hundreds of times a year. It would be irresponsible to not prepare them for that type of danger.

So given these points (and you can disagree if you want)....what exactly is the "problem" how do you identify it....and what is the threshold for which it should be a primary focus for our attention and efforts to fix it?

For example, if I were to say that there's a problem with the Baltimore police being corrupt, I'd offer you evidence of corruption (planting evidence, false testimonies, taking bribes etc) I'd try to figure out what percentage of the police are doing this (anything over say 5% is something in dire need of fixing)....and then I'd tell you how to fix it.

That's generally what a problem solving process looks like to me. I don't see anything remotely similar happening now.

Indeed looking at data and analyzing it is a good way to solve problems including problems like corruption and racism. However, a lot of the data is being purposely hidden so that should be the first point of focus.

Police do not release body cam footage when it paints them in a bad light and there is no national tracking of fatal incidents. Given the amount of times police have been caught planting evidence and lying on their police reports it would be prudent to setup a better oversight system in general. There also the issue of police not having whistleblower protection so anyone on the force who does step forward to expose corruption is immediately fired without repercussion, in the best case scenario. These are topics probably best suited for a different thread though.

As for myself, it would almost entirely depend upon the reaction of the tennis player, if she can get those hecklers rejected by halting the game....she's clearly in a position of power and, I guess it wasn't racist?

It's not harmful racism if the crowd indeed has no power.

Honestly, the word power seems deliberately vague and completely subjective. One could argue that men are more "powerful" than women so women can't be racist. I'm pretty sure we all know that isn't true.

If you listened to a recorded conversation between two people you knew nothing about, I'm certain you would still be able to discern racist statements and beliefs.

It seems like the definition does not add anything to the discussion.

You are correct in saying that power can be vague and subjective. You give an example of a woman and man with the man being stronger and in isolation with no else around then yes the man would be in a position of power over the woman.

You are saying that in this scenario that the woman cannot be racist with this definition even if she is saying racist things and that this invalidates the definition. I would submit that this is more a definition of harmful racism and also that power dynamics can quickly shift. A black man and a white woman is a common scenario that led to many lynchings when the woman claimed that man did something untoward to her. Even today we have cases of white woman calling the police on black men with the expectation that they would be believed over the man because of the virtue of their sex and skin color.

Is it? Most white people I know have at least a couple of times they faced racial discrimination or hatred. I can certainly understand that some don't.

I think it feels like a small thing to many white people to complain about words spoken to them or about them by a racist when there's an unending discussion of slavery and Jim Crow in this nation....but I don't think it's a small issue. Left unchecked it just grows and normalizes.

Perhaps they have had minor racist experiences and that can be unpleasant but I'm not sure what you would have us do about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I imagine they meant that black people in general do not hold positions of power and therefore under that definition cannot be racist.

Yeah it's a generalization of multiple points.

1. Who is sitting in power and their race. There's no real data on how many judges, lawyers, cops, legislators, regulators, politicians, military leaders, etc are of non-white races and there's really no explanation why they would not be able to exercise power.

2. It appears to consider no other power dynamics. A black man in his 20s assaulting a little old asian woman isn't lacking power in some way and therefore not racist.

I tried looking for the synthesis of this definition and can't find it. It definitely gained traction amongst black academics at least in the 80s but I don't know where it started.

You would be right to point out the fallacy in this argument by them implying that no black person holds any position of power anywhere.

Power doesn't have anything to with race and everything to do with the amount of control one person has over another. It must be pointed out though that most of the positions of power are held by white people and that is a part of the discussion regarding race and racism.

Ok. I don't disagree if we're describing power as "political power".

Indeed looking at data and analyzing it is a good way to solve problems including problems like corruption and racism. However, a lot of the data is being purposely hidden so that should be the first point of focus.

I think there's a problem in academia....but go on...

Police do not release body cam footage when it paints them in a bad light and there is no national tracking of fatal incidents. Given the amount of times police have been caught planting evidence and lying on their police reports it would be prudent to setup a better oversight system in general. There also the issue of police not having whistleblower protection so anyone on the force who does step forward to expose corruption is immediately fired without repercussion, in the best case scenario. These are topics probably best suited for a different thread though.

Whistleblower protection is one thing.

The bigger problem is the media. Any cop willing to expose bad practices to the media might imagine the headlines will say "Hero Cop Exposes Bad Apples"...

But if he actually does it, he learns that the headlines will say "X Police Department is Corrupt and Criminal".

Which makes his job immediately harder.

It's not harmful racism if the crowd indeed has no power.

Well that's just the thing I started off with....

When we declare types of racism aren't harmful or dangerous we risk normalizing them.

You are correct in saying that power can be vague and subjective. You give an example of a woman and man with the man being stronger and in isolation with no else around then yes the man would be in a position of power over the woman.

