Jusstice: I'm going to need another day at least to figure out how to even begin to respond to your post, because I legitimately have no idea what to do about this:
But what’s more likely to be called out as “racist” is if I put forward the question where the person came from, then maybe share stories of when I visited there, what food I ate, so on. Because how could I have concluded that the person is from somewhere else unless, god forbid, I notice that they are a different race. It’s as if acknowledging the existence of Chicken and Waffles is “racist”.
So, if I understand this correctly, your go-to conversation strategy when talking to a black person who is a complete stranger is to open with how you think he doesn’t belong here on account of his skin color, and then work chicken and waffles into the conversation?
My entire argument is not even about me, so, seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
Really, you didn't spend the last post defending whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate based on race?
No, of course you did, so can the feigned incredulousness.
Because, they're not going to feel bad for being called a racist, they're going to feel bad because they think they're being unfairly called racist.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with calling someone a racist if, indeed, they conform to the definition of the term "racist."
Second, do I even need to point out the frankly appalling amount of hypocrisy you're demonstrating? You have been repeatedly saying that treating black people who have done nothing wrong as criminals is fine and acceptable. Meanwhile, calling someone a racist when they're being racist, is something you're going to rail against as unjust and unfair.
So, to review, it's perfectly fine in your book to make completely erroneous judgments about a black person being a criminal based on no knowledge of the person at all except his/her black skin, but if we were to call a person who's being racist and holding racist beliefs - in short, who conforms in every way to the definition of "racist" - a racist, THAT'S unfair and wrong?
Why is that? Is it because the former involves a group of people you're not a part of, and the latter involves a group of people you are a part of, and so you're getting all defensive?
There is no such thing as "the definition of racist". As long as people have different interpretations of the word, there is little sense in using it.
Stop wasting everyone's time and actually address the question.
Here, let's just go with the Google definition of racist: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
So, in light of that definition, some questions:
1. Does this definition describe you, yes or no?
2. Do you feel that being a racist, according to the Google definition, is an acceptable and fine thing to be, yes or no?
And then you have the basket of deplorables. Mostly, I'd call them yuppies but most of them aren't that young now. A lot of them in banking and tech. (Steve Bannon, for instance, worked for Goldman Sachs.)
Yuppies? I must be missing something here. The "basket of deplorables" refers to working-class whites that hold politically incorrect views that cosmopolitans mercilessly mock. i.e., people that are far away from being yuppies. Think Archie Bunker from All in the Family.
If blackness of skin is associated with a higher probability of being a criminal, then yes, it is justified to consider a black stranger as more likely to be a criminal than a white stranger.
So what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
The whole problem here is that by calling someone a racist, you'd be inferring that they think whites are superior to blacks, whereas they may just be only prejudiced against blacks. It's not the same thing at all.
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
The "basket of deplorables" refers to working-class whites that hold politically incorrect views that cosmopolitans mercilessly mock.
"Mercilessly mock"? We're talking about people who are openly prejudiced and support defiance of equal protection under the law, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't think there's rational basis for giving such people negative regard? Do you think it's a positive thing to trample on other peoples' rights?
No, I didn't. This discussion is not about whether or not it is acceptable.
Of course it is.
You're making posts saying, "Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out. DOES YOUR HEART NOT WEEP FOR THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND THEIR ATROCIOUS BELIEFS BEING IGNORED?"
The answer is no. Not only because they're terrible people but because, as you yourself admit, their arguments have **** all in terms of rational basis. And guess what? When an argument has **** all in terms of rational basis, you can freely discard it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If there's no rational basis for concluding that because one black guy wronged you, every black guy is going to wrong you (and there's not, because that's a logical fallacy), then we can freely toss that argument out.
That's the foundation of rational discourse. Which is why you, whose are completely without rational justification, have resorted to what everyone does who is without rational basis in their arguments but don't want to admit they're wrong, which is to try to claim that their argument does not actually need to be rational.
Where have I argued that this is rational?
Oh, so there's no rational basis behind this? Fantastic. Then we can throw it out, because it has no merit whatsoever.
[quote]That is definitely one of the reasons we have to be wary concerning arguments based on differences between races. But that doesn't mean these arguments can't have merit and it definitely means we have to address them when they come up
Except it does. You just said that the arguments promoting racism are not rational and therefore have no rational basis. Meaning they are without merit, for they have neither rational basis nor evidence. And therefore, the correct way to address them is to discard them, and since they are without rational basis or evidence, we may dismiss them without rational basis or evidence.
It's a completely different line of reasoning.
You're saying it's wrong to correctly call people racists when they are racists, but it's fine to call people criminals when they're not actually criminals. So yeah, that is a completely different line of reasoning, and what it's completely different from is anything sensible.
You're associating color of skin with higher probability of commiting a crime, based on profiling.
No, I'm not. YOU are. I'm saying you are wrong for doing so.
It is true that the factors which result in one committing a crime affect disproportionately affect black people. There's nothing racist about saying that, it's a simple fact. However, the answer to this is not, "Treat black people as criminals by default." THAT is racism, and you are demonstrating it right now.
First of all, let's clarify something: "Black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes" =/= "the majority of crimes are committed by black people." The majority of violent crimes in this country are committed by white people. If a violent crime is committed, it's most likely going to be a white person. Like 42.9% of the time most likely. The percentage is much higher than any other race, and almost double that of black people. Should we regard all white people as criminals as a default assumption?
According to you, yes, we absolutely should.
If blackness of skin is associated with a higher probability of being a criminal, then yes, it is justified to consider a black stranger as more likely to be a criminal than a white stranger.
So yes, according to you, we should fear all white people.
Except this is stupid and ridiculous. Just because white people commit nearly twice as many violent crimes as black people does not mean that any given white person is inherently twice as likely to commit a crime as a black person. Moreover, you'd committing the fallacious assumption that just because the majority of violent criminals are white, then we are justified in also thinking the majority of white people are violent criminals.
Moreover, you'd be making extraordinarily unfair judgments against people because whiteness does not make one a violent criminal. There are other factors at work here, and to claim that there's any causation is an absolute absurdity.
In the latter case, you're calling someone a racist which works under your impression of the word,
Under the definition of the word. Words have definitions.
Which is a counterproductive method of trying to get people to reduce this behavior.
Answer me this: do you believe we should be reducing this kind of behavior? Do you believe that racist behavior should be reduced?
The analogy from the black person's point of view would be to treat any strange white person they meet as a racist.
Yeah, and that would be a *****ty thing to do. Generally we do want to make the world less *****ty for people, yes?
Well, obviously not all of us want this. Some of us only want to make the world less *****ty for the people who look like us and even *****tier for the people who don't look like us. But the point is those people are jerks.
It's the difference between erroneously inferring something about a person based on limited information and inferring something about a person with unspecific meaning but based on directly relevant information.
No, there's no inference in the second situation. There's no guessing involved here. In the first situation, you're presuming something about someone's behavior. In the second situation, there's no guesswork, you're directly observing someone being racist and concluding that they're racist.
The whole problem here is that by calling someone a racist, you'd be inferring that they think whites are superior to blacks, whereas they may just be only prejudiced against blacks. It's not the same thing at all.
The whole problem here is that by calling someone a racist, you'd be inferring that they think whites are superior to blacks, whereas they may just be only prejudiced against blacks. It's not the same thing at all.
So what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
I was merely pointing out the thought process behind this sort of prejudice. Discrimination based on race is often decried as absurd because it's just a difference in skin color. People who discriminate are depicted as idiots who are afraid of people who look different for no reason at all. But there is reasoning behind prejudice.
Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways? It seems like this point is coming out of nowhere. Also, as you implied yourself, there's a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. One is an opinion, the other is an action on such an opinion. Reasoning is not 100% transitive in that case, as one can reason that "Maybe even though I have this opinion, I won't act on it because I'm willing to compromise with society."
