Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
plytho
¡This cheese is burning me!
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby plytho » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:39 pm UTC

I agree that the term 'racist' has become to broad to be meaningful. There are obviously degrees of racism from the vile 'everyone who isn't white should die' kind of people to 'I don't feel safe when I see a foreign person walking towards me so I cross the street'. The problem is that while just about everyone has incorporated the idea that racism=bad. Just about everyone also thinks they themselves are good. So racism is whatever is more racist then they are.

I don't agree with the rest though. The solution to this problem is better communication. Not 'less complaining about racism'.
he him his

mcd001
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby mcd001 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:32 pm UTC

Maybe less 'complaining about racism' will actually facilitate better communication.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:34 pm UTC

Actually, I don't call anyone racist, because it makes people feel too emotional to listen to logic.

Unfortunately, people often assume I am calling them racist when I am not.

For example, no matter how gentle and neutral I try to be when telling people why I am troubled by an anti-Asian stereotype that they apparently expected me to find humorous, they often feel personally attacked anyway, and respond by defending themselves against the accusation that they are racist--an accusation which I carefully did not make.

Granted, I'm a high-functioning autistic and not too good with nuances, so the miscommunication is probably still my fault on some level. (There's also the possibility that I've pissed them off in some past interaction on a different topic, so they are already predisposed to think I'm an asshole.)

Still, I can't help but find it ironic when people who complain that the members of other races get easily offended are, themselves, easily offended by the merest whiff of a suggestion that something they said might have been a weensy bit racially insensitive, and go immediately to: "Are you calling me a racist? How dare you?"

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:25 am UTC

Which anti-asian stereotype was that? That they eat such weird things as emu, cassowary, wallaby, and vegemite?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:51 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Some discussions, but not all. I'm starting to see cries of 'racism' losing their affect, which should not surprise anyone since the term has been overused for decades. Current race theory has evolved (devolved?) to the point that white people are racist just because they live here. Society is racist, see? The system is racist. The institutions are racist. The culture is racist. It's in the air and water, and it doesn't matter what a white person does or says, or how much good will is in their hearts. If they're white, they're racist. Of course, this can only go on so long before people start to realize that being called a racist doesn't matter. Why should it? If everyone's a racist, then there is no special shame in being branded a racist. By the way, the only people who win under this newer, broader definition of racism are the old-school racists, and there are still some of them out there. (I find it ironic that critical race theory is actually providing aid and comfort to old-school racists.)
How familiar are you with current critical race theory?
mcd001 wrote:If the only solution proposed to this perceived problem is to completely dismantle and rebuild the very culture they were born into, most people will balk. The people who see racism everywhere think that the people who see the banana incident as an overreaction need to become more sensitive. But the people who see the banana incident as an overreaction are tired of walking around on eggshells. They think the people who see racism everywhere need to spend more time reflecting on the positive aspects of life and less time nursing their grievances (both real and imagined).
I think most people believe the proposed solution is to just try and be more open and sensitive to everyone around you? I realize that's hard work, but nothing worth anything is attained easily; if people matter to you, then it's worth it to put in the hard work it takes to treat them with dignity, respect, and love.
mcd001 wrote:I suspect I already know the response this post will engender, but I am not offering it as an argument to change your minds or sway your opinions; I know that will not happen. I am simply providing it as a public service. If you want to know why more and more people are ignoring--or even worse, *embracing*--accusations of racism, just read this post. If you really want to improve race relations in the U.S., then dial back the rhetoric and stop assuming the worst in people.
It sounds like you've encountered a lot of people who are loudly complaining about banana peels; that's led you to believe the problem is over-sensitivity. However, things like this banana peel aren't the core issue -- the banana peel is merely what happens when a group of people trying to create a space 'clear' of racism perceive an intrusion of racism into that space.

Imagine, for a moment, you're part of a Christian missionary group in a foreign country where Christians are several times more likely to be shot, imprisoned, and executed by the government. Imagine you want to create a space for your fellow Christians (and allies who may not be Christians, but understand your plight) to discuss this issue calmly and rationally. Imagine, then, as you walk toward the church to have this discussion, you see wooden cross perched upside down next to the front door.

Sure, it probably turns out that it was purely a coincidence; it really had nothing to do with you or your fellow Christians. But would it be so weird if, for a moment, you thought someone was sending you a message? Especially if there's a pretty long history of people sending messages to Christians like yourself that you aren't wanted -- followed by violence, sometimes lethal? And if it was just a coincidence, wouldn't you feel much better if the person who did it explained what happened, apologized to you, and assured you that they'd be a little more careful with how they placed crosses in the future?

