Yelling ‘I hate white people’ and punching one isn’t a hate crime, Canadian judge rules

[Ana the Ist]

It really seems to me that that is how you are looking at them.
My experience with other races is very different from yours. You would only have to walk on eggshells if what you say would cause offence or be awful or mean. I have neverfelt a need to walk on eggshells.

if they are aknowledged yes. But that is a ridiculously impossible hypothetical.
But that doesnt cancel treaty expectations and how our govt has neglected its commitments.

That also doesnt mean that intergenerational violence is no longer relevant.

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't...

We don't have a lot of native American posters on these forums...but when they bring up atrocities done to them, no one sits there and tells them it didn't happen or it wasn't horrible...but it doesn't stop them from posting it again and again and again...

It's not hard to figure out why either...hatred, plain and simple. It's a simple process of justifying hatred.

I had a long long discussion on here...not too long ago...with a native american woman about race and racism. I told her early on...that unlike most white people she's met, I've been on real reservations (where non-natives aren't supposed to be) and spoken with real native americans...

I asked her, out of all the races she's been around...which was the most racist? She'd lived around whites, blacks, and natives...and she listed them in that order, most racist to least. This was in spite of the fact that the whites she lived around currently...hadn't done anything racist to her. In her mind, they were the worst because they "could" do something to her...and long long ago, they treated "her people" poorly.

I can understand that, even if I don't disagree...but what I couldn't understand was why she ranked them worse than the natives who kicked her and her family (and stopped her mother from being buried there) off the reservation because her father was a black man. That's a big problem on the rez....no race mixing allowed. I doubt you'd hear as much talk about pure bloodlines at a klan meeting as you would the reservation.

So I asked her why...why she felt that way about whites when the worst racism....racism that affected her social standing within her own community...was from her tribe? Her response? It was justified...her tribe wasn't racist! They were justified in hating all whites (which of course is why she did) because of what whites did to them!

As I've gotten older through the years...and spoken with natives/blacks/latinos etc...that's really all these "discussions" of "atrocities" in the past are...justifications for the hatred sowed into them when they were young.

That's why you typically don't see jews going around talking about the "difficulties" the holocaust has created for them...in spite of being able to go back one or two generations and drawing a direct line from the holocaust to where they are now. They don't teach their children to hate all whites...and probably because they understand that being white has nothing to do with it.

 

[Gadarene]

It really seems to me that that is how you are looking at them.
My experience with other races is very different from yours. You would only have to walk on eggshells if what you say would cause offence or be awful or mean. I have neverfelt a need to walk on eggshells.

I was talking about the people who tell me that we need to walk on eggshells around other races. That is what microaggressions, safe spaces etc. entail. I don't think we do need to walk on eggshells around other people, and I certainly don't care for the notion that offending someone means you need to moderate your speech. But I object to people telling me that that is what we must do. I have a problem with the ideologues, not the members of a particular racial group.

(Saying "just be kind and respectful" is somewhat meaningless in this context. Constant barracking over white privilege while rejecting collective blame for any other racial group is not respectful. We are being told to seek equality - by hypocrites. How is that supposed to work? How are such people meant to be ever taken seriously?)

 

[Gadarene]

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't...

We don't have a lot of native American posters on these forums...but when they bring up atrocities done to them, no one sits there and tells them it didn't happen or it wasn't horrible...but it doesn't stop them from posting it again and again and again...

Absolutely, this doesn't really happen and most people acknowledge that bad things happen to other races on account of their race. Where there is disagreement is usually in some extrapolation from that, see the regular debates on the claims made by (and necessity of) groups like BLM.

That's why you typically don't see jews going around talking about the "difficulties" the holocaust has created for them...in spite of being able to go back one or two generations and drawing a direct line from the holocaust to where they are now. They don't teach their children to hate all whites...and probably because they understand that being white has nothing to do with it.

Groups that don't overindulge that (admittedly natural) tendency to anger of the oppressed / harmed generally seem to have more success in my opinion. The gay rights movement seems to be a good example of this. People didn't insist that you *must* support a particular gay rights movement like the way you *must* support BLM or feminism in the race & gender arenas respectively. Just support the end goals. Accusations of homophobia may have been a little overenthusiastic, but there is no browbeating of your potential allies via concepts like "straight privilege" by comparison to the gender and race debates.

