Racism is being taught in schools.I'm incline to agree with him about the anti-white sentiment in the US now. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.
Regardless whether Trump said it or anyone else it is very true. There is this prevailing atmosphere today in America where being racist against White people are accepted or at least tolerated. I have seen my fair share of it coming from places like academia, the administration and even businesses. Places where you would think wouldn't promote such racist stance. Yet CRT is widespread and condoned.
Worst part is most of the cases the racists justify themselves with historical grievances. Sins of the father argument. Makes me actually admire honest racists. People who would just tell you to your face they don't like you for you and not some long line of historical narrative. Oddly "honourable" in a twisted sense.
I have said this before in another thread but I guess it is bares saying it again - I hate racism in all its forms, expressions, permutations and variations. It doesn't mean minority can't be racist against a majority. It just mean a racist is a racist.
I suppose it's too much to expect you to recognize the irony of you trying to demonstrate that your views have not been skewed by media representations...by suggesting that I go read media representations.
What I can tell you is that the reality of my experience as a white man in America does not line up with the picture you're painting.
Racism is racism, black, white, red, yellow, pin, orange. Sometimes the people who are the quickest to accuse others are the most guilty. Modern scientific research challenges the idea that there are distinct biological races among humans.white racism poses a greater problem in America than black racism
I've talked before about the Marxist and neo-Marxist movements of the hard left in the U.S. CRT is a spinoff of Marxism, replacing hatred of class (Critical Theory) with hatred of race(Critical Race Theory). There is an oppressed and an oppressor, and the white "colonials" are portrayed as the oppressors. You can see the "oppressed" victimhood with the student protesters--they seize a building and complain the university is not giving them "humanitarian" aid, after all, said one, they purchased a meal plan, why should the university starve them to death?Are you suggesting that those who might accuse some white people of being racist are therefore, simply by doing that, exhibiting racism to white people?
You can't be because that makes no sense. So can you explain what you do mean? An example would help.
Are you suggesting that those who might accuse some white people of being racist are therefore, simply by doing that, exhibiting racism to white people?
You can't be because that makes no sense. So can you explain what you do mean? An example would help.
Reporting on individual events is generally accurate as it relates to those events (source dependent, of course), but an aggregate of news stories cannot be relied upon to present an accurate overall picture of society. News companies are businesses - they report on things that will make them money, whether that's from people buying print media, paying for subscriptions, or clicking on links and being fed ads. And it's very well-known that controversy and outrage drive engagement. No one's interested in "Dog doesn't bite man" or "People of different cultural backgrounds live together with no conflict", so those types of stories rarely get any coverage.If it is not news worthy. Why is it news? So how do you learn about what's happening in other places? Go there and talk with everyone?
How can I trust you? You can be just an anecdotal or ideologically driven to downplay it. So you're saying that proven news are not correct? That the actual statements on video and the large crowds cheering them are fake? Their number are insignificant?
Between you and the media I find no difference. I just have to trust. But I would rather trust verified reports.
Racism is being taught in schools.
Reporting on individual events is generally accurate as it relates to those events (source dependent, of course), but an aggregate of news stories cannot be relied upon to present an accurate overall picture of society. News companies are businesses - they report on things that will make them money, whether that's from people buying print media, paying for subscriptions, or clicking on links and being fed ads. And it's very well-known that controversy and outrage drive engagement. No one's interested in "Dog doesn't bite man" or "People of different cultural backgrounds live together with no conflict", so those types of stories rarely get any coverage.
Furthermore (and I believe we've discussed this before), if you search out specific stories, you're going to find them. And if you read them, the search engines and social media algorithms remember what you read and feed you more similar stories. You can watch this happen in real time on Facebook. If you so much as pause over an ad or sponsored post for a second, within minutes you'll start seeing more sponsored posts or ads from that same account/advertiser. This can give you an even more distorted picture of the world - you're not reading the daily edition of the New York Times cover-to-cover; rather, you're reading/watching a selection of stories that Bing and Google and Facebook and TikTok and YouTube think that you will want to watch based on your viewing history.
You don't have to believe my account of my experiences (though, seriously, what incentive do I have to lie to you?), but you should recognize and take into account the fact that news stories and other media only represent a very limited window into a society, and that without directly experiencing that society for yourself (or at least talking to people who live in that society), you're not going to get the full picture.
Such as? Again, this is not my experience with academia, government, or big business (having worked in two of the three).Like I said earlier, all the happenings in places like academia, government and big business are barometers to a prevailing atmosphere. The audacity of them in so publicly visible places shape what the nation is going through.
Or, it's an indication that someone wants to push the idea that there are increased instances of such events.It has nothing to do with search engine algorithms. I work in IT so I know what search preferences are. The amount of records found are not just an algorithmic bias. It is also an indication of the increased instances of such events.
I didn't say that nothing was happening. What I said is that a few incidents gaining traction in the news does not represent a societal theme.Where there is no events there will be no results returned.
What you're doing now is the equivalent of someone seeing all the news about flooding in China and saying, "Wow, China is under water!" [seriously, we're censoring the abbreviation for "oh my God" now?]The fact that there are so many unique instances in the news searches and such small intervals between each instances indicate frequency. Now China is having floods. News report it as such because it is happening as such. Given that China is so geographically large many parts of China doesn't see a drop of rain while others are flooded. So can we say China is not being flooded if we measure the extend to the land mass?
And neither are a few news stories indicative of the sentiment of a nation of over 350 million people.So it is the same as what is in America. Just because some parts of America doesn't experience anti-white it is not indicative that there is no such sentiment as a whole.