You are saying that in this scenario that the woman cannot be racist with this definition even if she is saying racist things and that this invalidates the definition. I would submit that this is more a definition of harmful racism and also that power dynamics can quickly shift. A black man and a white woman is a common scenario that led to many lynchings when the woman claimed that man did something untoward to her. Even today we have cases of white woman calling the police on black men with the expectation that they would be believed over the man because of the virtue of their sex and skin color.



Perhaps they have had minor racist experiences and that can be unpleasant but I'm not sure what you would have us do about it.

Well let's be honest, if you're white, been alive for the past 10 years, you've seen a lot of racial hate towards you if you read a variety of new sources.

Here's a transcript of one from the telegraph in case you are locked out of the Telegraph's paywall.

Oxfam training guide blames ‘privileged white women’ over root causes of sexual violence Plus: Feminist writer Julie Bindel ponders 'if a war is being declared against feminism'

In short, Oxfam which is some sort of charity that has been in trouble for raping Haitian children, has put on a 4 week seminar to teach white feminists about how they're to blame for getting raped and if they report it, they're perpetuating a culture of prison legitimacy that supports....you guessed it...white supremacy and the patriarchy (which is the worst dog whistle for white men).

Do you think this is harmless? I don't know the race of the Gender Studies professor who wrote this stuff or how much she's being paid to shame white women...

But I do know she's racist.

If the article is to be believed (to be fair I haven't read the book nor do I intend to) she's literally advocating white women should accept brutal victimization as some sort of racial atonement.

When I see things like that, it's concerning how little response it gets from people who claim to want equality, or to fight racism.

 

[Bradskii]

If racism is an innate function of our biology, none can ever be guilty of it. Multiculturalism would inevitably fail because of it. It would justify the emphatic advocacy for one's own race alone.

You can't be guilty of something innate. But knowledge and experience will show you that, even though it's an evolved fail-safe mechanism, it's not necessarily reliable. It might well be if you're in a small hunter gatherer group and you are approached by strangers. But you can override that feeling. It's why there is probably less racism in a multicultural society than there is in one comprising one 'race'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can't be guilty of something innate. But knowledge and experience will show you that, even though it's an evolved fail-safe mechanism, it's not necessarily reliable. It might well be if you're in a small hunter gatherer group and you are approached by strangers. But you can override that feeling. It's why there is probably less racism in a multicultural society than there is in one comprising one 'race'.

Perhaps...

But the result of this view would have to be the repeal of "hate crimes" amongst a vast number of other reforms.

We are capable of reason, and though we cannot access it perfectly or even perhaps more often than base emotional responses....I don't see any reason to not strive to be better to each other.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Yeah it's a generalization of multiple points.

1. Who is sitting in power and their race. There's no real data on how many judges, lawyers, cops, legislators, regulators, politicians, military leaders, etc are of non-white races and there's really no explanation why they would not be able to exercise power.

2. It appears to consider no other power dynamics. A black man in his 20s assaulting a little old asian woman isn't lacking power in some way and therefore not racist.

I tried looking for the synthesis of this definition and can't find it. It definitely gained traction amongst black academics at least in the 80s but I don't know where it started.

Ok. I don't disagree if we're describing power as "political power".

You seem to think that the definition precludes non-white people being racist and I don't know why.
A black judge or cop could be racist against a white person and that would fit the definition.

You also seem to think that no other power dynamics could be considered and I don't know why.
Your example of a black man and a little old asian lady the man does have power in that moment.

I think there's a problem in academia....but go on...

Whistleblower protection is one thing.

The bigger problem is the media. Any cop willing to expose bad practices to the media might imagine the headlines will say "Hero Cop Exposes Bad Apples"...

But if he actually does it, he learns that the headlines will say "X Police Department is Corrupt and Criminal".

Which makes his job immediately harder.

There is a lot to unpack there but this is probably left for another thread.

Well that's just the thing I started off with....

When we declare types of racism aren't harmful or dangerous we risk normalizing them.

You are right we shouldn't normalize degrading behavior but it's not like that scenario it wouldn't be called out.

Well let's be honest, if you're white, been alive for the past 10 years, you've seen a lot of racial hate towards you if you read a variety of new sources.

I suppose if you scour far and wide like it appears you have you might find some bad takes. Do any of those people with these bad takes and supposed racist views have any power over you?

If the article is to be believed (to be fair I haven't read the book nor do I intend to) she's literally advocating white women should accept brutal victimization as some sort of racial atonement.

When I see things like that, it's concerning how little response it gets from people who claim to want equality, or to fight racism.

It's hard to parse the situation based on one article but I'm not sure what type of response you want.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You seem to think that the definition precludes non-white people being racist and I don't know why.