 

[Belk]

Some are, but I think what might be of greater importance is which groups are the safe spaces etc supposed to protect. It is usually for the benefit of minorities.

I don't claim to know much about them but I would think most would promote them for anyone who feels unsafe.

Well, it isn't a perception. Collective blame is placed on white people by people who claim to want racial equality, all the time. This to me is no different in principle to treating all black people with suspicion simply because there exist some black criminals.

I believe that it is a perception since I do not perceive this. Can you show me some of things that lead you to the conclusion that collective blame is being placed on white people? Perhaps it would help me understand what you are seeing.

I absolutely get that there will be important differences in degree, and the latter I would consider more of a problem. But it hacks me off that the former isn't considered a problem at all, given that they are the same attitude in principle.

Understandable given your view of this.

 

[Belk]

This is a fair question...

I'd say start by acknowledging that all kinds of biases exist...for example, there's a general bias in favor of women called the "women are wonderful effect".

"Women are wonderful" effect - Wikipedia

So if we're talking about biases...it would help if people realized there's hundreds of these biases and no real way to know which ones are being acted upon or not. Does the women are wonderful effect account for the reason we see more men in prison than women? No way to know. Does a bias in favor of whites account for the reason we see more blacks in prison? Again, no way to know.

Why do you feel this is not something we can determine? The data I have seen to date makes a pretty compelling case that society has a tendency to favor whites. Do you have research that shows this to be wrong?

People can't be held accountable for acting upon subconscious biases they may or may not have. With regards to white privilege as a generalized notion of "whites benefit from centuries of white oppression of minorities"...it may be true (in a generalistic sense) but isn't a reason to blame whites today for their position, nor is it reasonable to ask whites to atone for the crimes of past whites (whether that be reparations, or specific benefits being handed out to minorities). We don't hold people accountable for the crimes of their own families...let alone what some guy in their race did years ago...

I totally agree. I don't think that anyone is saying people should be held accountable (Or at least not anyone who is reasonable). My understanding is the whole idea is to raise awareness so that people can understand how the system is stacked against minorities and try to minimize the the unconscious bias that everyone has.

So put in the light of reason...I don't see much point to bringing up "white privilege" in any conversation except to make excuses for the problems minorities face...which I don't think really helps them.

Perhaps you do though...maybe you do think it's a concept worthy of the repeated discussion it's had in the last four years? Maybe you've got a reason why?

Ten years ago the city of Seattle initiated their RSJI campaign to attempt to find a way to minimize institutional racism in city departments. The program was entirely voluntary and centered around education. By every measure the program has been a success. simply by making people aware of what institutional racism is and how we can be mindful of it by every metric institutional racism has been lowered in all departments.

I think this shows that using voluntary participation and simply showing people how to be mindful helps combat our unconscious bias.

Race and Social Justice Initiative - RSJI | seattle.gov

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do you feel this is not something we can determine? The data I have seen to date makes a pretty compelling case that society has a tendency to favor whites. Do you have research that shows this to be wrong?

Maybe you missed the point about the bias towards women and men being jailed more often. I think it's time to have an honest discussion about what sociological research can and cannot show. Sociology is in that group of soft sciences for the same reason as political science and psychology (though psychology seems to be slowly working it's way towards hard science). It's considered a soft science because it deals with large complex systems that include so many factors that it cannot draw conclusions with any level of certainty.

So what can it show?

It can show that a group of people have biases...like a group of teachers or employees.

It can show that a group of people have different outcomes...like white and black students, or white and black job seekers.

What can't it show? It can't show that the reason for different outcomes between two groups is because of the biases. It can guess about conclusions such as that...but it doesn't show them to be factual.

That's the big problem with a lot of the research that the media creates its stories around. It's nothing more than...
1. Show a bias exists.
2. Show a discrepancy between outcomes.
3. Fallaciously blame discrepancy between outcomes on the bias.