Now, how would you feel if someone heard this story, rolled their eyes, and told you: "It's just a chunk of wood, what the fuck is your problem"? Especially if the murders of several Christians -- friends, family, loved ones -- is still fresh in your memory?
mcd001 wrote:Maybe less 'complaining about racism' will actually facilitate better communication.
I get that a lot of people are tired of hearing about racism; I really do. A lot of people are in pain right now, and being told they have to be 'sensitive' about things like banana peels can be galling. Who gives a fuck about banana peels when you're going bankrupt on account of your mother's medical bills? Or if you're losing your home? Or your job?

But no one sincerely thinks the problem is a banana peel. The problem is that if you're black, you are many times more likely to be shot, killed, incarcerated, executed, fired, or not hired at all than if you're white. The problem is that being black in America is dangerous. The banana peel is part of a much more complex problem that you're not confronting -- because 'BANANA PEEL LOL' is so much simpler. It's way easier to embrace the idea that black people are oversensitive; it's much harder to confront the harsh reality that we live in a society that actively murders and imprisons them.

I don't know how you'll respond to this post, but I suspect you'll reject it; you'll decide I'm part of the problem, or some race-sensitive liberal ninny stricken with white guilt -- whatever. That's fine. I'm also simply providing a public service: If you want to know why more and more people are talking about race, complaining about race, getting angry over race -- it's because people are still dying on account of the color of their skin. And just about everyone is still acting like that's perfectly fine.

I don't think you're a racist, and I don't get much traction out of the term. That being said, if you think a lot of people genuinely give a flying shit about this banana peel outside of the context in which it occurred, you're engaged in a very boorish sort of self-affirmation. And if you think the problem with racism isn't that black people are getting murdered and imprisoned -- but that they're complaining too much about racism? You're also boorishly ignorant.

Yes, dealing with race is hard. Yes, getting yelled at and denigrated when you're already in a ditch -- because you were too tired to be 'sensitive' -- fucking sucks. I think we should have less denigration and more discussion, overall; I can see how 'YOU'RE A RACIST!' creates a problem, especially when it's targeting people who are already dealing with shitty situations. I have no interest in crapping on someone because they failed to be 'sensitive' enough about a banana peel. But you know what? All that horrible shit they have to deal with? That's shit black people have to deal with, too -- and they have to deal with it while the police are shooting at them.

You don't have to hate yourself, and you certainly shouldn't let people shit on you just because you might sometimes make a mistake, or not be 'sensitive' enough. But there are two sides of this discussion -- and the right side is not the one telling black people they need to complain less.

You're allowed to fuck up. You're allowed to be insensitive, sometimes; you're even allowed to roll your eyes over a banana peel. You don't have to be perfect, and you certainly don't need to offer up your self-esteem on the altar of 'white guilt'. To be on the right side of this discussion, you just need to understand that being black in America is dangerous, and -- even if you can't directly do anything to change that -- try your best to treat others with dignity, respect, and love.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:49 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 6852
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:35 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:To be on the right side of this discussion, you just need to understand that being black in America is dangerous,
Yeah your right. We should discuss who is killing who. You got any statistics? How many people killed in interracial murders? How many killed by white supremacist's?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:41 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:To be on the right side of this discussion, you just need to understand that being black in America is dangerous,
Yeah your right. We should discuss who is killing who. You got any statistics? How many people killed in interracial murders? How many killed by white supremacist's?


The problem isn't that black people are being killed but that black people are being killed and the perpetrators get away with it, or worse, are celebrated as heroes. The chant is "no justice no peace", not "no security no peace".

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:47 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Yeah your right. We should discuss who is killing who. You got any statistics? How many people killed in interracial murders? How many killed by white supremacist's?
I'm not really interested in going down the rabbithole of 'interracial murders', because I think that's a little too complex for the tenor of this discussion. That being said, stats on death-row executions alone are pretty damning. Particularly if you're a person of color who killed a white person.

Incarceration rates and severity of sentencing (for similar crimes and similar circumstances) are also frighteningly skewed against people of color. As are the rates of police killings.

Basically, if you're any shade of not-white, you want to stay the fuck away from America's "Justice" system.
CorruptUser wrote:The problem isn't that black people are being killed but that black people are being killed and the perpetrators get away with it, or worse, are celebrated as heroes. The chant is "no justice no peace", not "no security no peace".
This, also.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:49 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Which anti-asian stereotype was that? That they eat such weird things as emu, cassowary, wallaby, and vegemite?