That's how the definition is typically presented. I'm not trying to say it can't possibly be applied to other races. The fact that it increasingly can is why I suspect it's disappearing from usage.

A black judge or cop could be racist against a white person and that would fit the definition.

Right.

You also seem to think that no other power dynamics could be considered and I don't know why.
Your example of a black man and a little old asian lady the man does have power in that moment.

My original point is that when we, as members of society, call out racism....

That's not the definition we use. It demands an examination of power dynamics that never occurs. It's a false definition created for spurious reasons. Perhaps it had some academic purpose, but it doesn't now.

There is a lot to unpack there but this is probably left for another thread.

Well ask yourself....have you ever seen a whistleblower rewarded?

You are right we shouldn't normalize degrading behavior but it's not like that scenario it wouldn't be called out.

One would hope.

I suppose if you scour far and wide like it appears you have you might find some bad takes. Do any of those people with these bad takes and supposed racist views have any power over you?



It's hard to parse the situation based on one article but I'm not sure what type of response you want.

Well let's consider the example you gave....

Racist lady in the park threatens to call the police falsely on a black man. Dangerous? A lot of people certainly think so. I think if we had to imagine a worst case scenario, he could be killed by the cop for some mistaken reason. Awful.

Now let's imagine the dangers of a racist professor justifying and spreading racial hatred against an entire community one class at a time, getting paid to impart her racist beliefs for money, and on her views are legitimated by any number of students and racists who also hate the same group.

Which of those two things is the larger concern? Obviously we should tackle them both....but is one a greater danger than the other?

 

[LockeeDeck]

My original point is that when we, as members of society, call out racism....

That's not the definition we use. It demands an examination of power dynamics that never occurs. It's a false definition created for spurious reasons. Perhaps it had some academic purpose, but it doesn't now.

In online interactions it probably is a fair assessment to say that is not the definition being used.

Does that mean we shouldn't call out bad takes by people with dubious motives?
Should we use a different word to do so?

Well ask yourself....have you ever seen a whistleblower rewarded?

Police whistleblowers get harassed by fellow police and run out their jobs and in any case people don't blow the whistle for rewards.

Well let's consider the example you gave....

Racist lady in the park threatens to call the police falsely on a black man. Dangerous? A lot of people certainly think so. I think if we had to imagine a worst case scenario, he could be killed by the cop for some mistaken reason. Awful.

Now let's imagine the dangers of a racist professor justifying and spreading racial hatred against an entire community one class at a time, getting paid to impart her racist beliefs for money, and on her views are legitimated by any number of students and racists who also hate the same group.

Which of those two things is the larger concern? Obviously we should tackle them both....but is one a greater danger than the other?

The first is a larger more immediate concern as it's a clear and present threat.
The second is more vague in your description, it could be a threat eventually but it's more likely such a professor would be called out. You can't openly spread racist ideas without eventually being called out on it.

 

[stevil]

No worries.

I appreciate that you have taken this on the chin and not gotten angry, or defensive.
That takes personal strength, well done.

You would only need to go as far back as 2016

Only need to go back 5 years to find a thread or post by you that is not about racial issues.
I hope you see the humour in this? Maybe you meant to be funny, if so, well done.

I try not to generalize and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.


Could you possibly provide an example?

From the opening post of yours in this thread

The cause of this seems directly related to the left's embracing identity politics as demographics shift....and unfortunately, many of their most vocal and politically motivated are racist

For my part, the people who begin those discussions don't seem to actually want to engage in discussion. They want to preach, or lay blame, or otherwise demonize a segment of the population.

My perception of you to date has been exactly this.

They appear to be unwilling to consider any other possibilities...other than the one that happens to align directly with the narrative put forth by the political left.

I don't know what the narrative of the political left would be.
Are you talking about the USA political left?
Any person in particular in the Democratic party or are all of them putting forward this narrative? Is it the official party line?
Is it a narrative that is being put forth by supposed left biased media?

They appear so unwilling to engage in serious dialogue that any attempts to do so simply result in them calling someone racist.

Each person is an individual. If someone calls you a racist, rather than just grouping this person into what you have just stated above, perhaps ask them to explain why they are labelling you as such, and then take the time to clarify your position, not re-iterate it, but instead clarify.

Which, ironically, is a word they continually redefine.

Again, lumping people together. You would need to ask the individual person, whey they are accusing you and perhaps that entails getting them to give you their own definition of the word?

I was hoping that by making this thread I could gain some insight into something I might be missing....and I'm still hoping it will.

You would need to be genuinely interested, you also asking them to clarify if you are not clear on what they are saying.

Well again, for my part, I'm willing to consider any explanations, definitions, or narratives that are coherent.

Perhaps if you are not finding their response coherent, then perhaps you are not fully understanding their response. Maybe some followup questions, or asking for more clarification. It can be difficult to get a crystal clear message as each person has baggage and often human communications are imprecise.