That is what I was getting at regarding the bias towards women.
1. I showed the bias definitely exists.
2. More men go to prison than women (I can show this if you need me to...I figured you knew this already)
3. Blame the fact that there's more men in prison on the bias that favors women.

Would you accept #3 as a conclusion? Probably not, right? Common sense probably tells you that more men actually commit crimes...for whatever reason. There's no stigma in society when it comes to saying "more men commit crimes" either...no one is going to jump on you and call you racist for suggesting that. If you were to suggest that more blacks are in prison because they commit more crimes...well that's a different story isn't it? Even if that's exactly what the data suggests...you shouldn't say it...it sounds racist.

So if you've got some research that shows blacks are being treated unfairly...I'll gladly look at it. What I've seen though, for the most part, is research that's like the examples I gave you.

I totally agree. I don't think that anyone is saying people should be held accountable (Or at least not anyone who is reasonable). My understanding is the whole idea is to raise awareness so that people can understand how the system is stacked against minorities and try to minimize the the unconscious bias that everyone has.

Research shows that "being aware" of unconscious bias doesn't actually change it...not over any long term situations anyway. The fact is, unconscious biases are natural...everyone has them...and they're extremely difficult to change.

More to the point though...why shouldn't I be working towards correcting the unconscious biases that affect me? Why should I prioritize the biases someone else faces over the ones I face? For example, should a short white man be more concerned about biases against blacks or short people? Should a fat woman be more concerned about biases against blacks or fat people?

If we were, as a society, addressing all of these "inequities"...I'd probably be more willing to get on board...but we aren't. We're specifically saying that the challenges a black person faces are far more important than anyone else's challenges.

Ten years ago the city of Seattle initiated their RSJI campaign to attempt to find a way to minimize institutional racism in city departments. The program was entirely voluntary and centered around education. By every measure the program has been a success. simply by making people aware of what institutional racism is and how we can be mindful of it by every metric institutional racism has been lowered in all departments.

I think this shows that using voluntary participation and simply showing people how to be mindful helps combat our unconscious bias.

Race and Social Justice Initiative - RSJI | seattle.gov

Try as I might, I couldn't find any articles that showed the RSJI had improved outcomes for people within Seattle. I did find an article talking about how the West Africans in Seattle couldn't care less about the efforts made to reach out to them...and an article about how the police consider it something of a joke (and not at all that voluntary).

Could you provide a link that actually shows how successful it's been? And I'm not talking about one of the many articles in local papers praising it...just something scholarly that can show it's made a positive impact.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't claim to know much about them but I would think most would promote them for anyone who feels unsafe.

Feeling unsafe usually has little to nothing to do with actually *being* unsafe.

But ok, let's roll with this. Let me know how much success you have establishing safe spaces for white men, for example.

I believe that it is a perception since I do not perceive this. Can you show me some of things that lead you to the conclusion that collective blame is being placed on white people? Perhaps it would help me understand what you are seeing.

I don't know about you but I tend to believe people when they say problems exist. Saying "it's a perception because I don't perceive it" is, funnily enough, not considered a relevant argument when discussing, say, the police shooting of African Americans. Or sexual harassment of women.

I mean, I've never seen either happening. So I guess they're merely "perceptions". Right?

No, I am not inclined to accept a higher burden of proof for my claims than is typically expected of other groups. (One could call this a mild example of what I was talking about)

 

[Rion]

Going to jump in here...

Apparently my experiences are very different from yours. I have never had any feelings of guilt for being white nor have I seen anyone demand that I feel such. I also do not feel guilt for being heterosexual even though I know being homosexual is a much tougher row to hoe. I have seen the data behind the idea of white privilege and it seemed pretty conclusive to me. Would you feel as negatively about the idea of white privilege if you did not feel that you were being castigated? How do you think we can re-frame this discussion so that it was more inclusive and did not paint whites as being bad people simply for their skin color?

I'm not going to ask your age, but this probably does have a lot to do with what generation you fall into. People who are in the middle of Gen X. will be almost certainly be confused by a lot of this. I'm at the very edge of the Gen X/Millennial divide, so I noticed it enough to look into it a few years back.