I participate in a different, international, online community, in which non-Asian people occasionally think it's hilarious to insert R-and-L-reversed "Engrish" into a discussion that is somehow related to China.

Of course, this would still be cruel even if the discussion somehow related to Japan. However, their contempt of foreigners just seems all the more contemptuous when it becomes evident that these comedians can't even be bothered to keep straight which Asian language-speakers tend to struggle with R's and L's in English, and which do not.

(I find actual infelicities of communication--such as signs badly translated into English--innocently humorous. But obviously there's nothing innocent about deliberately mocking someone's accent.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:34 pm UTC

Which is funny since we mispronounce "Qina" as "China". Make the CH sound by sticking your tongue to the top of your mouth rather than right behind your teeth.

Filthy gueilo.

morriswalters
Posts: 6852
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:36 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not really interested in going down the rabbithole of 'interracial murders', because I think that's a little too complex for the tenor of this discussion.
I somehow thought that might be the case.

Well toodles.


ObsessoMom wrote:I participate in a different, international, online community, in which non-Asian people occasionally think it's hilarious to insert R-and-L-reversed "Engrish" into a discussion that is somehow related to China.
People can be cruel. To some it's like breathing. Actually, to most, when I think about it. I'm not a big fan of the human race.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:46 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I somehow thought that might be the case.

Well toodles.
I can provide you with statistics on interracial murders if they're important to you; I just don't see the relevance of those statistics when I'm specifically talking about police and government sanctioned murder/incarceration rates. I'm also not really talking about white supremacists, and I'm not sure why you brought it up. Those are complex subjects -- and actually kind of off-topic in regards to what I was describing to mcd001.

What is it that you'd like to get out of this thread? You mentioned you see this thread as a waste of your time; you also mentioned you haven't bothered to read it (you seem to think we're discussing 'racist bananas'). You went on to tell us that you're too old for this, and you knew precisely how this whole discussion would go. It sounds like you're mostly just here to brag. Maybe you could spend your time more constructively elsewhere?

mcd001
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby mcd001 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:01 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:How familiar are you with current critical race theory?

Fairly familiar. My wife just got her master's degree in Social Work, and I helped proof read all her papers. I could go into more detail about how, in my opinion, it's only exacerbating the problems of race, but it's not necessary. You nailed the real solution with your final statement:

The Great Hippo wrote:...try your best to treat others with dignity, respect, and love.

Yes, this. We are all human beings made in God's image, and we should treat each other accordingly. I'm sure you and I would disagree on a wide range of matters, but on this I couldn't agree more. Despite the curmudgeonly nature of my posts, I do try to treat others -- *all* others -- with dignity and respect. I think I am [mostly] successful.

morriswalters
Posts: 6852
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:12 am UTC

I certainly didn't need you to tell be me that being black in America is no picnic. And that we all should hug one another. Have you offered anything else? However maybe you're right.
Last edited by morriswalters on Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zamfir » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Which is funny since we mispronounce "Qina" as "China". Make the CH sound by sticking your tongue to the top of your mouth rather than right behind your teeth.

Filthy gueilo.

China is not a Chinese word, it's unclear to me what 'mispronunciation' would mean.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:39 pm UTC

IRRC it's named after the Qin dynasty, which is mispronounced as Chin.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7417
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:36 pm UTC

Do you also say people keep mispronouncing "Paris" because they should say "Pah-REE"?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zamfir » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

Etymology is a dubious guide to pronunciation. If you trace the word back 2000 years, why stop there? Why not go back 3000 years? And if it's so important to back 2000 years, why use the modern mandarin word?

For comparison, America comes from Amerigo, the Italian version of a medieval name whose modern English version would be Emery. Does that make Emery the better pronunciation?

Edit:
Do you also say people keep mispronouncing "Paris" because they should say "Pah-REE"?

At least the French actually say Paree. The Chinese don't say Qina, they say Zhonghuo.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:26 pm UTC

I think i was trying to make a point that everyone was a stupid foreigner who mangled words hilariously to someone else? Or something? I tend to fall on the Descriptivist side of things when it comes to language.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zamfir » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:40 pm UTC

But you were Wrong On The Internet, and I couldn't let that slide. Also, I was stuck with a baby on my lap, so I had time to kill.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25694
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:28 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:...try your best to treat others with dignity, respect, and love.