If it's any consolation for you, I can promise you that because of the way I see racism...the only way I think it's correct to interact with someone is the same way I would interact with anyone of any race. It truly doesn't matter to me. So when I chastise or criticize or lay into anyany of a minority race, I would do the same to someone white.

I understand this concept of treating everyone equally and if the world were a place where everyone started off equal then that would be great. I also understand your reservations or dislike of things that seem to be targeted at certain races and gives them an advantage e.g. affirmative action.
I'm not exactly excited about affirmative action either.

The rise in anti-white racism and it's normalization means there's usually a dozen posters doing it already. I try to point out the racists they ignore or overlook.

Would you consider the phrase "Black Lives Matter" to be anti-white racism?

Would you think the same if I were black and there was a daily stream of blatantly racist writers and content producers saying racist things about black people?

I have no idea what your ethnical background is, no idea what your skin colour is.

Ok. I would guess that you think it's got something to do with Trump?

I do think Trump has added fuel to the fire, yes.

If he died tomorrow....would the rise in white supremacists slow or reverse?

I don't know, but my perception is that white supremacists have become emboldened during Trump's term as the president. And I gather that many things he has said and done has been exciting to them.
Build a wall to keep out Mexicans
Promising and trying to implement a Muslim ban
No tolerance policy at the southern border
Kicking sick immigrants out of hospitals
Saying there are fine people on both sides
Tear gassing BLM protesters so he could cross the street for a random photo

Asking Proud Boys to stand back and stand by

A seperate thread could be made on this alone.

I'm actually strongly in favor of improving social safety nets...but I don't see the left talk about that anymore.

Again a generalisation. Who in particular do you think isn't interested in social safety nets anymore?

Now it seems to propose ideas like political indoctrination of children (which I argued against when the right wanted to teach creationism) and racial discrimination, which the left used to see as monstrously unjust.

I don't understand what you are saying here or why you have come to these conclusions or why you are blaming the "left".

Let's say that I am in favour of some social safety nets, how does that make me in support of political indoctrination of children?

It's been a disappointment for a former liberal. I don't even label myself anymore because so rarely does anyone say anything I think.

It almost seems to me that your thinking is entirely consumed by racial issues, in particular issues against whites or those supporting non whites.

I naively thought we all shared values....but it appears I was wrong. It's hard to understand why, but it seems like it's related to the demographic shift the Democratic party

The USA two party system is quite something.
The Republican party have some real extreme right leaning folk and some pretty centrist folk too.
Similar to the Democratic party.
In my country we have a far right party, a centre right party, a centre party, a centre left party etc.
I don't think it makes much sense to generalise the Republican party or the Democratic party. They are BIG parties and have lots of diversity of ideals and beliefs inside them.

Since the embracing of identity politics, the intellectual diversity of the left is disappearing in my view and there's no room for the likes of me.

I'd be interested to understand better your political views on things.
I myself don't fit entirely within any party.

Every sincere discussion of my beliefs has involved confrontation and it doesn't bother me at all anymore.

Perhaps its in the delivery of your ideas, perhaps its the way you respond to others ideas, perhaps it is the pattern of all your posts being about propping up whites and putting down blacks? IDK
Maybe you are just mis-understood.

I'd rather you hate me for who I am than pretend to be a person you like.

I don't hate you. I just find it difficult to talk to you most times. Certainly your post about gloating about the BLM leader wasn't very endearing.

Such a thing feels like its disrespectful to you...and it cheapens my image of myself. Without any worldview, philosophy, religion, or political agenda that describes me well...I have realized my thoughts are uncomfortable for many people.

I'm open to hearing your thoughts, I think you go astray when you construe to know the other side, generalise about them, put them down, gloat etc.

This is an attempt to consider wherein my faults in thinking lie...at least in regards to one set of beliefs.

Props to you for that, but you need to remain respectful and listen to people. You don't need to win an argument, you don't need to come to believe what they say and change to accept their opinion for yourself, you don't need to get them to accept your opinion for themselves, Just listen with the intent to understand them better to be better informed to attempt to understand their side even if you still disagree with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In online interactions it probably is a fair assessment to say that is not the definition being used.

No...the new term is systemic racism and it's far more dubious. I think it's deliberately vague.

I appreciate your attempt at explaining it and if you like, I can challenge your explanation, but out of politeness... only if you're interested.

Does that mean we shouldn't call out bad takes by people with dubious motives?
Should we use a different word to do so?

I'm not sure what you mean by "dubious motives"?

Could you explain?

Police whistleblowers get harassed by fellow police and run out their jobs and in any case people don't blow the whistle for rewards.

Right...and perhaps that's the real problem. Without any upside and the certainty of a downside...why do it?