I don't claim to know much about them but I would think most would promote them for anyone who feels unsafe.

I believe that it is a perception since I do not perceive this. Can you show me some of things that lead you to the conclusion that collective blame is being placed on white people? Perhaps it would help me understand what you are seeing.

Understandable given your view of this.

Dear White America | NYT
Cornell professor: Majority of white people are ‘racist’
Yes, All White People Raised in America are Racist.
High school teacher tells students that all white people are racist
4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | The Huffington Post
Black people cannot be racist, and here’s why | The University Star
Madeline Kahn: All white Americans are inherently racist
So you say you’ve got white privilege. Now what? <--Note this is considered a newsletter for United Church of Christ Millennials.
Dear White America, can you please just shut up for five seconds!
Dear White America, your toxic masculinity is killing you.

 

[Belk]

Maybe you missed the point about the bias towards women and men being jailed more often. I think it's time to have an honest discussion about what sociological research can and cannot show. Sociology is in that group of soft sciences for the same reason as political science and psychology (though psychology seems to be slowly working it's way towards hard science). It's considered a soft science because it deals with large complex systems that include so many factors that it cannot draw conclusions with any level of certainty.

So what can it show?

It can show that a group of people have biases...like a group of teachers or employees.

It can show that a group of people have different outcomes...like white and black students, or white and black job seekers.

What can't it show? It can't show that the reason for different outcomes between two groups is because of the biases. It can guess about conclusions such as that...but it doesn't show them to be factual.

That's the big problem with a lot of the research that the media creates its stories around. It's nothing more than...
1. Show a bias exists.
2. Show a discrepancy between outcomes.
3. Fallaciously blame discrepancy between outcomes on the bias.

That is what I was getting at regarding the bias towards women.
1. I showed the bias definitely exists.
2. More men go to prison than women (I can show this if you need me to...I figured you knew this already)
3. Blame the fact that there's more men in prison on the bias that favors women.

Would you accept #3 as a conclusion? Probably not, right? Common sense probably tells you that more men actually commit crimes...for whatever reason. There's no stigma in society when it comes to saying "more men commit crimes" either...no one is going to jump on you and call you racist for suggesting that. If you were to suggest that more blacks are in prison because they commit more crimes...well that's a different story isn't it? Even if that's exactly what the data suggests...you shouldn't say it...it sounds racist.

So if you've got some research that shows blacks are being treated unfairly...I'll gladly look at it. What I've seen though, for the most part, is research that's like the examples I gave you.

Fair enough. I don't deny that the research I have seen is of the type you describe so the level of certainty is not as high as it would be if a direct link could be shown. However I feel comfortable accepting it provisionally in the absence of a better explanation of the data.

Research shows that "being aware" of unconscious bias doesn't actually change it...not over any long term situations anyway. The fact is, unconscious biases are natural...everyone has them...and they're extremely difficult to change.

I would be interested in seeing that research. My understanding is that people who are aware of their bias can consciously override it.

More to the point though...why shouldn't I be working towards correcting the unconscious biases that affect me? Why should I prioritize the biases someone else faces over the ones I face? For example, should a short white man be more concerned about biases against blacks or short people? Should a fat woman be more concerned about biases against blacks or fat people?

If we were, as a society, addressing all of these "inequities"...I'd probably be more willing to get on board...but we aren't. We're specifically saying that the challenges a black person faces are far more important than anyone else's challenges.

There I can not help you. You have to decide for yourself what motivates you to take action. For me personally it is because I know how I would feel if I was in their shoes and I would hope that others would have compassion for me.

Try as I might, I couldn't find any articles that showed the RSJI had improved outcomes for people within Seattle. I did find an article talking about how the West Africans in Seattle couldn't care less about the efforts made to reach out to them...and an article about how the police consider it something of a joke (and not at all that voluntary).

Could you provide a link that actually shows how successful it's been? And I'm not talking about one of the many articles in local papers praising it...just something scholarly that can show it's made a positive impact.

Let me see what I can track down. All the data I saw was from internal reports I used to get. I do know we have an outward facing searchable database but I don't know how useful that will be.