Blaming someone for supposed racist attitudes is racist?I've talked before about the Marxist and neo-Marxist movements of the hard left in the U.S. CRT is a spinoff of Marxism, replacing hatred of class (Critical Theory) with hatred of race(Critical Race Theory).
The term you used was 'anti-white'. Being anti-white is a racist position. Being against someone simply because of skin colour. The examples you just gave above are worthy of an argument as to whether they are common, anecdotal, benefical, unreasonable or justified. But none of them are racist.Don't play this game. You know what I'm talking about. Schools, workplaces and even government forcing white employees to undergo CRT training. Forcing them to answer how they have white privilege (buzz word) and how they can correct themselves. Schools giving non-white students spaces for themselves and none to the white (segregation much?). Having non-white employment preferences (not equal employment). And that are the surface of it. The rabbit hole is even deeper.
The term you used was 'anti-white'. Being anti-white is a racist position. Being against someone simply because of skin colour. The examples you just gave above are worthy of an argument as to whether they are common, anecdotal, benefical, unreasonable or justified. But none of them are racist.
If you want to be understood then maybe you shouldn't use terms that mean one thing when you mean another.
No, it's not. Two of the examples you gave were attempts to benefit a minority that some considered actually needed the help *. Whether you think that's justified or not, to try to twist that 180 degrees to say that it was a racist attitude to the majority is a clumsy sleight of hand that only the dyed-in-the-wool, far right, woke-complaining individuals who couldn't differentiate a Marx quote between Karl or Harpo would be fooled by.I beg to differ. Any display of unequal treatment base on racial makeup is a form of racism.
It takes more than simply being aware of what the algorithms do. I use different accounts in Facebook, YouTube, and other places with different specifically crafted "personas" for each account. Yes, you do see very different universes based on how you allow the algorithms to focus.Reporting on individual events is generally accurate as it relates to those events (source dependent, of course), but an aggregate of news stories cannot be relied upon to present an accurate overall picture of society. News companies are businesses - they report on things that will make them money, whether that's from people buying print media, paying for subscriptions, or clicking on links and being fed ads. And it's very well-known that controversy and outrage drive engagement. No one's interested in "Dog doesn't bite man" or "People of different cultural backgrounds live together with no conflict", so those types of stories rarely get any coverage.
Furthermore (and I believe we've discussed this before), if you search out specific stories, you're going to find them. And if you read them, the search engines and social media algorithms remember what you read and feed you more similar stories. You can watch this happen in real time on Facebook. If you so much as pause over an ad or sponsored post for a second, within minutes you'll start seeing more sponsored posts or ads from that same account/advertiser. This can give you an even more distorted picture of the world - you're not reading the daily edition of the New York Times cover-to-cover; rather, you're reading/watching a selection of stories that Bing and Google and Facebook and TikTok and YouTube think that you will want to watch based on your viewing history.
You don't have to believe my account of my experiences (though, seriously, what incentive do I have to lie to you?), but you should recognize and take into account the fact that news stories and other media only represent a very limited window into a society, and that without directly experiencing that society for yourself (or at least talking to people who live in that society), you're not going to get the full picture.
It can be racist if the conclusion was reached purely because of skin color.Blaming someone for supposed racist attitudes is racist?
I don't whether know you are just making this up or someone else did and and you're just regurgitating it.
Third, owing to what CRT scholars call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people. Perhaps the most provocative argument offered in support of this thesis was the suggestion by Derrick Bell, an intellectual forefather of CRT and the first Black tenured law professor at Harvard University, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned the segregation-supporting “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), occurred when it did because (1) elite whites were concerned about potential unrest among Black former soldiers who had fought bravely for their country in World War II and the Korean War but were now expected to return to lives of oppression and exploitation by whites; and (2) the world image of the United States as an egregiously racist society threatened to diminish American influence among developing countries and to undermine the country’s strategic efforts in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Although widely dismissed at the time, Bell’s view that the Brown decision was a product of interest convergence between whites and Blacks was supported by later historical research, which indicated that the decision of the U.S. Department of Justice to side with proponents of desegregation was influenced by a raft of secret communications from the U.S. State Department regarding the need to improve the country’s image abroad. The thesis of interest convergence has since been applied to numerous other legal cases involving the rights of people of colour. Critical race theory - Racism, Oppression, Inequality
Yes, it takes more than awareness - my point was just that being aware allows you to account for that and seek out alternate views rather than existing in your comfortable echo chamber.It takes more than simply being aware of what the algorithms do. I use different accounts in Facebook, YouTube, and other places with different specifically crafted "personas" for each account. Yes, you do see very different universes based on how you allow the algorithms to focus.
I think we should stick with the concept of racism as being a negative. That it exhibits a negative attitude towards people who are different re ethnic background. If I suggest that we should do more for Aborigine people in Australia then using the term racist for that is nonsensical.It can be racist if the conclusion was reached purely because of skin color.
The position argued against was that the two examples given in the relevant post, which didn't include crt, were racist. The argument against that I just put forward above.For instance, one CRT principle is that even if a white person does something beneficial for a black person, it's only a surreptitious effort to place himself in a more advantageous position over that black person.
So 'Hey everyone, we all have to consider aspects of racist behaviour which we might not be aware' is an attempt to secure a superior position? This might be just me, but it seems that you are asking people to accept that perhaps their social position shouldn't be assumed based on their where their family originated. That it isn't relevant to their social position.In CRT, any effort whites take to mitigate racism is simply a means of securing their own superior social position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?