Yes, this. We are all human beings made in God's image, and we should treat each other accordingly. I'm sure you and I would disagree on a wide range of matters, but on this I couldn't agree more. Despite the curmudgeonly nature of my posts, I do try to treat others -- *all* others -- with dignity and respect. I think I am [mostly] successful.

Whether or not you individually treat everyone with equal respect, if you simultaneously deny the problem of institutionalized, structural inequality, you're still part of the problem.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:40 pm UTC

Stupid question. Is inequality that's the result of internal culture, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses refusing higher education, a form of structural inequality?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Stupid question. Is inequality that's the result of internal culture, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses refusing higher education, a form of structural inequality?
I suspect that it's mostly a matter of semantics? We differentiate institutionalized racism from more 'naturally occurring' racism because the former is particularly pernicious -- in that it legitimizes racism, enshrining it with the authority and approval of the State. It also gives us a cover story we can use to participate in racism while abdicating any responsibility for that participation ("It's not my fault the system is broken").

Whether the pressures exerted by an insular group on its members 'counts' as structural/institutional inequality doesn't strike me as all that important; something like your example is its own beast, with its own unique (and similarly complex) problems.
mcd001 wrote:Yes, this. We are all human beings made in God's image, and we should treat each other accordingly. I'm sure you and I would disagree on a wide range of matters, but on this I couldn't agree more. Despite the curmudgeonly nature of my posts, I do try to treat others -- *all* others -- with dignity and respect. I think I am [mostly] successful.
I agree with gmalivuk that a failure to acknowledge the problem of institutionalized, structural inequality puts you on the wrong side of the discussion; that being said, I don't know if you fail to acknowledge that problem -- and regardless, as trivial as it might seem, I think it is always a good thing to acknowledge the importance of treating everyone with as much kindness as you can bear.

I might still deeply, passionately, and intensely disagree with someone, but if they believe in the importance of treating everyone with respect, dignity, and love -- and try to put this belief into practice -- it makes it just a little bit harder for me to be angry with them (and easier for me to talk with them).

YMMV.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby slinches » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Whether or not you individually treat everyone with equal respect, if you simultaneously deny the problem of institutionalized, structural inequality, you're still part of the problem.

Serious question:

In your opinion, is someone still a part of the problem if they think those issues are real and that we should be actively try to address them. Except, they prefer solutions that are based on need rather than race? (e.g. someone who is against affirmative action in college admissions, but is for need based scholarships and other forms of non-discriminatory assistance)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25694
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:52 pm UTC

You think systematic racism is real but you don't want the solutions to have anything to do with race?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7417
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:53 pm UTC

So you're saying, someone agrees there's structural and systemic issues, but isn't interested in supporting or providing structural and systemic solutions? How is that person doing anything to solve the problem then? It's not like college admissions are the only area where there's racial discrimination. Any solution you provide that doesn't deal with the root of the problem will be a superficial band aid. Obviously those are handy for that kid who now gets to go to college, but it doesn't deal with the problem.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

mcd001
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby mcd001 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:57 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:if they believe in the importance of treating everyone with respect, dignity, and love -- and try to put this belief into practice -- it makes it just a little bit harder for me to be angry with them.

I'll take that!
gmalivuk wrote:Whether or not you individually treat everyone with equal respect, if you simultaneously deny the problem of institutionalized, structural inequality, you're still part of the problem.

Sorry, but it seems clear to me that the real problem is beliefs and policies (such as critical race theory or identity politics) that encourage people to see themselves has victims, and rewards them when they do. And of course, if there is a victim there must also be an oppressor, and we all know who THAT is. (Me, or people like me.) Gmalivuk comes right out and says it: I am part of the problem. I am the Nazi, who it is permissible to punch.

But I am not the one who destroyed black families. I am not the one who looked the other way while undocumented workers took all the low-skill entry-level jobs that were once used as stepping stones by minorities and the poor. I am not the one who created a welfare culture that has removed the incentive to work, and in many cases subsumed the desire to work, creating generations of families (overwhelmingly single-parent families) who are completely dependent on government. I am not the one who thinks the solutions to these horrific problems are more and more of the very same policies that created the problems in the first place.

In retrospect, I suppose it is much easier to think your opponents are cold-hearted monsters, or to blame some faceless, amorphous 'institutional racism', than it is to face the realization that your policies not only have NOT worked, but can NEVER work.

