Third Wave Anti-racism

[PeachyKeane]

Well the KKK is actually getting smaller....estimated at 5k-8k members. I suppose if include all the other groups including black supremacists, you might approach 20 times those numbers but we'd still be talking about less than 1% of 1% of the population.....

You think only 1% of 1% of the population is racist?

That depends on how broadly we're defining forced labor. There are people in prison now who could be considered as forced labor.

There could be a clause about convicted felons.

If you meant chattel slavery....I still don't know how you intend to distribute funds. Does one need only one slave ancestor? What if one has a slave ancestor and a slave owner ancestor?

We're not concerned with slave owners or their descendants.

Without knowing these things I can't really answer.

By now, I think you understand the context and intent of my question and are just avoiding answering on technicalities. That's not exactly discussing the matter in good faith, is it?

Sure...it's a type of discrimination.

That doesn't mean that everyone does it without privilege...what if you're genetically smarter? More inclined towards ambition? What if you were lucky enough to have parents who instilled you with discipline or a harder work ethic?

Those are all talents and skills and, yes, privileges which are determined on an individual basis.

These are all privileges and it goes back to my early point about what exactly makes a privilege unfair.

Not really. Everybody has talent. Everybody has skills. It becomes unfair when we make broad generalizations of these skills and talents based on irrelevant factors.

Geographic location.

Which measures what about the individual? Does geographic location determine talent? Intelligence? Skill? Work ethic?

If they have a higher police presence? I would imagine both a higher crime rate and rate of unsolved crimes...generally speaking.

So, could one be faulted in thinking that blacks and hispanics were more likely to commit crimes, be aggressive, lazy or less intelligent?

No? Neighborhoods?

Yup.

That's the thing though....you understand that a job may discriminate against the less intelligent, or less skilled, or less hard working, or less attractive, or less sociable, or any number of biases that we may value.

I would say less attractive is more often than not unfair. But those are all individual skills, talents and personal traits that are needed for a job. I don't want an unintelligent systems architect on my team. I don't want a less sociable marketing director.

Isn't the reason why we think it's wrong to discriminate against or for a certain race because we don't believe it's worthy of value?

We believe that race should not be a determining factor in how a life is lived. It should be based on skills and traits we value. The hard truth is that race is a factor. It has been in my life, and it's a pretty good bet that it has been in yours.

 

[tall73]

Getting larger.

Sorry to zero in on just one point of your conversation, but this is one point I wanted to ask about. Are there statistics showing that participation in racist groups is increasing?

I think it is safe to say it is less than it was decades ago, in regards to the KKK, etc. However, it could be going up from its lows.

On the other hand the general racial tension seems to have gone up since 2016 with a great deal more media focus on the subject in light of Trump, etc.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Sorry to zero in on just one point of your conversation, but this is one point I wanted to ask about. Are there statistics showing that participation in racist groups is increasing?

I think it is safe to say it is less than it was decades ago, in regards to the KKK, etc. However, it could be going up from its lows.

On the other hand the general racial tension seems to have gone up since 2016 with a great deal more media focus on the subject in light of Trump, etc.

It has increased between 2016 and 2017. It appears there are no stats available for 2018.

FBI data shows sharp rise in US hate crimes

 

[Ana the Ist]

You think only 1% of 1% of the population is racist?

You were talking about those racists who were visible by their actions....like the KKK.

There could be a clause about convicted felons.

A clause including or excluding them?

We're not concerned with slave owners or their descendants.

Well what are we talking about then?

By now, I think you understand the context and intent of my question

I don't. I don't know what you mean by forced labor. Before labor reforms....a lot of things were forced labor. A lot.

and are just avoiding answering on technicalities. That's not exactly discussing the matter in good faith, is it?

Technicalities? You asked me to answer a technical question...you asked me about a law and if it would be racist, but you refuse to explain who it applies to.

And now you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

If you want an answer without giving me any specifics....then the answer is no. I can easily say that over a long enough time, everyone has an ancestor who engaged in forced labor. 100% of the population.

That's why I asked for specifics....and no, I don't see any point to the question.