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
No. The easiest way to find this out is by assuming instead that you prefer apples because you know you won't stand a chance against pineapples in a fight (and you're unsure about pens). So by changing the underlying reason you can actually get a scenario where you discriminate because you consider pineapples to be superior.
So are we going to define positive and negative superiority and positive and negative inferiority? Anyways, your argument appears to assume that I'm going to get in a fight and that person X will make it impossible to hold reasonable conversation, which is generally considered an inferiority on the side of person X.
Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways?
*Raises hand* I'm right here, man.
You may have implied that it was just based on a difference in skin color, but I'm not sure if I would qualify that as explicit in any of your posts. I also would expect that you would agree that it is at least a bit more complicated than that, though not in a sense to reduce inclusivity of the definition of racism.
I'd certainly not say that you were describing it as "being for no reason." I doubt that you believe that it is "for no reason" any more than I do.
And then you have the basket of deplorables. Mostly, I'd call them yuppies but most of them aren't that young now. A lot of them in banking and tech. (Steve Bannon, for instance, worked for Goldman Sachs.)
Yuppies? I must be missing something here. The "basket of deplorables" refers to working-class whites that hold politically incorrect views that cosmopolitans mercilessly mock. i.e., people that are far away from being yuppies. Think Archie Bunker from All in the Family.
Except whites making under $50k went to Clinton. The alt right types come mostly from banking and tech.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
We've been talking about how America has become so polarized, a process that is seen in similar form in many European countries. This whole discussion started when Jay stated there was a difference between the extremists that are being decried on the left and the right.
Because you're completely ignoring the rationale (or complete lack thereof) of one side saying that the other is wrong and they are right.
Hell, imagine a murder trial in which all evidence points to the defendant being guilty, including camera footage of the defendant committing the murder, DNA evidence linking the defendant to the scene of the crime, and the defendant making a Twitter post saying how he murdered the guy. Is the judge justified in saying, "Well, I dunno, I mean, one side says the other side is wrong and they're right, but the other side says that the other side is wrong and they're right, seems equivalent to me"? NO! That's absurd! And that's what you're doing!
I didn't really see this big difference and think it mostly arises because he and you assume one of the two sides is right and the other is wrong.
... *Sigh* Just... Don't become a judge.
So, essentially, you're strongly contributing to the polarization yourself.
Polarization is not a problem when the other side is unambiguously wrong. It's why any sane person would look at the Civil War and say that, however horrific and unfortunate the war was, to have allowed slavery to continue in order to prevent the war would be a far worse circumstance.
Which is fine if you want this polarization to continue and eventually escalate.
Sometimes we do, when the polarization means compromising on our morals, fundamental values, and human decency. Tolerating injustice in order to play nice with people who are unjust is unacceptable in any society that wishes to claim it is a just society. Therefore, accepting intolerance and bigotry is unacceptable. Moreover, it is not only unacceptable, it is fundamentally against the equal protection under the law that every citizen is guaranteed.
Inductive reasoning is not a fallacy.
"This utensil is a spoon, therefore all utensils must be spoons" is absolutely a fallacy. So too is "this black man is a criminal, therefore all black men are criminals" also a fallacy. Doesn't change to being a correct statement just because a black guy is suffering in this particular instance.
Yes, human emotions can definitely be thrown out, because they have no influence over human behavior whatsoever.
Oh were you under the strange assumption that an argument based purely on emotion and not facts or rational basis has any place in logical discourse? You're just digging yourself deeper into a hole.
Once again, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
There is no simple answer to it. Individual responses are strongly emotionally based and biased through their backgrounds.
An argument does not magically become correct just because you hate black people. Emotion does not dictate what is factual and what is not.
Incidentally, I love how you're simultaneously arguing that there is reasoning and statistical basis behind racism to osiorb, but then you make statements about how you never said that you never said racism was rational and how it is purely based on emotion, but somehow that's ok because of you don't think the burden of proof should apply to you.
These are, of course, completely contradictory statements - something cannot have both rational basis and have no basis in rationality - but you're arguing them anyway. Either you have no argument or you do not yourself know what it is.
You're not likely to change these through repression.
You're not going to change it at all if you refuse to stand up to it. The Civil Rights Movement didn't happen because people were talking about how acceptable and understandable it is to be horrendous to one's fellow man.
No, because that's not how profiling works. It starts by identifying a stranger as black. With no other information available, the odds that this person will commit a crime are higher than if he were white.
Based on what? As I've said, crime statistics indicate that white people commit a far higher percentage of violent crimes. As I said, almost twice as many as black people. If I picked a random violent crime that was committed in the United States in 2012-2013, and told you it a violent crime was committed in the US in 2012-2013, and you knew nothing else about the crime, and I asked you to guess the race of the perpetrator, your best guess would be "white," because your likelihood of being correct would be higher than if you had guessed any other race. So by your logic, the odds are a WHITE person is the one whom you should be more afraid of.
And you're just demonstrating the problem of racism. You're presuming that black people are the greatest offenders of violent crime in this country when the actual reality is that white people commit FAR MORE violent crimes, and WAY more violent crimes against white people, than black people do. You've also presumed that complaints against black people leeching off the welfare system have basis, when the evidence points to the contrary, that the greater burden on the welfare system is poor white people.
And this demonstrates a huge problem. It's bad enough to completely misinterpret what data says, but you're making a statement and claiming there's data backing it up and the data's not even there!
Yes, words have definitions. Plural.
Then define racist.
Again, it's not about me.
It's the topic being discussed. Jay and I are saying that the polarization is based around positions on the treatment of race and ethnicity - which you yourself seem to agree with - and we are arguing that while both sides view themselves as the correct side, one side has the superior claim because it is the side arguing against the racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory policies of the other.
So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.
The problem is that it's a *****ty thing to do, but it is done precisely because people do *****ty things to each other. It's a preventative mechanism to reduce the amount of *****tiness done to each other.
So then shall we conclude that any given white person is a violent criminal until proven otherwise?
Because earlier you were perfectly ok with us making such presumptions about black people, and unlike you, I actually HAVE basis in saying that white people statistically commit more violent crimes.
So, what would you do about them? Do you think they're going to go away if you call them jerks or terrible people?
I believe there is exactly zero chance of them changing if we continue to tell them that their behavior is acceptable, or simply ignore their behavior and let them get away with it. The only chance of creating a fair and just society is if people actively stand up and confront such people and tell them that such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
And this has been demonstrated with the Abolitionist movement. There was once a time when enslaving a black man was an unquestioned norm. Now it is unthinkable. This has been demonstrated with the Civil Rights Movement. There was once a time when forbidding a black person from entering the same building as a white person was a norm. Now it is unthinkable. And both of these practices are unheard of now because the majority of people recognize them as horrendous, harmful, immoral practices against one's fellow man. This happened because people stood up to injustice and said, "This is wrong, and you are wrong for performing it."
There is zero chance of getting someone to change their racist behavior until they acknowledge that (A) their behavior is racist, and (B) that racism is wrong. But most people aren't willing to admit that they have performed wrong and are part of the problem. The only way to get them to do so is by confronting them and saying they are part of the problem and that continued denial is unacceptable. Whether they choose to change is up to them, that's how free will works, but there's zero chance of getting someone to change an incorrect belief unless you tell them their belief is incorrect.
Highroller continuously turned the description back to focus on skin color and that it is baseless prejudice.
All prejudice is baseless. If it had basis, it would not be prejudice. It would be a logical judgement based on evidence, a judgment, and not a prejudgment.
Polarization is not a problem when the other side is unambiguously wrong.
Certainly not. But maybe we're defining the sides differently than you. I know that I am. E.g., I hope no one pours toxic waste in the river but that doesn't mean I have to support the E.L.F. (Or, similarly, a vote for Jill Stein doesn't justify E.L.F. behaviors.)