 

[Belk]

Feeling unsafe usually has little to nothing to do with actually *being* unsafe.

But ok, let's roll with this. Let me know how much success you have establishing safe spaces for white men, for example.

Why would I need to establish a safe space for white men? My understanding of "Safe spaces" (And I will admit it is limited) is that it is not a "Safe Space for X", it is simply a "Safe Space" and everyone is welcome.

I don't know about you but I tend to believe people when they say problems exist. Saying "it's a perception because I don't perceive it" is, funnily enough, not considered a relevant argument when discussing, say, the police shooting of African Americans. Or sexual harassment of women.

I mean, I've never seen either happening. So I guess they're merely "perceptions". Right?

No, I am not inclined to accept a higher burden of proof for my claims than is typically expected of other groups. (One could call this a mild example of what I was talking about)

If you think a problem exists and my experience is that it does not I am not going to assume that I am wrong and you are right simply because you say so. What I will do is try to see things from your perspective and evaluate any data you have that you feel supports your claim. If you can walk me through the thought process so much the better.

In this case I do not see any collective blame being placed on white people. My only recourse to evaluate your claim that this is happening is to see the data that convinced you and go from there. I do not see this as a higher burden of proof, I see it as the minimum I would need to discuss something I have not seen. If it is not something you feel you can or want to provide then I don't know how to proceed with the conversation.

ETA: Given Rions list I will concede that this is certainly something where people would perceive that they are being attacked as racists simply for being white. I still would say it is the more extreme fringe who actually think that however.

 

[Dave-W]

Why would I need to establish a safe space for white men?

You don't. As men (of any color) we are men and we do not need protecting.

My understanding of "Safe spaces" (And I will admit it is limited) is that it is not a "Safe Space for X", it is simply a "Safe Space" and everyone is welcome.

Not so. If everyone is welcomed, that would by definition include the people making someone feel unsafe.

Say if there is a home for battered women, why should an abusive husband or boyfriend be welcomed there?

 

[Dave-W]

Now, it is possible that the woman may have mental problems. I'm not saying to throw her in a cell and toss the key. What I am saying, however, is that the strained logic the judge used to ignore the racial factor of the crime is the kind of nonsense that just ends up damaging race relations even more, and creates more white nationalists.

I applaud the judge for standing up to the PC crowd. Is there any real difference (in this case) if the woman punched out White because of her color, or accent, or because she got in her way? No.

It was a simple assault no matter the motive.

I disagree with the entire notion of "hate crime."

 

[Belk]

Going to jump in here...



I'm not going to ask your age, but this probably does have a lot to do with what generation you fall into. People who are in the middle of Gen X. will be almost certainly be confused by a lot of this. I'm at the very edge of the Gen X/Millennial divide, so I noticed it enough to look into it a few years back.

OK. I am indeed in the middle of Gen X.

Dear White America | NYT
Cornell professor: Majority of white people are ‘racist’
Yes, All White People Raised in America are Racist.
High school teacher tells students that all white people are racist
4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | The Huffington Post
Black people cannot be racist, and here’s why | The University Star
Madeline Kahn: All white Americans are inherently racist
So you say you’ve got white privilege. Now what? <--Note this is considered a newsletter for United Church of Christ Millennials.
Dear White America, can you please just shut up for five seconds!
Dear White America, your toxic masculinity is killing you.

While most of the articles I skimmed through went into much more depth about the nuance of their claims rather then the title designed to get clicks I will concede that I can see why anyone would see this as people, and several of them people I would consider rational, saying that all whites are racist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fair enough. I don't deny that the research I have seen is of the type you describe so the level of certainty is not as high as it would be if a direct link could be shown. However I feel comfortable accepting it provisionally in the absence of a better explanation of the data.

So...guilty of bias unless you can defend your actions/decisions? And yet you don't see this kind of stuff as an attempt to blame or judge whites?

Let's say, hypothetically, that a judge has been unequivocally shown to have a bias against blacks...through subconscious testing. Let's say that same judge has two cases before him. An 18yo white man and 18yo black man have each assaulted their girlfriends in extremely similar circumstances. Each has no prior records...similar backgrounds....etc. The black man gets a year plus probation...the white man gets two months plus probation.