Those are all talents and skills and, yes, privileges which are determined on an individual basis.

All of these characteristics are individual when we're talking about individuals. We can also group people according to these characteristics and they become "group privileges, talents, skills, etc". It's not as if race is magically different somehow.

Not really. Everybody has talent. Everybody has skills. It becomes unfair when we make broad generalizations of these skills and talents based on irrelevant factors.

So it would be wrong....for example....to group people by who is genetically intelligent and who isn't....and then say that the intelligent are privileged if they have better outcomes?

Which measures what about the individual? Does geographic location determine talent? Intelligence? Skill? Work ethic?

No....it's just geographic location.

So, could one be faulted in thinking that blacks and hispanics were more likely to commit crimes, be aggressive, lazy or less intelligent?

One can be faulted in thinking just about anything. You got a lot of people running around thinking that life is easier if you're white. It's just as racist and wrong.

I would say less attractive is more often than not unfair. But those are all individual skills, talents and personal traits that are needed for a job. I don't want an unintelligent systems architect on my team. I don't want a less sociable marketing director.

So it's ok to discriminate against some people or value some privileges and not others?

We believe that race should not be a determining factor in how a life is lived. It should be based on skills and traits we value. The hard truth is that race is a factor. It has been in my life, and it's a pretty good bet that it has been in yours.

Sure....because people don't always value what we think they should. Life is unfair.

It's possible that being white has given me an advantage in some situations. I can say that I've never been able to actually use it to my advantage. I've never been able tell someone I was white and change an outcome in my favor.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It has increased between 2016 and 2017. It appears there are no stats available for 2018.

FBI data shows sharp rise in US hate crimes

An increase in hate crimes doesn't mean there are "more racist people" today than there was last year.

 

[PeachyKeane]

You were talking about those racists who were visible by their actions....like the KKK.

That's true. I rescind my comment.

A clause including or excluding them?

Excluding them.

Well what are we talking about then?




I don't. I don't know what you mean by forced labor. Before labor reforms....a lot of things were forced labor. A lot.



Technicalities? You asked me to answer a technical question...you asked me about a law and if it would be racist, but you refuse to explain who it applies to.

And now you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

If you want an answer without giving me any specifics....then the answer is no. I can easily say that over a long enough time, everyone has an ancestor who engaged in forced labor. 100% of the population.

That's why I asked for specifics....and no, I don't see any point to the question.

Then I won't bother.

All of these characteristics are individual when we're talking about individuals. We can also group people according to these characteristics and they become "group privileges, talents, skills, etc". It's not as if race is magically different somehow.

You mean send them all to highly regarded institutions of learning? Are you suggesting that it is unfair that people with an inclination and talent for basketball are more likely to make an NBA team than those whose inclination and talent is for engineering? Nit that they're mutually exclusive, but it seems best to evaluate by the skills needed for a career.

So it would be wrong....for example....to group people by who is genetically intelligent and who isn't....and then say that the intelligent are privileged if they have better outcomes?

Are you genetically engineering these people? While I would say they are privileged because they are more intelligent because it grants them opportunities. While I don't think a minimum intelligence is required to own a house, I would say that it there probably it should be to perform surgery. What I'm suggesting we can agree on, is that it's wrong to deny people opportunities because of their race. And yet, that happens.

No....it's just geographic location.

So what would be a good reason for an admissions office to descriminate against someone's neighborhood?

One can be faulted in thinking just about anything. You got a lot of people running around thinking that life is easier if you're white. It's just as racist and wrong.

I'll grant you life is always hard for the privileged and underprivileged alike. But, is it reasonable that race plays a part in gaining opportunity?

So it's ok to discriminate against some people or value some privileges and not others?

It's not the privilege we value. It's the talent, or skill, or attitude, or values themselves. We don't need to value race.

Sure....because people don't always value what we think they should. Life is unfair.

So explain to me why racism is wrong.

It's possible that being white has given me an advantage in some situations. I can say that I've never been able to actually use it to my advantage. I've never been able tell someone I was white and change an outcome in my favor.