It's why any sane person would look at the Civil War and say that, however horrific and unfortunate the war was, to have allowed slavery to continue in order to prevent the war would be a far worse circumstance.
Polarization is not a problem when the other side is unambiguously wrong. It's why any sane person would look at the Civil War and say that, however horrific and unfortunate the war was, to have allowed slavery to continue in order to prevent the war would be a far worse circumstance.
So, what else would you go to war for?
You realize most civil wars today and throughout history haven't been about slavery, right? The U.S. Civil War is hardly the first or the last civil war that has ever occurred. There are apparently a myriad of reasons to go to war with your own country.
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he was saying. And that made me feel uncomfortable. I mean, this guy is a racist, right? No good person should find themselves agreeing with a racist. Even after reading the whole post, and concluding that there was actually nothing racist about it, I still felt uncomfortable.
It's become so toxic to argue against something being racist. And it's so easy and rewarding to argue that something is racist. After all, you know you're on the side of good, right?
It's pretty worrying that anyone can read Mad Mat's post and come away from it thinking, yes, this guy is a racist, this is someone who believes that people should be judged by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character. At least in this case, I really think it comes down to one issue: the definition of racism. The definition I use (and I think that Mad Mat uses) is: believing that one race is inherently superior to another. And I think Highroller's definition (which, to avoid confusion, I call racial prejudice) is: incorporating information about a person's race into your treatment of them.
Racists exhibit racial prejudice, but not all who exhibit racial prejudice are racist. If you were to ask a real racist why he didn't hire that black man, he'd answer, "Because he's black." If you ask someone who is racially prejudiced, he might answer, "He looked unprofessional." It's not that the second guy is just hiding his racism. In his conscious mind, he doesn't believe any race is superior to another. But his prejudice comes out in his behavior.
You might say, "Well that's stupid, if they both act the same way towards black people, then it doesn't matter." But I think it does matter, for a few reasons. If someone is merely racially prejudiced, they'll change their behavior if they realize their bias. But calling them a racist isn't the way to do this. Remember, they don't think they're racist, and they'll just become defensive and unwilling to engage with you.
The second problem is, everyone exhibits racial prejudice. There was an experiment where subjects were shown faces of black or white people, and told to pair either positive or negative words with the faces. Basically everyone, as you might expect, is faster at putting positive words with white faces, and negative words with black faces. Even black experimental subjects showed this bias.
There have been other experiments with submitting job applications which are identical in everything but the name of the prospective employee. Resumes with stereotypically black-sounding names were less likely to be called back. This is not because all employers believe that black people are biologically inferior to white people. They've just grown up with certain experiences and pressures that shape their behavior. Mad Mat's explanation of how we use prejudice as a shortcut in decision-making is spot-on. It's just an optimization feature of the human brain that's actually totally necessary for everyday functioning. Some people (actually, probably all people) just have problems disabling this optimization in certain situations.
You're making posts saying, "Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out. DOES YOUR HEART NOT WEEP FOR THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND THEIR ATROCIOUS BELIEFS BEING IGNORED?"
I find this attitude to be the biggest problem in this debate. If you want to actually change someone's mind, belittling and mimicking the other side's point of view is not going to get you anywhere.
If that's really what you hear when reading Mad Mat's posts, that's a valid reaction, but a constructive way to express this might be something like, "Wow, Mad Mat, when I read your posts, I can't get past the sense that what you're really saying is, 'Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out.' That can't really be what you're saying, right? If not, can you explain how what you're saying is different?"
Jusstice: I'm going to need another day at least to figure out how to even begin to respond to your post, because I legitimately have no idea what to do about this:
But what’s more likely to be called out as “racist” is if I put forward the question where the person came from, then maybe share stories of when I visited there, what food I ate, so on. Because how could I have concluded that the person is from somewhere else unless, god forbid, I notice that they are a different race. It’s as if acknowledging the existence of Chicken and Waffles is “racist”.
So, if I understand this correctly, your go-to conversation strategy when talking to a black person who is a complete stranger is to open with how you think he doesn’t belong here on account of his skin color, and then work chicken and waffles into the conversation?
And somehow he's the one who's being the problem?
Yeah, let me get back to you.
You’re muddling the issue with the words you’ve chosen to use. First, not "belonging" somewhere is completely different than not being originally from somewhere. Fact, Vermont is 96% White according to the census. Another fact, other states especially those in the South have a much, much higher percent of Black populations. Given those two facts, forming a preliminary conclusion that a Black person you meet in Vermont is likely from another state is completely warranted. As Mad Max has said, people draw conclusions, and we do so because it is superior from an evolutionary standpoint to not doing so. Thank goodness we don’t have to shut down the inductive reasoning part of our brain to stop being racist. But nowhere in forming the conclusion that being Black in Vermont is not typical do I see discrimination, or the insinuation that someone doesn’t “belong”. Fact is, US citizens have a constitutional right of travel freely within the states, and in that sense at least, they “belong” everywhere.
Also, who are you saying that I consider “the problem”. It’s not a Black person who might not be comfortable talking about their background. It’s when one White person talks to a Black person about their background in a way that’s perfectly acceptable to both of them, then a third White person isn’t comfortable with them doing it. That White person will raise the eyebrow at the other White person, as if to say, “How could you openly discuss differences like that? That’s racist!”.
In my experience in the US also, having a conversation about the place someone grew up is presumptively not unwelcome. But generally anyway, people are very good at having a sense of when another person is being genuine and is comfortable with them. If you are, it’s pretty unlikely that someone will perceive an honest question as needling you. And if you aren’t comfortable with that person, avoiding the acknowledgment of their race and background isn’t enough to get you an “I’m not racist” pass. To the contrary, they will probably see right through to the fact that your outlook is whitewashed.
Don’t want to take my word for it, go read what Black people in that kind of setting are saying about talking race with White people (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-i-dont-talk-about-race-white-people). Basically, people are tired of White people approaching the issue with the exclusive goal of establishing that they aren’t racist. The White person who refuses to acquaint themselves with somebody of another race due to not wanting to possibly discover uncomfortable differences, that person is out to reinforce their private, individual sense of non-racism. And even if they aren’t racist, seems like Black people feel that them keeping quiet to justify to themselves that they’re race-blind supports a racist system with these silent biases. Better to realize you are a different race than somebody and go on trying to find common ground with that person than just trying to ignore it. If they’ve been tiptoed around or similar by other people of your race, yeah that’s too bad, people should be less uncomfortable with races different than theirs.
An argument does not magically become correct just because you hate black people. Emotion does not dictate what is factual and what is not.
Incidentally, I love how you're simultaneously arguing that there is reasoning and statistical basis behind racism to osiorb, but then you make statements about how you never said that you never said racism was rational and how it is purely based on emotion, but somehow that's ok because of you don't think the burden of proof should apply to you.
These are, of course, completely contradictory statements - something cannot have both rational basis and have no basis in rationality - but you're arguing them anyway. Either you have no argument or you do not yourself know what it is.
This idea is really misplaced that you can prove/disprove a political opinion if you can find an invalid logical construction for it. Again, grey areas. Inductive reasoning is about likelihoods and probabilities, not scientific falsification and air-tight logic.
Certain people also seem to confuse when someone is mentioning the fact that people have a certain rationale with that person actually advancing that rationale as argument. Mad Mat should be able to say that some people think X about Black people based on Y, without being understood that he believes that himself. After all, we are talking as the topic of the thread why opinions are polarized, which would probably necessitate raising the fact of there being a polarized opinion toward one side. But as soon as he raises that viewpoint for the sake of the fact that it exists, he’s bombarded with questions about how he could possible believe such a thing himself. Racist! Come on, people.