Fortunately, I realize the people who advocate for and implement these disastrous policies have the best of motives (a courtesy I am not afforded), so I feel no anger or animosity toward them. I just wish they had more common sense!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Thesh » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:00 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:So you're saying, someone agrees there's structural and systemic issues, but isn't interested in supporting or providing structural and systemic solutions? How is that person doing anything to solve the problem then? It's not like college admissions are the only area where there's racial discrimination. Any solution you provide that doesn't deal with the root of the problem will be a superficial band aid. Obviously those are handy for that kid who now gets to go to college, but it doesn't deal with the problem.


I think the assumption being made is that all issues regarding structural and systematic racism can be solved purely through other means that also benefit everyone. For example, if you completely ended economic inequality between everyone, you would also completely end economic inequality between races, by definition. Which, of course, people generally argue that we can only due so much to reduce economic inequality without it being too much of a burden on other people (i.e. those that currently benefit from the systematic racism).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25694
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:19 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Sorry, but it seems clear to me that the real problem is beliefs and policies (such as critical race theory or identity politics) that encourage people to see themselves has victims, and rewards them when they do.
Dress up your denial in all the victim-blaming you want, that doesn't make it any more true.

And of course, if there is a victim there must also be an oppressor, and we all know who THAT is. (Me, or people like me.) Gmalivuk comes right out and says it: I am part of the problem. I am the Nazi, who it is permissible to punch.
If only Nazis were part of the problem, it would be a much smaller problem.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby slinches » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:39 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I think the assumption being made is that all issues regarding structural and systematic racism can be solved purely through other means that also benefit everyone. For example, if you completely ended economic inequality between everyone, you would also completely end economic inequality between races, by definition. Which, of course, people generally argue that we can only due so much to reduce economic inequality without it being too much of a burden on other people (i.e. those that currently benefit from the systematic racism).

I think that adding institutional racism to counter institutional/structural racial inequality is a dangerous path. Using racially non-discriminatory policies may not be quite as direct, but that path doesn't risk breeding contempt for minorities among the poorer of the majority population when one gets help the other doesn't have access to.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Thesh » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:46 pm UTC

So what exactly do you propose to eliminate systematic and structural racism?

Also, any programs that benefit poor black people without benefiting upper-middle class white people seem to breed contempt in white people.
Last edited by Thesh on Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:47 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25694
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:56 pm UTC

slinches wrote:
Thesh wrote:I think the assumption being made is that all issues regarding structural and systematic racism can be solved purely through other means that also benefit everyone. For example, if you completely ended economic inequality between everyone, you would also completely end economic inequality between races, by definition. Which, of course, people generally argue that we can only due so much to reduce economic inequality without it being too much of a burden on other people (i.e. those that currently benefit from the systematic racism).

I think that adding institutional racism to counter institutional/structural racial inequality is a dangerous path. Using racially non-discriminatory policies may not be quite as direct, but that path doesn't risk breeding contempt for minorities among the poorer of the majority population when one gets help the other doesn't have access to.

Most people on welfare, foodstamps, and other government assistance for the poor are white, and that doesn't stop white people from creating a narrative whereby these safety nets are primarily used and abused by black people.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3694
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:08 am UTC

I think maybe slinches was suggesting something along the lines of: if the problem is that, even if we're already not explicitly discriminating based on race per se, we're still discriminating on things like income which in turn correlate with race and so indirectly discriminating based on race, then shouldn't solutions that address those correlates (rather than race directly) in turn benefit the correlated races proportionally more, and so constitute a solution indirectly addressing race, just like the problem is indirectly about race?

E.g. if the problem is that more black people than white people don't go to college because they can't afford it, and you implement a solution that helps people who otherwise couldn't afford it (regardless of race) to go to college anyway, then because of that correlation that is the very problem, you automatically end up helping black people more than white people (because there are more of them in the needy population being helped, which was the problem to begin with), in exact proportion to the problematic disadvantage they face, and only for so long as they continue to face it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:12 am UTC

The question is then how much does it work to reduce inequality. If it is generally going to benefit middle class black and white people over people in impoverished communities, then it could serve to further increase inequality by increasing the gap between the poor and middle class.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:24 am UTC

Thesh wrote:The question is then how much does it work to reduce inequality. If it is generally going to benefit middle class black and white people over people in impoverished communities, then it could serve to further increase inequality by increasing the gap between the poor and middle class.


It'd reduce inequality as defined by the Gini index. And I think you are just reaching.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:27 am UTC

The point is that policies that benefit the better off without benefiting the worse off does harm the worse off by increasing the barriers to leaving poverty (also, increasing income for the middle class can lead to decreased income for the poor due to price inflation).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:31 am UTC

Thesh wrote:The point is that policies that benefit the better off without benefiting the worse off does harm the worse off by increasing the barriers to leaving poverty (also, increasing income for the middle class can lead to decreased income for the poor due to price inflation).