The first is a larger more immediate concern as it's a clear and present threat.

Since I framed it as a worst case scenario...sure...but that scenario is extremely rare. What actually happened in the case you were referring to is the woman got charged with filing a false report and shamed publicly. Perhaps it's not the ideal outcome but I think it's close.

The second is more vague in your description, it could be a threat eventually but it's more likely such a professor would be called out. You can't openly spread racist ideas without eventually being called out on it.

I really wish I could agree. This is happening all over the country in the name of "racial equity" or "inclusion" though it doesn't say who was excluded.

I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone put forth an explanation of "racial equity". It's baffling to me to see so many people agree that they all want something none of them could possibly explain.

I can't even imagine what it is they believe they're striving for.

The president himself said he has an agenda for pursuing racial equity. The people who support him clapped. I don't know why....I think they find comfort in agreement and don't want to seem like they're against it.

I don't think I could start a thread about racial equity and get a single response. It's bizarre to me to see such broad terms adopted with no real consideration of what they mean. It's become a long list at this point.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps...

But the result of this view would have to be the repeal of "hate crimes" amongst a vast number of other reforms.

We are capable of reason, and though we cannot access it perfectly or even perhaps more often than base emotional responses....I don't see any reason to not strive to be better to each other.

Me neither.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I appreciate that you have taken this on the chin and not gotten angry, or defensive.
That takes personal strength, well done.

Hey thanks.

Only need to go back 5 years to find a thread or post by you that is not about racial issues.
I hope you see the humour in this? Maybe you meant to be funny, if so, well done.

I used to post on the philosophy section that is now gone. I used to debate in the formal debate section with anyone willing. I still occasionally check apologetics and ethics and morality but I rarely find an interesting topic anymore.

Politics and current events are the norm now and frankly, since the political left has pushed racial issues more often than anything else (though occasionally gender issues) that's the topic.

I appreciate that you have taken this on the chin and not gotten angry, or defensive.
That takes personal strength, well done.

Well thanks. I promise I'm sincerely trying to consider other viewpoints...and only challenge the parts I don't understand as politely and gently as possible.

The lack of people offering their viewpoints is disappointing but perhaps I'm to blame as much as them.

Only need to go back 5 years to find a thread or post by you that is not about racial issues.
I hope you see the humour in this? Maybe you meant to be funny, if so, well done.

They shut down the philosophy section and the morality and apologetics sections lack much of the diverse viewpoints they used to have. Since the left adopted identity politics, they have primarily driven a racial narrative and spent the last 4 years preaching it.

From the opening post of yours in this thread



My perception of you to date has been exactly this.

I can understand that. Consider that when I said that I don't see my ideas shared....you probably don't see other posters defending my posts. I have no "team". No group to support me. If I seem to vigorously defend my ideas...try to remember how rarely anyone else does.

I don't know what the narrative of the political left would be.
Are you talking about the USA political left?
Any person in particular in the Democratic party or are all of them putting forward this narrative? Is it the official party line?
Is it a narrative that is being put forth by supposed left biased media?

It's media driven to be sure. It caters to the young progressive far left. It's Marxist in method and authoritarian in practice. I don't know what it values....but it's arguments are almost all moral arguments. As such it's rife with contradictions.

As near as I can tell....it equates victimhood with righteousness and the moral high ground. Victims are claimed and not to be questioned. They have to, unequivocally, not be white straight men. Indeed this has created a litany of grievances from many groups that are rarely real, often imagined, and sometimes deliberately fabricated. Intellectualism has been abandoned and freethinkers have no political space. Their claim is primarily one of moral righteousness.

I remember reading once a study said that both sides of the political spectrum were influenced not by principles or values...but just the perception of what their side believed. I remember thinking....not me...not my side...I disagree with my side frequently and they allow it.

I feel naive now. Lesson learned.

Each person is an individual. If someone calls you a racist, rather than just grouping this person into what you have just stated above, perhaps ask them to explain why they are labelling you as such, and then take the time to clarify your position, not re-iterate it, but instead clarify.

If someone is labeling me racist...they're doing it in spite of any evidence. I've watched 4 years of people I thought smart bullied into conformity with little more than a threat of being called racist.

I think I understand why they do it to me. It was done to them. I've never said anything racist on here.

Again, lumping people together. You would need to ask the individual person, whey they are accusing you and perhaps that entails getting them to give you their own definition of the word?

I've tried more times than I can count. I once made a thread of a list of words asking any liberals to explain them. The responses were either contradictory, vague, and upon challenging...they immediately resorted to personal attacks.

You would need to be genuinely interested, you also asking them to clarify if you are not clear on what they are saying.

On this I can sincerely say I've tried.

Do you think you can explain systemic racism? How about social justice? Maybe racial equity?