At least in this case, I really think it comes down to one issue: the definition of racism. The definition I use (and I think that Mad Mat uses) is: believing that one race is inherently superior to another. And I think Highroller's definition (which, to avoid confusion, I call racial prejudice) is: incorporating information about a person's race into your treatment of them.
This is the crux of it, really. And to borrow the prior analogy by osieorb with apples, pineapples, and pens, you certainly can have strong opinions on something without believing that thing is superior or inferior. Let’s say I have a pet that eats apples, and is poisoned by pineapples. Maybe a former pet of mine of the same species died of pineapple poisoning. My friend though has a pet that’s poisoned by apples, and eats pineapples. So, I don’t want pineapples in my house, but I would certainly not vote for laws prohibiting pineapples. And there is plenty of room for pens to be in my house, either way.
Odd that someone would bring up who is fit to be a judge and who isn’t, also. As I said before, confusion seems to be stemming from this precept that people ought to think like judges in their everyday lives, or that approaching issues of race, etc, with anything less than a judge’s impartiality is unfair. Fact is, the only real time where people are held to a standard of being blind to another person’s status is exactly that, a judge or jury in a court room. Sit down with drinks at party with someone and start talking about where their accent comes from, see how far it gets you to say something like, “Sorry, I’m not allowed to consider the fact of your national origin in my judgment of whether I enjoy this conversation, so I would prefer if we kept those facts out of it.” How absurd is that? And in the end, where is the benefit of diversity there? If people can’t hear the experiences of someone different without feeling uncomfortable that those differences might be influencing their opinion of that person, who benefits there? Way off base.
We're talking politics, not historical fact. Politics is to quite some extent determined by values, which may differ in importance between people and are completely irrational concepts so not disputable.
You can absolutely dispute something that is irrational.
This probably explains a lot of your previous posts, so let me explain: an irrational argument is an argument we throw out. It's not like being "on base" in a game of tag, you don't get to say, "My argument is irrational, therefore you can't attack it."
No, you can attack it. On the grounds that it is irrational. Like, you admitting to me that your argument is irrational is admitting that your argument can be thrown away, you're doing my job for me.
What can be disputed is the cited statistics used to support certain political arguments. Statistics can be biased, misleading, irrelevant, manipulated or even fabricated. But this is a very difficult assessment to make for even the most eminent expert in that certain field
So, this is what I find to be funny. You talk about how your argument has no rational basis and is completely irrational WHILE AT THE SAME TIME touting to osiorb the basis of your argument in statistics (which would constitute rational basis). Anyone is capable of seeing the contradiction right there.
But now, because I pointed out you have no statistics backing you, AND I have used my own statistics to take your argument down, you're attacking the validity of using statistics.
So, to review, you were trumpeting the rational basis and statistical basis of your arguments when you thought that was going to work for you, but when it was pointed out you have neither, your response was to come back and say, "Oh yeah? Well who needs rationality or statistical basis anyway? Not me! I don't need it!"
I don't think I need to say why it's impossible to take your argument seriously. Incidentally, what do you even have to support you at this point? "Irrationality!" Ok great, then I'm going to continue doing what I've been doing, which is throwing your argument away. Because everyone should. Because... Everyone together now:
So, what else would you go to war for? You can polarize any issue to the point of civil war, but is it worth it to do that all the time?
If the idea is legalized mistreatment of our fellow citizens, yes. Going to war over such an issue is why we're a country in the first place.
You may have heard of a statement that goes along the lines of:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You might want to Google it. It's kind of important.
There's really a couple of ways to look at racist behavior. They may be racist because their values are different than yours.
Uh, yes, clearly their values are different from mine. They do not believe in equal protection under the law and that all men are created equal. There's no subjunctive here, their values ARE different from mine.
They may be racist because they believe different things are true than you do
Again, obviously.
Is all of that worth going to war for?
YES!
So, essentially, you do not believe in democracy but in tyranny? Anyone who does not agree with your outlook should be repressed?
Yes, I am tyrannical in that I am forcing freedom, equality, representative government, and the lack of any one person infringing upon the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness upon people. That is exactly how in the hell tyranny works. [/sarcasm]
To you, every sort of racism is such a vile behavior
Racism is indeed universally vile, yes.
that it warrants cracking down on, regardless of its cause or of the impact on society of such a crackdown, running the risk of disenfranchising a significant segment of society to escalate into a physical conflict?
"Crackdown" implies I'm in favor of a thought-police, which could not be further from the truth. I support the decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and absolutely believe in a free exchange of ideas. I would fight for the KKK's right to express their ideas. I do not, however, consider those ideas to be moral or remotely acceptable, which is why I believe it is the responsibility of all just and moral people to stand against them. There's a difference between disagreement and suppression. I don't believe in suppressing your beliefs, but I absolutely will disagree with them and vocalize my disagreement.
However, you then go into talk of "disenfranchising a significant segment of society." Firstly, no, I don't believe in disenfranchising people in society. This is why I stand against racists. You are standing FOR them. Your outrage is hypocritical. If you don’t like disenfranchisement, why are you defending the people who seek to disenfranchise others (you know, when they’re not looking to outright kill them)?
As for escalating things into political conflict, as I said, the fundamental right of every citizen to equal protection under the law regardless of race is one of the cornerstones of America, and of justice itself. If justice and moral right are not worth fighting for, then nothing is.
That's not the type of reasoning being used here. Say I know that of all red utensils X% are spoons, whereas of all blue utensils a greater Y% are spoons. That makes it more probable that when I have a blue utensil, that it is a spoon, than when I have a red utensil.
No, it's exactly the reasoning being used here. You're saying that "one black person wronged me, therefore all black people wronged me," is valid rational basis.
Well, more accurately, you're arguing the valid rational basis of your argument AND SIMULTANEOUSLY arguing that there is no rational basis at all and it's completely irrational. Which contradicts.
Political discourse is absolutely meaningless without considering emotions.
I'm not denying that people have emotions. I'm denying your claim that a conclusion based solely on emotion is valid. In fact, you, on some level, seem to agree with this, given that you're trying to defend the rationality of your arguments despite admitting elsewhere that you have none.
You seriously have a problem with understanding that things can be not 0 and not 1 at the same time.
And you seriously have a problem understanding that things cannot have rational basis and simultaneously have no rational basis. Something cannot be p and not-p at the same time, that's a basic rule of logic.
Racism can have statistical basis and rational reasoning behind it
It can't, actually. You can’t argue irrational fears have rational basis. You seem to be understanding this, given that you continue to state outright that your arguments aren’t based on rationality.
It's frankly difficult to disentangle these things.
It's extremely easy to disentangle the difference between someone who draws a conclusion based on evidence from someone who makes an argument from an emotionally biased stance and then flimsily tries to throw in misinterpreted statistics and pseudoscience into the mix to try to hide the fact that there's nothing but emotion backing the argument.
Of course they can. Say, someone is racist against black people, because he thinks black people are ugly and look primitive, yet also because he saw various statistics showing how they are doing so bad despite various confounding factors not being different, because he read a book on how their different DNA left them with genetically inferior minds and because he had plenty of very negative encounters with them in school and on the street. Which of these reasons explain why the person is racist? You may say that those statistics and that book are utter bull*****,
They are utter bull*****, yes.
but that doesn't make the thought process of using them as argument irrational.
Yes, of course it does. These books and facts are complete bull***** because they have no rational basis behind them. Moreover, they are transparently bull*****. Literally any amount of factchecking, or any understanding of the fields of study they pertain to, would demonstrate that they are.
The key is scrutiny, and the lack thereof. Not applying scrutiny to a claim is ABSOLUTELY irrational.
You’ll notice this is what is going on in the scenario above, the person is demonstrating a deliberate lack of scrutiny because these things are telling the person in the scenario WANTS to hear. What you’re dealing is a person who came in with a bias against black people and who are actively looking for evidence to prove their biases, and so proceed to pull any statistic that might make black people look bad, and say, “HA! Proof!” when it’s not actually evidence that supports what he’s saying.