I'm pretty sure telling someone I was white changed my opportunities.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's true. I rescind my comment.

Excluding them.

Then I won't bother.

Ok.

You mean send them all to highly regarded institutions of learning?

How highly regarded would it be if everyone got in?

Are you suggesting that it is unfair that people with an inclination and talent for basketball are more likely to make an NBA team than those whose inclination and talent is for engineering? Nit that they're mutually exclusive, but it seems best to evaluate by the skills needed for a career.

Of course it's unfair....it's just unfair in a way we agree with. If I were a short pudgy man with an orange complexion and a comb over....but I was only really attracted to tall nordic blonde women, chances are that I'm going to find certain circumstances rather unfair whether or not anyone else values the same things I value.

I agree it doesn't make any sense to run an NBA team that doesn't value tall athletic players the same way it doesn't make any sense to run an company that needs talented engineers and not value talented engineers. That doesn't mean it's not "unfair" though...of course it's unfair.

What I'm saying is that when it comes to race....we agree that it shouldn't be valued in any respect....right? A company shouldn't assume that someone of a particular race is any better than any other race....should they?

Are you genetically engineering these people? While I would say they are privileged because they are more intelligent because it grants them opportunities. While I don't think a minimum intelligence is required to own a house, I would say that it there probably it should be to perform surgery. What I'm suggesting we can agree on, is that it's wrong to deny people opportunities because of their race. And yet, that happens.

Of course it happens! Nobody should get a raise because they're more attractive than the other applicants....but it happens. People don't always value what we think they should.....that's life.

What I'm asking you is if you think it's wrong to value race in this way or not?

I'll grant you life is always hard for the privileged and underprivileged alike. But, is it reasonable that race plays a part in gaining opportunity?

Are we talking about "life" or what is reasonable? I don't think people should value race....because I don't think any race is better than any other in any regard.

It's not the privilege we value. It's the talent, or skill, or attitude, or values themselves. We don't need to value race.

But the privilege is derived from the value. That's the point.

If we don't need to value race....then I can assume that you would think it's wrong to give someone wealth or opportunities because of their race?

I deleted the rest because I think I sufficiently answered it.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Ok.



How highly regarded would it be if everyone got in?



Of course it's unfair....it's just unfair in a way we agree with. If I were a short pudgy man with an orange complexion and a comb over....but I was only really attracted to tall nordic blonde women, chances are that I'm going to find certain circumstances rather unfair whether or not anyone else values the same things I value.

I agree it doesn't make any sense to run an NBA team that doesn't value tall athletic players the same way it doesn't make any sense to run an company that needs talented engineers and not value talented engineers. That doesn't mean it's not "unfair" though...of course it's unfair.

What I'm saying is that when it comes to race....we agree that it shouldn't be valued in any respect....right? A company shouldn't assume that someone of a particular race is any better than any other race....should they?

No.

Of course it happens! Nobody should get a raise because they're more attractive than the other applicants....but it happens. People don't always value what we think they should.....that's life.

What I'm asking you is if you think it's wrong to value race in this way or not?

I think it's wrong.

Are we talking about "life" or what is reasonable? I don't think people should value race....because I don't think any race is better than any other in any regard.

Yeah, but enough do.

But the privilege is derived from the value. That's the point.

If we don't need to value race....then I can assume that you would think it's wrong to give someone wealth or opportunities because of their race?

I deleted the rest because I think I sufficiently answered it.

So if racism is only unfair, is it any worse than the pudgy, orange-skinned kid who can't get a Scandinavian model to date him?

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

What I don't understand is is why white people are the only ones that are guilty for their ancestors behaviors. Slavery has been practiced by every race on this planet. Many races are guilty of selling their own people as slaves. Their women as slaves. Much of it is still going on. Yet all we hear about is how white people are the guilty ones.