Perhaps if you are not finding their response coherent, then perhaps you are not fully understanding their response. Maybe some followup questions, or asking for more clarification. It can be difficult to get a crystal clear message as each person has baggage and often human communications are imprecise.

You aren't wrong there.

I understand this concept of treating everyone equally and if the world were a place where everyone started off equal then that would be great.

I don't know what you mean by "started off equal". I understand that from context, it's associated with a term called "a level playing field". If I were to describe it...it sounds like an ideal that is impossible with the possible exception of eliminating all freedom and liberty and controlling everyone's lives from cradle to grave.

Easily a monstrous injustice.

I also understand your reservations or dislike of things that seem to be targeted at certain races and gives them an advantage e.g. affirmative action.
I'm not exactly excited about affirmative action either.

I think there's a fair difference between outright racial discrimination and a mild relaxing of standards for those disadvantaged. I don't think race is a big disadvantage in the absence of a system of laws or behavior discriminating by it. There's racism to be sure....but all kinds of superficial biases exist that rob people of opportunities. We don't care about most of them.

Would you consider the phrase "Black Lives Matter" to be anti-white racism?

No...just disingenuous. I don't recall anyone ever disagreeing outside of perhaps a tiny group of genuine white supremacists. As the movement continued, it seemed more apparent they didn't care about black lives...it looked like performance.

I have no idea what your ethnical background is, no idea what your skin colour is.

Does it matter? I've been told I'm part Irish Scottish and Polish. I don't care about it though, it means nothing to me. I looked up the etymology of my last name, which means "son of the wolf" or "son of the greatest" lol....so I know that I had an ancestor with a very high opinion of himself.

I do think Trump has added fuel to the fire, yes.

Funny how I predicted that without asking isn't it?

I don't know, but my perception is that white supremacists have become emboldened during Trump's term as the president. And I gather that many things he has said and done has been exciting to them.

Perhaps.

Build a wall to keep out Mexicans
Promising and trying to implement a Muslim ban
No tolerance policy at the southern border
Kicking sick immigrants out of hospitals
Saying there are fine people on both sides
Tear gassing BLM protesters so he could cross the street for a random photo
His a-hole statement
Asking Proud Boys to stand back and stand by

Sadly, there's so many legitimate political criticisms that could have been made....instead the majority of attacks were racialized. Some were legitimate. Some weren't.

Consider that simply stating the fact of covids origin....the same as we do for Ebola and Zika....was considered a racial attack on both the Chinese and asians in general.

This was the from a group stance that was, at the same time, proposing all social ills result from white European colonization.

If laying such blame based upon fact is racist towards one group....why not the other?

The victimhood = righteousness explanation above is the only explanation I can think of.

Again a generalisation. Who in particular do you think isn't interested in social safety nets anymore?

Are we talking social safety nets for some or all?

I don't understand what you are saying here or why you have come to these conclusions or why you are blaming the "left".

Let's say that I am in favour of some social safety nets, how does that make me in support of political indoctrination of children?

This is what is being implemented by the left, in various ways, in schools across the nation.

Buffalo students told 'all white people play a part' in systemic racism

If that seems exaggerated....I would normally agree. The sheer number of reports like this combined with leaked school meetings makes it hard to imagine that it isn't happening...

To be sure, the moderate left has been pushing back at the local level....largely by supporting Republicans. I can't think of anything as monstrous or unjust happening in my life. It appears ethics have been abandoned in teaching entirely. This is political indoctrination, forced conformity, and the death of freedom of belief.

It almost seems to me that your thinking is entirely consumed by racial issues, in particular issues against whites or those supporting non whites.

Should I not be concerned about the above?

The USA two party system is quite something.
The Republican party have some real extreme right leaning folk and some pretty centrist folk too.
Similar to the Democratic party.
In my country we have a far right party, a centre right party, a centre party, a centre left party etc.
I don't think it makes much sense to generalise the Republican party or the Democratic party. They are BIG parties and have lots of diversity of ideals and beliefs inside them.

I know what to expect from the right...and though the bigotry that can be found there is ugly, it's generally avoidable because in principle, they mainly wish to be left alone. They don't demand conformity of me.

The left now does or I can expect condemnation. Indeed, the attempt to indoctrinate is an attempt to create conformity. I feel it's extremely immoral beyond any wrong they hope to address.

I'd be interested to understand better your political views on things.
I myself don't fit entirely within any party.

Ask away. I'll answer any questions honestly though. Fair warning.

Perhaps its in the delivery of your ideas, perhaps its the way you respond to others ideas, perhaps it is the pattern of all your posts being about propping up whites and putting down blacks? IDK
Maybe you are just mis-understood.

I'm sure I've put down black people....I don't think you can find of any examples of the reason being because they are black. Black people are people, flawed like all of us, so I think they deserve the honest criticism or condemnation I would give anyone else.