Revolutionary change might go faster
You're just going to continue to ignore that Civil Rights Movement thing, aren't you? Ok then.
My best guess would be white under that scenario, but that is not the scenario that happens when you see a black person. The black person is a given, what is unknown is whether he is a criminal.
And your best guess would be no, because the majority of black people aren't criminals. Incidentally, that's true of all races.
It's almost as though you need to base it on the PERSON, and not THEIR COLOR OF SKIN. Crazy right?
I haven't presumed any of that, or argued that any of that is true.
That’s obviously incorrect. You're arguing for the validity of these people based on statistics. So yes, you've argued that it's true.
Also, are you admitting that these arguments AREN'T true? Great! That means we can dismiss them! Because:
If reality doesn't matter to what you are arguing, that should be your first indication that there's a problem, Mad Mat.
These people think that such statistics are as you claim them not to be.
And Flat Earth Theorists claim the Earth is not the shape I claim it to be.
Again, that's why we shouldn't be the person who sees two sides disagreeing, and then says, "Ok, well you say he's wrong and you're right, he's says you're wrong and he's right, I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU TWO!" No, we should not be this person.
What we should be doing is looking at what the two sides are arguing, and then look into the logic and evidence behind those arguments, and then attempt to evaluate the overall validity of the arguments.
Doesn't that sound good? Moreover, doesn't it sound better than, "Well, this argument has all the evidence behind it, and this argument has nothing but the emotions of hatred and vindictiveness behind it... They seem about equal to me"?
And if the problem of racism is that people base their judgment on incorrect statistics, your most effective course of action would be to correct those statistics to them.
First of all, that would constitute confronting them about being wrong, which you are so vehemently against.
Second, you yourself have agreed that there exist such people who are not objective and unbiased, but who are, quite the contrary, biased against a particular race or races, and turn to whatever "evidence" they can find to rationalize their own hatred. These are not otherwise objective people who mistakenly turned to faulty evidence, or misinterpreted actual facts, and so drew racist conclusions. These are people who do not actually care if the statistics are right or not, as long as their biases are legitimized. And no, such people - who very much make up "the problem of racism" - are not going to be dissuaded from their racist beliefs simply by my pointing out that they have no evidence to prop up their arguments.
Not humiliate and decry them.
I should absolutely decry any immoral or unjust argument. This isn't a mere statistical error, it's a person who is attempting to rationalize being horrible to their fellow man. Being horrible to one's fellow man not only should be decried, it MUST be decried for any just society to exist.
That is the problem of polarization: you are alienating people who could (still) work with you, who essentially agree with you.
No, people who believe in injustice toward their fellow man based on their race, gender, creed, or sexuality are most emphatically people who do not agree with me.
By understanding why they think the way they do,
You are conflating understanding the way someone thinks with agreeing with them. This is erroneous. I can perfectly understand why someone thinks the way they do without agreeing with it myself.
There's no problem with understanding why someone commits injustice towards his fellow man. There is every problem with condoning or affirming someone's committing injustice towards his fellow man.
Which is what you don’t seem to grasp. What you’re talking about isn’t “understanding,” it’s “complacency.” It’s complacency in the face of people being horrible and unjust and advocating atrocities against innocent people. And that is wrong. We should not be complacent in the face of immorality.
you may change their minds, even if indirectly. And even if fundamental disagreements will remain, these people may still be of help to you to ward off other excesses. What good is fighting for justice in society if you do not stand a chance of winning and risk making matters much worse for those you are fighting for?
The Civil Rights Movement ruffled many feathers. It resulted in many people getting killed, and many people being jailed, and many people being harmed. It also resulted in a great deal of good. "Do not stand a chance of winning"? Only by fighting does one stand a chance of winning.
See, this is the very problem that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he states that the greatest stumbling block to black people gaining the freedom they sought was the person 'who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice:
Quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. »
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
He could have been speaking about this thread and his words would be just as apt.
No, the question would be: do you believe that one side has the superior claim?
Obviously.
And I don't know the answer to that question,
You don't know whether people should be judge not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? You don't know whether we should treat people with fairness regardless of race? You don't know whether it's wrong or perfectly fine to disenfranchise, rape, kill, enslave, or exile millions of people based purely on their ethnicity?
although I don't believe it to be as easy as you both claim.
It is.
But even if it were superior, that does not automatically justify your radical approach.
Telling someone who is morally wrong that they are morally wrong is a "radical approach"? Telling someone who is incorrect they're incorrect is a "radical approach"?
Politics matter and if most people do not agree with you even if you are right, it may still be counterproductive towards your goal to do all what it takes to fight those people that are wrong rather than attempt to convince them of your rightness or attempt to compromise with them in order to prevent worse from happening.
I'm going to let Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do the talking.
Quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. »
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
Your statistical basis is less solid than 'mine',
No it’s not. You have absolutely no statistical basis whatsoever. That’s the whole point.
What I’m telling you is that, if you were to choose to interpret the fact that black people commit crimes as reason to fear black people, that is not only a gross misunderstanding/deliberate misrepresentation of what the actual statistics say, but by your own rationale, you would have to regard white people as FAR more dangerous. White people commit way more violent crimes as a whole than black people do. Furthermore, assuming you’re white, you would have much more cause to fear white people because white people not only commit violent crimes than black people do, they also commit FAR more crimes against white people than any other race does. In 2012-2013, over 50% of all violent crimes against white people were commited by white people. That’s right, over half!
Now, does this mean you should be afraid of a white person just because you know he’s a white person? Hell no! That’s the point: to illustrate the absolute absurdity behind what you’re saying.
but if you are very paranoid about your safety, it is a rational consideration to make.
Paranoia is not rational by very definition.
So, the only two options are "rudely confront them" and "do jack *****"?
Is it rude to tell someone it is wrong to be horrendous to his fellow man?
Not, implement measures to improve cultural mixing, implement measures to mitigate some of the triggers that makes people get racist thoughts (such as violent crime, radical islamism, ghettofication, bullying), promote positive yet realistic stereotypes, reduce economic inequality, ensure society's values are followed by migrants, improve employment possibilities for migrants, reduce foreign inequality, mitigate foreign conflicts...
What do you think people are trying to do? What do you think is actively being opposed by the very people you've spent so long in this thread defending?
Imagine if I jumped on your back and hung on to you while you were trying to run a 5K, and then when you were in the efforts of trying to get all of my weight off you, I said in response, “Really? Your only option is to be rude to me or do nothing? Why don’t you just run harder?”
Notice the presumptions, here. First, I’m acting like you’re the problem, when I’m clearly doing whatever I can to ACTIVELY OBSTRUCT YOUR FORWARD PATH. Second, running the race is exactly what you’re trying to do, and were doing before I jumped on and made things more difficult. Third, trying to get me to stop being horrible to you isn’t rude, it’s entirely justifiable.
So, with that in mind, reread what you wrote. It's the same thing.
It's like asking the people who were protesting during the 60s in the Civil Rights Movement, "Well why do you have to protest all the time? Why don't you just go get the legislation passed that would give you the equal rights that you want?" It belies a fundamental ignorance of why they're protesting and who they're protesting against.
Maybe it's not effective, maybe they will never agree, maybe YOU are wrong? But with your approach, you're going to do as much good as the War on Drugs did. Crack down on the consequences while ever ignoring the causes of the initial problem.
Civil Rights Movement succeeded.
And here I thought they happened because more than two million people were butchered in a violent confrontation?
Because there were those who were willing to defend their unjust institutions through violence and force, and who did precisely that.
I think there's little chance of getting someone to change an incorrect belief by telling them it's incorrect. There is, however, a chance that they will change if you adress what makes them erroneously think it is correct.
... Which is telling them they're being incorrect.