It's at this point that our sociologists say "this is because of bias" (and apparently, so do you). If we were to ask the judge though...why these two outcomes for such similar cases...we might actually get a reasonable reply. The judge might point out that the black man laughed and smiled during the description of his crimes, showing no remorse or empathy for his victim...while the white man cried and apologized profusely. In that light, the outcomes may not appear biased at all...

Sociological research doesn't go that deep...it would take too much time, money, effort, and would be unreasonably intrusive. That's why it's conclusions should be given consideration...but never treated as cold hard facts. That's why I don't support broad based policy changes based upon what amounts to guesswork...especially when we're doing something that essentially lays blame at the feet of thousands if not millions of professionals or affects the lives of millions.

I would be interested in seeing that research. My understanding is that people who are aware of their bias can consciously override it.

Well, to be sure, what we're talking about is being aware that you have unconscious biases. They're unconscious though...so you've got no way of knowing when they're affecting a decision...which by itself suggests that simply knowing you have them allows you to avoid them. Then you've got the fact that so many private businesses, government institutions, and public institutions are trying to develop training to counter these biases...that also suggests that simply telling people that they exist and they have them changes nothing. If you look into some of the results of this training, interestingly, it often backfires and reinforces biases...which also suggests that they don't change out of acknowledging they exist.

Take a look at this...

Can You Overcome Inbuilt Bias?

Scientists were charged with the task of coming up with strategies for changing these biases. Out of the 17 groups....6 came up with methods that were at least marginally successful, if you don't count the group that taught participants how to cheat the test. Amongst the strategies that didn't work...

"Contrary to the approach taken by ‘traditional’ diversity training, encouraging individuals to consider other people’s perspectives and appealing to their humane, egalitarian values made no difference. Contemplating the injustice of racial discrimination and considering that ‘we’re all in this together’ (using the example of the US basketball team and its black stars), didn’t affect bias scores. While these rational, philosophical approaches may impact self-reported prejudice – ‘yes, of course I agree that everyone deserves equal career opportunities’ – they don’t seem to alter our unconscious beliefs. Likewise, inducing a positive emotion – ‘elevation’ – by having participants witness acts of kindness and charity, made no difference to IAT scores."

So if you were thinking that we could just explain these biases to people and appeal to the better parts of their human nature...I'm sorry, but they don't work that way.

Sadly, the majority of strategies that did work didn't involve just trying to get people to think good thoughts about black people...it involved getting them to think bad thoughts about white people. That's not going to help us as a nation...beating down one community to raise up another...I can't support it and I don't think anyone else should either.

There I can not help you. You have to decide for yourself what motivates you to take action. For me personally it is because I know how I would feel if I was in their shoes and I would hope that others would have compassion for me.

Personally, I look at the situation like this...

Everyone, of every race/gender/height/weight/appearance/intelligence...basically everyone will have unfair biases and other social obstacles in their way throughout life. No amount of social engineering will ever change this...it's as much a part of human nature as breathing or sleeping. So what do we do? We struggle to overcome these obstacles in what ways we can...we push forward. I don't think we're doing the black community any favors by telling them that they'd be doing better if it wasn't for this group of people or that group of people. It encourages a worldview of powerlessness and victimhood. We can try to give everyone a basic set of opportunities...and we can encourage them to make the most of those opportunities...but if they don't? I'm not willing to beat down those who do take advantage of those opportunities to help those who don't.

Let me see what I can track down. All the data I saw was from internal reports I used to get. I do know we have an outward facing searchable database but I don't know how useful that will be.

I'm interested in seeing what kind of results it's had...if you want I can probably find the two articles I mentioned again, if you want to see them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would I need to establish a safe space for white men? My understanding of "Safe spaces" (And I will admit it is limited) is that it is not a "Safe Space for X", it is simply a "Safe Space" and everyone is welcome.

Understandably then...you haven't been following the concept of "safe spaces" anytime recently. Like the example another poster gave...they grew out of the idea that therapists had about their therapy sessions being "safe spaces" free from judgement and abuse.