How else can we hope to really understand each other and see ourselves as equals. They deserve more than empty platitudes or politeness for the sake of protecting the way they or others see me.

I don't hate you. I just find it difficult to talk to you most times. Certainly your post about gloating about the BLM leader wasn't very endearing.

The bare mention of the events surrounding her resignation in the media signals her corruption to me. I thought it did to everyone else as well. I was surprised that even after a few days....no one mentioned it.

I'm open to hearing your thoughts, I think you go astray when you construe to know the other side, generalise about them, put them down, gloat etc.

I try to think hard about my positions....and since they don't align with others, I often feel vindicated by evidence I am correct.

Putting my bare opinion out for scrutiny isn't something I would have done had I not spent so much time considering it (I think I think too much) but I'm aware I'm not as smart as I'd like, and prone to the same mistakes as anyone, and certainly unable to see the future.

Hence the thread.

Props to you for that, but you need to remain respectful and listen to people. You don't need to win an argument, you don't need to come to believe what they say and change to accept their opinion for yourself, you don't need to get them to accept your opinion for themselves, Just listen with the intent to understand them better to be better informed to attempt to understand their side even if you still disagree with it.

I came to a Christian forum as an atheist and blatantly challenged beliefs deeply held. I did so after long having scrutinized my own beliefs and subjected them to scrutiny. I was really hard on people. I caught a lot of backlash, I was spoken about as if I were without any morals or values. At times it seemed that I was held to a different standard. If I had said things said of me....I'd be banned.

I didn't resent it. I expected it. One shouldn't challenge people's beliefs without expecting a harsh reply...

Yet in all the time, not a single Christian dared suggest I was wrong to voice my opinion. Freedom to speak my mind wasn't taken from me....just pleas for politeness and respect.

Not a week ago....a liberal on here told me I had no right to speak my mind because I'm white. No other reason. A trait I have no control over.

I can try to speak with more respect....people should try to deserve it though.

 

[stevil]

If someone is labeling me racist...they're doing it in spite of any evidence.

Yeah, but, why do so many people here label you or consider you to be a racist?
I've called you a racist, probably multiple times.
I don't generally call people racist. But you give off that impression. At least that is my perception of your posts and threads and position.

I've tried more times than I can count. I once made a thread of a list of words asking any liberals to explain them. The responses were either contradictory, vague, and upon challenging...they immediately resorted to personal attacks.

I remember that thread. I tried hard to participate in it, but it was tough going. I find it difficult to have such conversations with you. Obviously my impression of you and your impression of yourself are different.

Do you think you can explain systemic racism? How about social justice? Maybe racial equity?

I've been down this rabbit hole with you before. I spent significant effort trying to explain to you my views on what "systemic racism" is and I ended by suggesting you also talk to others to get their views on what it is.

I don't know what you mean by "started off equal". I understand that from context, it's associated with a term called "a level playing field". If I were to describe it...it sounds like an ideal that is impossible with the possible exception of eliminating all freedom and liberty and controlling everyone's lives from cradle to grave.

I think perhaps the whole thing needs to be stripped right back.
The thing is, there are problems in society. Not just USA but other countries around the world. NZ too.

If you look at statistics, you often find a race of people (typically a minority) do very poorly on certain stats. Like poor grades in school, poor health stats, poor employment stats, poor criminal rates.

As a society, I think we should be looking to demographics and finding where society is letting down groups of people, I think as a society we should put effort in towards trying to fix these issues.
I don't think certain people "races" or cultures are necessarily dumber, or more criminal. But then why do certain groups come up poorly in the stats? And what can we as a society do about it? Should we be doing something, or should we ignore the problems?

I think the root causes are many and are entertwined so it is a complex thing to try and solve.
I think any solution or attempts at a solution need to be multifaceted and some "solutions" can cause other problems too.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know, but my perception is that white supremacists have become emboldened during Trump's term as the president. And I gather that many things he has said and done has been exciting to them.
Build a wall to keep out Mexicans

Since when did enforcing our immigration policies become racist?

Promising and trying to implement a Muslim ban

If it was a muslim ban, it would have banned all muslim countries and not just those deemed terrorist states

No tolerance policy at the southern border
Kicking sick immigrants out of hospitals

Again; immigration laws are not racist

Saying there are fine people on both sides

That was the truth! There were good and bad people on both sides.

Tear gassing BLM protesters so he could cross the street for a random photo

Did those protesters go through the legal means and fill out the application to protest? Or did they just show up.

His a-hole statement

Calling 3rd world countries s-hole isn't racist

Asking Proud Boys to stand back and stand by

The proud boys had a black immigrant as their leader; hardly a white supremist organization

 

[FireDragon76]

The privilege thing really gets me. Especially when it comes to the positive affects of something like being raised in a stable two parent home. That has a racial equity divide, but if you go back a few decades you can find that a of that disparity came from the social engineering of the Great Society.