Highroller, do you get the feeling that there's some miscommunication going on here at a fundamental level? I tried to address this in my previous post.
Basically, what I see in this exchange is Mad Mat and Jusstice laying out these nuanced arguments about prejudice, and your response is unfailingly, "But racism is wrong!"
I feel pretty safe in saying that no one with whom you are arguing believes that racism is okay, but given that you've taken to quoting Dr. King, it doesn't seem that we're on the same page. I think this is at least in part due to your more open-ended definition of racism.
So, the only two options are "rudely confront them" and "do jack *****"?
Is it rude to tell someone it is wrong to be horrendous to his fellow man?
See, when you frame it like that, calling someone out sounds like a Good Thing. But again, I think you're talking about two different situations. Racism isn't this clear-cut thing, where there are evil racists and good non-racists. Most of the time, you have people with vestigial racial prejudice, and they're not even aware of it. If you tell such a person that he's being horrendous to his fellow man, he'll tell you to go... take a hike or something.
It's really hard to say to someone, "Hey, um, do you think, maybe, the reason you didn't hire that last guy... is because he was black?" without them hearing, "You are an evil person." You can't just give up and dehumanize someone who's acting racist. That doesn't make you the good guy.
Also, I want to address this rational/irrational thing, because I think this might be another case of having different definitions. The two possible definitions for irrational I'm seeing are:
1. Not in accordance with the objective truth
2. Not in accordance with one's general beliefs
If I was in a car accident that was caused by a freak accident involving a toothbrush, I might develop an irrational fear of toothbrushes, given that the likelihood of a toothbrush causing another accident hasn't increased. But on the other hand, I would expect my friends and family to understand why I have an aversion to toothbrushes, and I would expect them to help me get past it. But it would be rude of them to chastise me for my irrational fear (unless I was making no effort to confront it).
My irrational fear of toothbrushes, however, is an evolved mechanism, and it should be pretty obvious that, in humanity's days on the savanna, this was a really useful adaptation. We can call this fear irrational in the cosmic sense, but to me it's totally sensible. If there's a rational reason to override this fear, it's something I can do, but depending on the severity of the negative stimuli I've received, this can be a difficult process.
So basically, you're saying that you only read two posts in this thread before replying.
And look, we've all done the "look at the last post, read maybe the post before it, then hit reply" game, I've done it too, but it's a bad habit to be in, and the point is if you're wondering why you're confused about the way a conversation is going, and feel like you're on a different page from other people... That'd probably be why, right?
Because when you post something like this:
I feel pretty safe in saying that no one with whom you are arguing believes that racism is okay
it's a pretty clear litmus test for whether or not you've been following along, because you cannot read this thread, pay attention to what is being said, and tell me that everyone agrees racism is not ok. That is precisely what is under dispute. It's what the point of contention is.
I'll have you know I actually did read most of this thread. I just came back to it recently, and that happened to be the first post I saw. I'll let the other participants in this debate judge whether I've been following along. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the argument.
I'll have you know I actually did read most of this thread. I just came back to it recently, and that happened to be the first post I saw. I'll let the other participants in this debate judge whether I've been following along. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the argument.
But it's quite clear you don't understand the argument. You're saying that racism being incorrect is not up for dispute in this thread. That has been up for dispute in this thread this entire time. That's what this chain of conversation with Mad Mat has been about.
I suppose you missed this part of his most recent post, let me bring it to your attention:
Quote from Mad Mat »
Quote from Highroller »
It's the topic being discussed. Jay and I are saying that the polarization is based around positions on the treatment of race and ethnicity - which you yourself seem to agree with - and we are arguing that while both sides view themselves as the correct side, one side has the superior claim because it is the side arguing against the racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory policies of the other.
So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.
No, the question would be: do you believe that one side has the superior claim? And I don't know the answer to that question, although I don't believe it to be as easy as you both claim.
Mad Mat has been disputing that the side speaking out against racism has the superior claim. He has been since page one. That's what this conversation's about.
Again, I strongly recommend reading this thread from the first page - it's not that long of a read, only 79 pages including this one - and reading it carefully, and then you'll have a better idea of what we're talking about.
So hypothetically, if it turned out that white guys committed most of the terrorism in the USA, that would justify a heavy degree of harassment of white guys by US law enforcement?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Mad Mat, I want to take this moment to take stock of your argument, and in doing so, address what I believe are the root problems of your argument.
I want to go back again to this quote right here:
Quote from Mad Mat »
Quote from Highroller »
It's the topic being discussed. Jay and I are saying that the polarization is based around positions on the treatment of race and ethnicity - which you yourself seem to agree with - and we are arguing that while both sides view themselves as the correct side, one side has the superior claim because it is the side arguing against the racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory policies of the other.
So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.
No, the question would be: do you believe that one side has the superior claim? And I don't know the answer to that question, although I don't believe it to be as easy as you both claim.
This brings us back to what started this argument in the first place, the fact that you are arguing that you do not see any superiority between the arguments between one side and another, and so you merely see it as a matter of one side saying the other side is wrong, and the other side saying the first side is wrong.
To clarify, let’s take into account what the two sides are before proceeding. As noted, there is a political polarization between two sides of politics. We have both agreed that the polarization is formed around disagreements around the treatment of race and ethnicity.
So, in light of that, we have two sides.
1. Those who agree that racism is perfectly acceptable, and that one who prejudges someone based on race should not be faulted for doing so. This group, as you yourself have put it:
can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on.
2. Those who disagree that prejudice against race is at all acceptable or ok, and who disagree with the above group.
Now, with all of that in mind, let’s take a look at your argument, which can be characterized in terms of two reactions to the above:
A. You are unsure of which side has the superior claim.
B. However, you are absolutely sure that the second group should not be calling the first group racists.
Let’s address [A] first. Keep in mind that you yourself have described the people that make up group [A] is irrational and has no rational basis for their positions. So we have group 1, who have no rational basis for their arguments, and favor immoral actions - including outright atrocities - against their fellow man.
And we have group 2, who say that the wrong things that people espouse are wrong, and have every rational basis behind their arguments.
Yet you are arguing that you can’t see the difference between them, or which side might be superior? Have you not basically declared the second side to be superior?
With this in mind, let’s address [B].
You have stated that, despite not knowing which side is right or wrong, which side is morally superior or inferior, you are absolutely certain that the second group should not be calling the first group racists. You give a variety of reasons:
So, with this in mind, I believe we can ascertain that you believe:
It’s wrong to be unfair to people
It’s wrong to be confrontational towards people
It’s wrong to alienate people
It’s wrong to disenfranchise people
So, in other words, what you are arguing is:
1. It is wrong to be unfair to people, and that is why it is not correct to call people racists when they are being racists. It is, however, perfectly ok to judge people based on their skin color, treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because being unfair is not being unfair to people when that group does it.
2. It is wrong to be confrontational towards people, and that is why it is not correct to tell someone who is being racist that he is racist, or to tell someone who is wrong that he is wrong. It is, however, perfectly ok to treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because such acts of confrontation are not being confrontational towards people when that group does it.
3. It is wrong to alienate people, and that is why it is not correct to tell someone who is being racist that he is racist, or to tell someone who is wrong that he is wrong. It is, however, perfectly ok to treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because being alienating is not alienating people when this group does it.
4. It is wrong to disenfranchise people. That is why it is wrong for people who disagree with racism to band together to try to prevent people who support racism from being able to enact the discriminating public policies they seek to enforce. However, people who are racist, who actively seek to disenfranchise people, are not in the wrong, because seeking disenfranchisement is not seeking disenfranchisement of people when this group does it.
You’re saying the side who objects to racism is in the wrong, and yet the principles upon which you claim them to be wrong – even if we were to agree that they actually applied to that group – are violated to a far greater degree by the very people you are trying to defend! And yet, you refuse to denounce these people as guilty of wrongdoing! How is this possible?