They've been twisted from that concept to one of just generalized segregation. All across the nation, colleges are being confronted by black students and female students and gay students (these are the three groups who I see "protesting" or "advocating" for safe spaces most often) who are demanding that they be accommodated with their own safe space...where others (read straight white men) aren't allowed.

Now, on the surface, I think it's a relatively harmless request (if not wasteful)...no one is really being "hurt" by safe spaces. It's the principles behind it that I can't agree with or approve of. To me, colleges, or schools in general, are intended to be places of learning...which doesn't happen when you spend your time walled off from society. College especially should be a time when your thoughts, beliefs, and identity is challenged...not protected from different opinions or cultures or groups.

Then there's the blatant double standard aspect of it. My whole life I've been taught that whenever white men get together and ban women or minorities...it's an inherently racist practice called segregation. Now apparently, as long as you aren't a straight white male....segregation is a "good" and completely non-racist thing.

People already have safe spaces...they're called "home" and everyone gets to decide who can and cannot enter their home. As far as needs are concerned...there's no practical need for "safe spaces".

If you think a problem exists and my experience is that it does not I am not going to assume that I am wrong and you are right simply because you say so. What I will do is try to see things from your perspective and evaluate any data you have that you feel supports your claim. If you can walk me through the thought process so much the better.

In this case I do not see any collective blame being placed on white people. My only recourse to evaluate your claim that this is happening is to see the data that convinced you and go from there. I do not see this as a higher burden of proof, I see it as the minimum I would need to discuss something I have not seen. If it is not something you feel you can or want to provide then I don't know how to proceed with the conversation.

ETA: Given Rions list I will concede that this is certainly something where people would perceive that they are being attacked as racists simply for being white. I still would say it is the more extreme fringe who actually think that however.

His list is really just a small piece of a trend that's increasingly pervasive on t.v., radio, the internet, etc. College students all across the U.S. are being taught this garbage along with vague notions of "white supremacy" as if it's fact and not opinion. It's not just some small group of radicals touting this stuff...large groups of the younger generation are buying this stuff wholesale.

I think in another post you called some of the people quoted in the links Rion provided as "reasonable". Just out of curiosity...who do you think is being "reasonable" out of that group?

 

[Gadarene]

Why would I need to establish a safe space for white men?

You said you would support anyone who asked for one. I am asking for one for white men.

In your own time.

My understanding of "Safe spaces" (And I will admit it is limited) is that it is not a "Safe Space for X", it is simply a "Safe Space" and everyone is welcome.

Haaaa, yeah. It means you can crap on white men with impunity.

If you think a problem exists and my experience is that it does not I am not going to assume that I am wrong and you are right simply because you say so. What I will do is try to see things from your perspective and evaluate any data you have that you feel supports your claim. If you can walk me through the thought process so much the better.

Like I said, I just don't believe you have done this with every group regarding what they claim to be an issue. Racist cops and sexual harassment are just assumed to be true and real problems for non whites and women respectively. Call it conventional wisdom, if you like. The skepticism is good, but I suspect like most people it only manifests when people are claiming that white people are being treated unfairly.

It reminds me of a chap I was debating with several years ago who wanted to see a police report before he would acknowledge that women could rape men. When I asked him how many police reports he needed to see before he believed that men could rape women he went very quiet.

ETA: Given Rions list I will concede that this is certainly something where people would perceive that they are being attacked as racists simply for being white. I still would say it is the more extreme fringe who actually think that however.

They're the ones considered acceptable journalists, so they have considerably more influence than the average leftie schlub despite being more radical. And yet the left collectively freaks the heck out when Richard Spencer is allowed to speak and not be punched. Consistency is nice.

 

[Rion]

Note: I'm not posting this to share 'racist' stuff, I'm posting it to highlight racism from certain sites.

Here's something I found hilarious, and should be a bit enlightening:

 

[BubbaJack]

Here's something I found hilarious, and should be a bit enlightening:

Powerful stuff.