True all are guilty to some extent, but you need to broaden your reading a bit.
There is a long tradition in the black community criticizing Africans, particularly the
leaders for selling off their brethren. In fact because of that criticism, in recent years,
a number of African countries have taken to apologizing for slavery. This does mean not
holier-than thou-PC haranguing (and other PC excesses) on some campuses is OK, but
its not "only white people" in the mix on this issue.
How to Apologize for Slavery

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

I came across probably the best article I've read on current race relations in the US. This one seemed to either fly under the radar....or was flat out ignored by most media outlets.

The Virtue Signalers Won’t Change the World

I won't say it was ignored by most media outlets. The Atlantic is a pretty well
known liberal to moderate media outlet, named Magazine of the Year in 2016 by the
American Society of Magazine Editors. It is a fairly big dog in the space. And it
does not have a rigidly doctrinaire editorial line- as can be seen where they allow
John McWOrther who some call conservative for his often anti-PC, contrarian views,
to publish his Signalers article. Its not the first time similar authors have published
in the Atlantic, such as conservative Shelby Steele, a sharp critic of Jesse Jackson,
Sharpton, etc.

Its not a bad article and true on many points. McWorther does not mention though
that the "guilt" dispensation may have other not so visible agendas- for example,
using blacks as front men/scapegoats/stalking horses behind which other things
are pushed. So claim some at least.
The People's District: 5 Reasons Gay is Not the New Black - Forth District

Blacks would thus be stalking horses, used foils or weapons in battles between white groups
with different agendas. Thus some lefties use black "victimism" to play race card attacks,
or push certain social policies, and some rightists demonize blacks as dangerous, evil
bogeymen- examples of "failed liberalism" and so on, with both sides of whites
often lying and distorting to score points on their opponents.

If these arguments are correct the takeaway from them might be to look beyond the
surface, to grasp the true culture war game being played out below. Thus the "Third
Wave Anti-Racists" or those using them as a front, may represent other veiled agendas.
SO for example those CHristians who cite biblical principle in opposition to same sex
marriage, or other trends, should therefore be disdained like unto vile "racists."
A similar handle can be used against people who hold to traditional moral values
against certain more trendy developments- they become, bad, evil people, beyond
the pale.

In other words, the "race issue" everyone gets so worked up about may be just
a wedge to set up the real battle, a surface smokescreen or intermediate step,
behind which other things lurk.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I won't say it was ignored by most media outlets. The Atlantic is a pretty well
known liberal to moderate media outlet, named Magazine of the Year in 2016 by the
American Society of Magazine Editors. It is a fairly big dog in the space. And it
does not have a rigidly doctrinaire editorial line- as can be seen where they allow
John McWOrther who some call conservative for his often anti-PC, contrarian views,
to publish his Signalers article. Its not the first time similar authors have published
in the Atlantic, such as conservative Shelby Steele, a sharp critic of Jesse Jackson,
Sharpton, etc.

Its not a bad article and true on many points. McWorther does not mention though
that the "guilt" dispensation may have other not so visible agendas- for example,
using blacks as front men/scapegoats/stalking horses behind which other things
are pushed. So claim some at least.
The People's District: 5 Reasons Gay is Not the New Black - Forth District

Blacks would thus be stalking horses, used foils or weapons in battles between white groups
with different agendas. Thus some lefties use black "victimism" to play race card attacks,
or push certain social policies, and some rightists demonize blacks as dangerous, evil
bogeymen- examples of "failed liberalism" and so on, with both sides of whites
often lying and distorting to score points on their opponents.

If these arguments are correct the takeaway from them might be to look beyond the
surface, to grasp the true culture war game being played out below. Thus the "Third
Wave Anti-Racists" or those using them as a front, may represent other veiled agendas.
SO for example those CHristians who cite biblical principle in opposition to same sex
marriage, or other trends, should therefore be disdained like unto vile "racists."
A similar handle can be used against people who hold to traditional moral values
against certain more trendy developments- they become, bad, evil people, beyond
the pale.

In other words, the "race issue" everyone gets so worked up about may be just
a wedge to set up the real battle, a surface smokescreen or intermediate step,
behind which other things lurk.

Two questions...

1. Who are the conservatives demonizing blacks as "evil" or bogeymen?

2. What is the "true culture war"?