Because I can only come up with two reasons how one could argue this. Either you are arguing that:
1. Racists form a special category of people who have no responsibilities to anyone or anything, including the burden of proof, society, morality, the Constitution of the United States, rationality, etc., and are therefore above reproach and cannot be faulted for anything that they do, and therefore have a blank check to do whatever they want, because they are not to be judged by any standards that literally every other member of the human race has applied to them,
OR
2. Minorities do not count as people.
Which one are you arguing? Is it a combination of both statements? Or is there a third explanation I’m not seeing?
A more effective approach is dealing with the most important of these causes directly.
A major reason for this is that humans are mostly irrational. Their racist thoughts and acts will often be the result of profiles they have unconsciously constructed in their minds, based on information they have acquired and experiences they've had. People do not think: "oh, a black person, he might be a criminal because statistics say..." but "black skin -> threat!" and when they experience that, their mind brings up memories to justify it. Simply that sort of response is very difficult to weed out using rational arguments. The most effective way is trying to change these profiles, by increasing the amount of memories that do not justify it.
So, let me ask you this:
What we have in this country, as I said, is a sharp political divide that seems to be all the more divided. This, in particular, is due, as we both have agreed, in large part to a disagreement of how to treat minorities of race, gender, creed, and sexuality.
We have a large group of people who believe that our current president was elected on a groundswell of bigotry, and that the current administration is pursuing laws that are actively discriminatory and actively harmful to them.
My question to you is, assume that’s true: how should these people go about expressing their disagreement with the other side?
Because what this thread has taught me is that there is no way that these people could do this that would be deemed to be correct, as opposed to overly confrontational and radical. Protests would be too confrontational. Nonviolent demonstrations and acts of resistance would be too confrontational. Satire would be too confrontational. Calling racism “racism” would be too confrontational. Calling someone “incorrect” would be too confrontational. So in essence, ANY attempt to confront the matter is deemed too confrontational.
So what is the correct means of resistance? How do you get systemic abuse to stop?
You’re saying, “Well we should promote positive experiences with such people.” My problem with that is twofold. First and foremost, it’s basically putting the onus on the people who are being abused to prove that they should not be abused, as opposed to believing that they should not be abused by virtue of their being human beings.
Second of all, you’re acting like these positive experiences, such as the following…
implement measures to improve cultural mixing, implement measures to mitigate some of the triggers that makes people get racist thoughts (such as violent crime, radical islamism, ghettofication, bullying), promote positive yet realistic stereotypes, reduce economic inequality, ensure society's values are followed by migrants, improve employment possibilities for migrants, reduce foreign inequality, mitigate foreign conflicts...
… are not something that people are actively trying to do. Nor are you acknowledging that their major obstruction has been the other side actively opposing it. Which is why people are protesting in the first place. So once again, you’re blaming the people who are against the racists for not doing enough to convince the racists, and on top of that, blaming them for not doing enough to promote societal good when it’s the racists who are actively trying to stop them – and yet the racists are in no way to blame.
How does that make sense? How is that fair? And if it’s not fair, why is it not wrong for bigots to be unfair in their treatment of other people if you’re going to say that we shouldn’t treat people unfairly? Are the bigots the exception, do they have the right to do whatever they want? Or is it minorities who are the exception, do they have no rights to fair treatment? Or are both these statements true at the same time? Which is it?
Also, is it a blanket thing, or just particular to bigots? Like, if I’m just outright *****ty to someone, but it’s not because of race, creed, gender, or sexuality, do I have the right to be absolved from blame anyway? “Officer, yes, I understand that I assaulted this person, but you don’t understand – I don’t like the guy.” “Oh, you don’t like him, you say? Well why didn’t you say so? Go on ahead. Don’t worry, son, I’m sure some negative experience in your past planted the seeds of this emotional outburst you made that resulted in you violating this man’s rights, but that’s ok. It’s not your fault, and you have no reason to have to change or check your irrational behavior, because that’s what America’s all about.”
Is that how this works? Or does it only work if I’m white and he’s black? I’m just trying to figure out the rules here.
Finally, when I say that I don't know who has the superior claim concerning the problems of racism and how to address them, I am comparing left and right politics as I perceive them right now. Hot topics like the conflicts with Islam and with people of North African origin. Not racism throughout all of history, all over the world right now and in a hypothetical future.
What difference does it make?
That’s what this really boils down to: what difference does it make? Do you really think that when someone says he wants all the black people in America to be sent back to Africa, there’s a big difference whether he said it in 1880 or 1960 or 2017? Do you really think there’s a complete difference to people who would deny gay people their full personhood and rights to equal treatment under the law during the Trump administration versus the Reagan administration? Do you think that when someone wishes to deny women equal rights on the basis that they do not believe women and men should be treated equally, there’s an overwhelming amount of difference between the people doing it in the 1920s, the 1950s, and the 2000s? Do you really think that the people who are looking to deny people equal protection under the law, to deny people their equal rights, are all that different from the people who did it 50 years ago?
For goodness sakes man, this is not a new invention.
You'd be a damn fool to ignore all of your previous experiences, ignore all surrounding circumstances and make terrible decisions for the sake of "not coming across as racist"
Our kid is on a traveling baseball team. We've been to nearly every park in a 50 mile radius. One park in particular is in a largely black township. The first thing that struck me was all the warning signs about protecting or hiding your property. When you park it becomes obvious why: groups of youths in the parking lot checking for unlocked cars (doing nuffin.)
Now under some peoples thinking, the fact that your in a black neighborhood is irrelevant. You could be in any park, with any race of youths in the lot checking for unlocked cars. But experience tells you, you've been to the other 40 parks many times over many years and you know there is a direct correlation here. We as the better part of society simply don't say or imply anything out loud because "That's racist". But if you think your car and your belongings are safe, you'd be an idiot.
My wife and I own rental property in a diverse group of neighborhoods. Housing is a topic that gets a lot of attention in the race debate. In accordance with the law, we'd never turn down an application based on race. But its a very fair statement we have experience with different ethnics in different neighborhoods on this topic. I'll talk about low income housing since that is where the largest disparities can be seen. In black neighborhoods its constant break-ins, violent crimes related to drug trafficking and a constant police presence. In white neighborhoods they take their disability money, sell their prescriptions and solicit themselves to buy heroin from blacks who traffic it. Hispanics somehow live in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood with a strong sense of community.
In regarding to soliciting (often for heroin) black people rob those who respond or show up. Show up at the girls house, and a black man jumps out of the bathroom and robs you at gunpoint. Now again you could say that ANY race is capable of doing this. That's hypothetically true. But do other races do it? No. Then notice more than half of the ads literally say "No black men", "NO AA" or "No black men under 30" Are the girls racist, or have they learned through experience that they get robbed, they get their ass beat, they get pimped?
Now make choices about where you want to buy properties, and what subsets of behavior are you willing to deal with. Are you ready to spend $7K or more to repair a damaged property like I have? Risk having a property condemned because it was used as a meth lab? (note: labs are more common among whites) Tenants move out because of heavy police presence and break ins? If you had collective information would you ignore it completely for the sake of not seeming 'racist' ?
According to city data, the town we live in is 95.6% white alone. The black people we do have, carry some very unlikable behavior. For example, they will walk out in front of your car at Walmart, hoping you'll hit them so they can sue. This is factual. You need to be aware of it when you shop there. They also jay walk across 5 lane roads. You need to have some sense of "racism" or you might hit someone. Everyone simply tolerates it, because nobody wants to "be racist".