 

[Belk]

So...guilty of bias unless you can defend your actions/decisions? And yet you don't see this kind of stuff as an attempt to blame or judge whites?

Let's say, hypothetically, that a judge has been unequivocally shown to have a bias against blacks...through subconscious testing. Let's say that same judge has two cases before him. An 18yo white man and 18yo black man have each assaulted their girlfriends in extremely similar circumstances. Each has no prior records...similar backgrounds....etc. The black man gets a year plus probation...the white man gets two months plus probation.

It's at this point that our sociologists say "this is because of bias" (and apparently, so do you). If we were to ask the judge though...why these two outcomes for such similar cases...we might actually get a reasonable reply. The judge might point out that the black man laughed and smiled during the description of his crimes, showing no remorse or empathy for his victim...while the white man cried and apologized profusely. In that light, the outcomes may not appear biased at all...

Sociological research doesn't go that deep...it would take too much time, money, effort, and would be unreasonably intrusive. That's why it's conclusions should be given consideration...but never treated as cold hard facts. That's why I don't support broad based policy changes based upon what amounts to guesswork...especially when we're doing something that essentially lays blame at the feet of thousands if not millions of professionals or affects the lives of millions.








Well, to be sure, what we're talking about is being aware that you have unconscious biases. They're unconscious though...so you've got no way of knowing when they're affecting a decision...which by itself suggests that simply knowing you have them allows you to avoid them. Then you've got the fact that so many private businesses, government institutions, and public institutions are trying to develop training to counter these biases...that also suggests that simply telling people that they exist and they have them changes nothing. If you look into some of the results of this training, interestingly, it often backfires and reinforces biases...which also suggests that they don't change out of acknowledging they exist.

Take a look at this...

Can You Overcome Inbuilt Bias?

Scientists were charged with the task of coming up with strategies for changing these biases. Out of the 17 groups....6 came up with methods that were at least marginally successful, if you don't count the group that taught participants how to cheat the test. Amongst the strategies that didn't work...

"Contrary to the approach taken by ‘traditional’ diversity training, encouraging individuals to consider other people’s perspectives and appealing to their humane, egalitarian values made no difference. Contemplating the injustice of racial discrimination and considering that ‘we’re all in this together’ (using the example of the US basketball team and its black stars), didn’t affect bias scores. While these rational, philosophical approaches may impact self-reported prejudice – ‘yes, of course I agree that everyone deserves equal career opportunities’ – they don’t seem to alter our unconscious beliefs. Likewise, inducing a positive emotion – ‘elevation’ – by having participants witness acts of kindness and charity, made no difference to IAT scores."

So if you were thinking that we could just explain these biases to people and appeal to the better parts of their human nature...I'm sorry, but they don't work that way.

Sadly, the majority of strategies that did work didn't involve just trying to get people to think good thoughts about black people...it involved getting them to think bad thoughts about white people. That's not going to help us as a nation...beating down one community to raise up another...I can't support it and I don't think anyone else should either.





Personally, I look at the situation like this...

Everyone, of every race/gender/height/weight/appearance/intelligence...basically everyone will have unfair biases and other social obstacles in their way throughout life. No amount of social engineering will ever change this...it's as much a part of human nature as breathing or sleeping. So what do we do? We struggle to overcome these obstacles in what ways we can...we push forward. I don't think we're doing the black community any favors by telling them that they'd be doing better if it wasn't for this group of people or that group of people. It encourages a worldview of powerlessness and victimhood. We can try to give everyone a basic set of opportunities...and we can encourage them to make the most of those opportunities...but if they don't? I'm not willing to beat down those who do take advantage of those opportunities to help those who don't.






I'm interested in seeing what kind of results it's had...if you want I can probably find the two articles I mentioned again, if you want to see them.

Crud! I forgot about this thread. The new notification system sucks. I'll try to get you the info soon.

 

[Gadarene]

Note: I'm not posting this to share 'racist' stuff, I'm posting it to highlight racism from certain sites.

Here's something I found hilarious, and should be a bit enlightening:

Reminds me of "Stormfront or SJW" or /r/MenKampf (flips privileged group name to "Jews" and disadvantaged group name to "Aryans")