That has little to do with welfare and everything to do with liberalizing divorce laws and women's rights. It's not like there aren't alot of white people from single-parent homes, and white women have out-of-wedlock births as well.

 

[Whyayeman]

The proud boys had a black immigrant as their leader; hardly a white supremist organization

But a terrorist organisation with a neo-fascist ideology. But not racist - oh no!

I have grown weary of this ever finer distinction made between far right groups and racists. America is evidently the only country in the world with ultra-right nationalist groups operating outside the law who are not racists. As we used to say - pull the other one!

 

[LockeeDeck]

No...the new term is systemic racism and it's far more dubious. I think it's deliberately vague.

I appreciate your attempt at explaining it and if you like, I can challenge your explanation, but out of politeness... only if you're interested.

Systemic racism is a build up of norms that disenfranchises minorities.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dubious motives"?

Could you explain?

People who hold racist views know that their views are not popular and would be called out and as such hide their more extreme views and present made up facts and distorted realities to try to guide people to those views. Very much like an ISIS recruiter but more insidious because at least the ISIS recruiters were direct in what they wanted.

Right...and perhaps that's the real problem. Without any upside and the certainty of a downside...why do it?

Because it's the right thing to do.

Since I framed it as a worst case scenario...sure...but that scenario is extremely rare. What actually happened in the case you were referring to is the woman got charged with filing a false report and shamed publicly. Perhaps it's not the ideal outcome but I think it's close.

In an different time and place the outcome would have been very different and much more violent.

I really wish I could agree. This is happening all over the country in the name of "racial equity" or "inclusion" though it doesn't say who was excluded.

I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone put forth an explanation of "racial equity". It's baffling to me to see so many people agree that they all want something none of them could possibly explain.

I can't even imagine what it is they believe they're striving for.

The president himself said he has an agenda for pursuing racial equity. The people who support him clapped. I don't know why....I think they find comfort in agreement and don't want to seem like they're against it.

I don't think I could start a thread about racial equity and get a single response. It's bizarre to me to see such broad terms adopted with no real consideration of what they mean. It's become a long list at this point.

Equity is synonymous with fairness and justice so it would break down to fairness and justice regardless of race.

 

[Whyayeman]

Do you think that every time a minority race calls a grown man "whiteboy" it's derogatory?

Yes.

How do you recognise [racism].

The test is always to look at the intention.

(Sorry to be late with this. I meant to make this response some time ago.)

 

[Whyayeman]

A black man in his 20s assaulting a little old Asian woman isn't lacking power in some way and therefore not racist.

If the young black man's intention is merely to steal her purse and her race is irrelevant then it would not make much sense to describe the attack as racist. If his intention was to attack an Asian it must be a racist attack whether or not he stole her purse.

 

[stevil]

Since when did enforcing our immigration policies become racist?

When he generalised and promoted Mexicans coming over the border as rapists and drug dealers.

If it was a muslim ban, it would have banned all muslim countries and not just those deemed terrorist states

He campaigned on the promise of a Muslim ban. His initial attempt at the ban only included Muslim countries and was struck down by the courts.

That was the truth! There were good and bad people on both sides.

Birds of a feather

Did those protesters go through the legal means and fill out the application to protest? Or did they just show up.

Gas them I say, do it! Why not?

Calling 3rd world countries s-hole isn't racist

Right on Brother. Must not dilute the population.

The proud boys had a black immigrant as their leader; hardly a white supremist organization

Proud Boys - Wikipedia
The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States—and in Canada until May 2021, when it folded after being designated a terrorist organization
According to the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, the group believes men and Western culture are under siege, their views having elements of the white genocide conspiracy theory.According to The Daily Beast, though the group officially rejects white supremacy, "members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events."Members have also engaged in multiple racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence; expelled member Jason Kessler organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.The Proud Boys glorifies violence, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has called the group an "alt-right fight club" that uses rhetorical devices to obscure its actual motives.The organization has been described as a hate group by NPR's The Takeaway and the SPLC. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has described the Proud Boys as "extremist conservative" and "alt lite", "overtly Islamophobic and misogynistic", "transphobic and anti-immigration", "all too willing to embrace racists, antisemites and bigots of all kinds"

Are these the FINE people that Trump was referring to?

 

[stevil]

But a terrorist organisation with a neo-fascist ideology. But not racist - oh no!

I have grown weary of this ever finer distinction made between far right groups and racists. America is evidently the only country in the world with ultra-right nationalist groups operating outside the law who are not racists. As we used to say - pull the other one!

And who are called out by the president/leader of the country as having some fine people and are also called upon by the President to "stand by"
Stand by for what? The insurrection, maybe????