But that's changing how you've defined helping the middle class.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:36 am UTC

mcd001 wrote:Sorry, but it seems clear to me that the real problem is beliefs and policies (such as critical race theory or identity politics) that encourage people to see themselves has victims, and rewards them when they do. And of course, if there is a victim there must also be an oppressor, and we all know who THAT is. (Me, or people like me.) Gmalivuk comes right out and says it: I am part of the problem. I am the Nazi, who it is permissible to punch.
That's... an extremely simplistic way to look at oppression -- and not, I think, reflective of current critical race theory? I don't see how being a victim means there must be an oppressor; you can be victimized by a system, with every person involved in the process holding only a fraction of the 'blame'. Modern life is full of incidents where the problem wasn't that somebody acted like a Nazi - the problem was that nobody acted like a saint. And these incidents target the most vulnerable segments of society.

And that's kind of what makes institutional racism so difficult. I doubt the judges that are sentencing black people more severely than white people are secret KKK members (I mean, maybe some of them are? IDK these dudes). They're just cogs in a system, pressured to make countless little decisions that add up to big consequences.
mcd001 wrote:But I am not the one who destroyed black families. I am not the one who looked the other way while undocumented workers took all the low-skill entry-level jobs that were once used as stepping stones by minorities and the poor. I am not the one who created a welfare culture that has removed the incentive to work, and in many cases subsumed the desire to work, creating generations of families (overwhelmingly single-parent families) who are completely dependent on government. I am not the one who thinks the solutions to these horrific problems are more and more of the very same policies that created the problems in the first place.
Government assistance programs have a lot of problems, and sometimes involve perverse incentives - but the programs themselves are not the source of the problem they're trying to address.

Poverty existed long before welfare assistance programs tried to address it. You can argue that they haven't been anywhere near as effective as they could be, but they're not why poverty is rampant. A half-assed bandage over a knife-wound might not stop the bleeding - it might even make the bleeding a little worse! - but it isn't why the guy's bleeding. He's bleeding because he's got a hole in his chest.
mcd001 wrote:In retrospect, I suppose it is much easier to think your opponents are cold-hearted monsters, or to blame some faceless, amorphous 'institutional racism', than it is to face the realization that your policies not only have NOT worked, but can NEVER work.
Can you think of any liberal policy regarding race and/or poverty that has worked?

That's a legit question: I think if you legitimately can't, you need to stop and consider that your contempt for these policies might be so great that you've created an ideological blindspot. I mean, ultimately, welfare programs - entitlement programs - they're about trying to help people who are in a bad situation. You can't tell me that you're a Godly person and simultaneously oppose that idea universally. Not unless you're into prosperity gospel (please don't tell me you're into prosperity gospel).

That point aside: You do at least recognize that people of color are several times more likely to be killed by the police -- several times more likely to receive more severe sentencing for similar crimes (under similar circumstances) as white people -- several times more likely to receive the death penalty for killing a white person (as opposed to a white person killing a person of color) -- etc. Right? Because those are all heavily studied, highly understood statistics, and they all point to the existence of institutional racism.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:41 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Thesh wrote:The point is that policies that benefit the better off without benefiting the worse off does harm the worse off by increasing the barriers to leaving poverty (also, increasing income for the middle class can lead to decreased income for the poor due to price inflation).


But that's changing how you've defined helping the middle class.


How so? If you do something that ultimately increases the property prices of areas made up of people living in the $30-$100,000/yr range, without benefiting people making in the $0-$20,000/yr range, then the people who are living in the $0-$20,000 range are going to have trouble moving out of impoverished areas.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8589
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:46 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Thesh wrote:The point is that policies that benefit the better off without benefiting the worse off does harm the worse off by increasing the barriers to leaving poverty (also, increasing income for the middle class can lead to decreased income for the poor due to price inflation).


But that's changing how you've defined helping the middle class.


How so? If you do something that ultimately increases the property prices of areas made up of people living in the $30-$100,000/yr range, without benefiting people making in the $0-$20,000/yr range, then the people who are living in the $0-$20,000 range are going to have trouble moving out of impoverished areas.



If you have inflation and the lower classes don't keep up, you have effectively harmed the lower class. I'm not denying this. The question I have is how, assuming the lower class has the same real, not nominal income, the lower class is harmed by the middle class improving.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests