Do progressives/liberals really want issues to be resolved?

[ebia]

Race is something that people have to be taught for over a decade to not believe in. You spend a night in prison and you'll learn otherwise real fast.

What?

 

[Lost Angel]

What?

Gang activity I imagine.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Just because race is socially constructed doesn't mean it isn't a powerful reality that must be delt with.

There is a difference between dealing with a myth and perpetuating a myth.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It's our differences that divide us; physically, culturally, emotionally, educationally, politically, economically. Of course the most striking difference is appearance (is this racial, ethnic? I don't know the terms anymore).

We divide ourselves.

The "differences" that we choose to divide ourselves over are arbitrary.

Right now we do not pay attention to any "difference" between people with free-hanging and attached earlobes, but if some kind of political or economic gain could be made using that difference to divide us somebody will probably try and people will probably go along with it. "The problem is those darn free-hangers! Attacheds, unite and vote for me and together we will make this country great again!".

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

As much as Republicans complain about abortion and the IRS, they have done nothing about them when they had control of all three branches of power (House, Senate, White House). Nothing.

What happened when Democrats had control of all three? They pushed through the Affordable Care Act. That's the difference.

Apples and oranges.

Healthcare reform has not been a wedge issue like abortion.

Almost everybody wanted healthcare reform. The disagreement has been over what kind of reforms to enact.

Now that we actually have reform in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the Republicans have tried to make that specific legislation a wedge issue, but that is not the same thing as what you imply: that the Democrats sacrificed their own interests politically by resolving an issue that they could have kept alive to divide us.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Pretending that something does not still exist, when it does, solves nothing.

Giving credence to a myth, the existence of human biological "races", solves nothing.

 

[Hetta]

blah

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

What?

Like someone else said, gang activity. It's more of an issue in the United States than elsewhere, I would imagine. Prison gangs tend to divide up along racial lines in the United States, into groups like the Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, and Black Guerrilla Family.

Still, I don't see how that proves that race is real in the objective sense. Social constructs are a sort of hive-mind subjective reality. Enough people create the same subjective mental category to give it force in the real world. People die because of ideas that lack objective reality all the time, unfortunately. It's a tragic aspect of the human condition.

There is a difference between dealing with a myth and perpetuating a myth.

The problem is that, at some point, a subjective perception ceases to be entirely mythical. If I were to walk into a room full of people, some of them with attached and some of them with unattached earlobes, and were to divide them up into categories based off of that, then my perception would be rightly derided as irrational and confusing. However, if I were to do that and the perception became accepted, the result could be very different. If, four hundred years down the line, individuals with unattached earlobes had faced generations of enslavement, distrust, and poverty because of that perception, then very real differences in lived experience and outcome would exist for members of the two different categories. Religious, economic, and social factors would impact members of each differently, and so solutions to problems caused by the original categorization would have to take that categorization into consideration because of changes in the real-world status of individuals resulting from it.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The problem is that, at some point, a subjective perception ceases to be entirely mythical. If I were to walk into a room full of people, some of them with attached and some of them with unattached earlobes, and were to divide them up into categories based off of that, then my perception would be rightly derided as irrational and confusing. However, if I were to do that and the perception became accepted, the result could be very different. If, four hundred years down the line, individuals with unattached earlobes had faced generations of enslavement, distrust, and poverty because of that perception, then very real differences in lived experience and outcome would exist for members of the two different categories. Religious, economic, and social factors would impact members of each differently, and so solutions to problems caused by the original categorization would have to take that categorization into consideration because of changes in the real-world status of individuals resulting from it.

Basically you are saying that various groups of people have different social experiences and are treated differently according to certain characteristics/traits and not only does denying this not solve anything it makes one an enabler.

I have never said that we should deny such things.

I have observed that the root of the problem is obvious but the people who claim the problem as one of their most paramount concerns/causes either help nourish and water that root or are oblivious to it.

If people are spending decade after decade nourishing and watering the root of a problem or are oblivious to that root then is it not reasonable to wonder if they really want the problem to be resolved?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do I have to post the studies again? Seriously, look them up yourself. When they put together CVs of people with very similar levels of experience and education, but give some an African American "sounding" name or a white "sounding" name, they found that prospective employers were more likely to call the candidates with the "white" names. That would prevent a minority applicant from even getting to the interview stage. Also, huge amounts of research showing school teachers discriminating against minority kids, which puts them at a disadvantage from pre-school. I'm so tired of posting this stuff - but I'll make the effort, just to address this point.

What thoughts are triggered by an obviously African American name? Is it just skin color or is there more to it? When I hear a Japanese name I sometimes think of Pearl Harbor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just because race is socially constructed doesn't mean it isn't a powerful reality that must be delt with.

 

[Hetta]

What thoughts are triggered by an obviously African American name? Is it just skin color or is there more to it? When I hear a Japanese name I sometimes think of Pearl Harbor.

You would have to ask the people who are doing the hiring. I am not on one of the subjects of these studies. But there is no comparable event to Pearl Harbor for African Americans. In fact, the boot would be on the other front and they would be the ones looking at YOU with mistrust.

And also the majority of Japanese are not responsible for Pearl Harbor.

Maybe they should be looking at you suspiciously for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You would have to ask the people who are doing the hiring. I am not on one of the subjects of these studies.

You used the example to make a point. I'm just probing deeper into it.

But there is no comparable event to Pearl Harbor for African Americans. In fact, the boot would be on the other front and they would be the ones looking at YOU with mistrust.

I accept mistrust by both.

And also the majority of Japanese are not responsible for Pearl Harbor.

True, and the majority of Americans aren't responsible for slavery.

Maybe they should be looking at you suspiciously for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, right?

Understandably there is still anger by some Japanese toward us.

 

[Strathos]

And also the majority of Japanese are not responsible for Pearl Harbor.

Are there actually any people still alive who could be called directly "responsible" for Pearl Harbor?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are there actually any people still alive who could be called directly "responsible" for Pearl Harbor?

Some have assigned the blame to succeeding generations, just as they have for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Great Fiction]

Do progressives/liberals really want issues to be resolved?

Liberals will solve issues because "Liberalism" is premised on "ethics" for individual liberty.

Progressives use an arbitrary "consequentialist" ethic which uses evil to remove evil, which is faithful to manifest more evil.

Thus there is a contradiction in your title - There is no such thing as a progressive/liberal, except in the a media-driven terminological perversion that we suffer in the last few decades. Shall liberalism be five hundred years old shunning progressivism and authoritarianism.