I think what Mad Mat is saying, is that we can't toss collected experience and knowledge out the window because we might be seen as racist. And in some cases, doing so is downright stupid. I mean, its nice to live in the Ivory tower, looking down and proclaiming "All of humanity should live like this, never making negative assumptions or judging each other." Its easy to post from a nice college campus how things should "theoretically" be in the world outside. But this is the real world. The one we actually live in. Go live it - get your hands dirty. Go see. Looking at numbers and percentages online doesn't teach you anything about how it is
I hold the door for absolutely anyone. I'm polite in person - to everyone. But I'd never park a Lexus on MLK overnight. I can attest from personal experience that if you are white, you're not welcome on MLK to begin with. I'd never buy property on Fulton & Clark. And damn straight I'm on the lookout at Walmart.
What I won't agree with, is any statement that you shouldn't feel safe if a muslim or black person moved in across the street. If you ALREADY live in a nice neighborhood, the reason they move in is to ALSO live in a nice neighborhood just like you. Neighborhoods can go down hill and they often do as they age. But there's just as many low income white neighborhoods. And if your neighborhood begins to slide, you have the freedom to move out.
What Yamaha is expressing is what a great many white Americans think. That's why we're a polarized society - many people are deeply racist. They're polite on the surface, but underneath that false veneer is hate.
Now under some peoples thinking, the fact that your in a black neighborhood is irrelevant. You could be in any park, with any race of youths in the lot checking for unlocked cars. But experience tells you, you've been to the other 40 parks many times over many years and you know there is a direct correlation here. We as the better part of society simply don't say or imply anything out loud because "That's racist". But if you think your car and your belongings are safe, you'd be an idiot.
"This is not a safe parking lot" is not racist.
"This is not a safe parking lot, because people's cars are broken into regularly" is not racist.
"This is not a safe parking lot, because it's in a predominantly-black neighborhood" is racist.
What I won't agree with, is any statement that you shouldn't feel safe if a muslim or black person moved in across the street. If you ALREADY live in a nice neighborhood, the reason they move in is to ALSO live in a nice neighborhood just like you. Neighborhoods can go down hill and they often do as they age. But there's just as many low income white neighborhoods. And if your neighborhood begins to slide, you have the freedom to move out.
You seem to be implying that race is not actually an indicator of whether you should feel afraid. That the local housing market (or more generally, income levels) is a better indicator of probability of crime. Is that accurate?
You seem to be implying that race is not actually an indicator of whether you should feel afraid. That the local housing market (or more generally, income levels) is a better indicator of probability of crime. Is that accurate?
It is very accurate. Poverty and crime are directly related. That's not to say every poor neighborhood is bad. You can also be murdered in an upscale neighborhood. But one is rarely present without the other.
So, if I understand this correctly, your go-to conversation strategy when talking to a black person who is a complete stranger is to open with how you think he doesn’t belong here on account of his skin color, and then work chicken and waffles into the conversation?
And somehow he's the one who's being the problem?
Yeah, let me get back to you.
Really, you didn't spend the last post defending whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate based on race?
No, of course you did, so can the feigned incredulousness.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with calling someone a racist if, indeed, they conform to the definition of the term "racist."
Second, do I even need to point out the frankly appalling amount of hypocrisy you're demonstrating? You have been repeatedly saying that treating black people who have done nothing wrong as criminals is fine and acceptable. Meanwhile, calling someone a racist when they're being racist, is something you're going to rail against as unjust and unfair.
So, to review, it's perfectly fine in your book to make completely erroneous judgments about a black person being a criminal based on no knowledge of the person at all except his/her black skin, but if we were to call a person who's being racist and holding racist beliefs - in short, who conforms in every way to the definition of "racist" - a racist, THAT'S unfair and wrong?
Why is that? Is it because the former involves a group of people you're not a part of, and the latter involves a group of people you are a part of, and so you're getting all defensive?
Stop wasting everyone's time and actually address the question.
Here, let's just go with the Google definition of racist: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
So, in light of that definition, some questions:
1. Does this definition describe you, yes or no?
2. Do you feel that being a racist, according to the Google definition, is an acceptable and fine thing to be, yes or no?
Yuppies? I must be missing something here. The "basket of deplorables" refers to working-class whites that hold politically incorrect views that cosmopolitans mercilessly mock. i.e., people that are far away from being yuppies. Think Archie Bunker from All in the Family.
So what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
Of course it is.
You're making posts saying, "Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out. DOES YOUR HEART NOT WEEP FOR THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND THEIR ATROCIOUS BELIEFS BEING IGNORED?"
The answer is no. Not only because they're terrible people but because, as you yourself admit, their arguments have **** all in terms of rational basis. And guess what? When an argument has **** all in terms of rational basis, you can freely discard it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If there's no rational basis for concluding that because one black guy wronged you, every black guy is going to wrong you (and there's not, because that's a logical fallacy), then we can freely toss that argument out.
That's the foundation of rational discourse. Which is why you, whose are completely without rational justification, have resorted to what everyone does who is without rational basis in their arguments but don't want to admit they're wrong, which is to try to claim that their argument does not actually need to be rational.
Oh, so there's no rational basis behind this? Fantastic. Then we can throw it out, because it has no merit whatsoever.
Except it does. You just said that the arguments promoting racism are not rational and therefore have no rational basis. Meaning they are without merit, for they have neither rational basis nor evidence. And therefore, the correct way to address them is to discard them, and since they are without rational basis or evidence, we may dismiss them without rational basis or evidence.
You're saying it's wrong to correctly call people racists when they are racists, but it's fine to call people criminals when they're not actually criminals. So yeah, that is a completely different line of reasoning, and what it's completely different from is anything sensible.
No, I'm not. YOU are. I'm saying you are wrong for doing so.
It is true that the factors which result in one committing a crime affect disproportionately affect black people. There's nothing racist about saying that, it's a simple fact. However, the answer to this is not, "Treat black people as criminals by default." THAT is racism, and you are demonstrating it right now.
First of all, let's clarify something: "Black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes" =/= "the majority of crimes are committed by black people." The majority of violent crimes in this country are committed by white people. If a violent crime is committed, it's most likely going to be a white person. Like 42.9% of the time most likely. The percentage is much higher than any other race, and almost double that of black people. Should we regard all white people as criminals as a default assumption?
According to you, yes, we absolutely should.
So yes, according to you, we should fear all white people.
Except this is stupid and ridiculous. Just because white people commit nearly twice as many violent crimes as black people does not mean that any given white person is inherently twice as likely to commit a crime as a black person. Moreover, you'd committing the fallacious assumption that just because the majority of violent criminals are white, then we are justified in also thinking the majority of white people are violent criminals.
Moreover, you'd be making extraordinarily unfair judgments against people because whiteness does not make one a violent criminal. There are other factors at work here, and to claim that there's any causation is an absolute absurdity.
Under the definition of the word. Words have definitions.
Answer me this: do you believe we should be reducing this kind of behavior? Do you believe that racist behavior should be reduced?
Yeah, and that would be a *****ty thing to do. Generally we do want to make the world less *****ty for people, yes?
Well, obviously not all of us want this. Some of us only want to make the world less *****ty for the people who look like us and even *****tier for the people who don't look like us. But the point is those people are jerks.
No, there's no inference in the second situation. There's no guessing involved here. In the first situation, you're presuming something about someone's behavior. In the second situation, there's no guesswork, you're directly observing someone being racist and concluding that they're racist.
Ok, so which one are you?
This is not productive. Stop.
Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways? It seems like this point is coming out of nowhere. Also, as you implied yourself, there's a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. One is an opinion, the other is an action on such an opinion. Reasoning is not 100% transitive in that case, as one can reason that "Maybe even though I have this opinion, I won't act on it because I'm willing to compromise with society."
So are we going to define positive and negative superiority and positive and negative inferiority? Anyways, your argument appears to assume that I'm going to get in a fight and that person X will make it impossible to hold reasonable conversation, which is generally considered an inferiority on the side of person X.
You may have implied that it was just based on a difference in skin color, but I'm not sure if I would qualify that as explicit in any of your posts. I also would expect that you would agree that it is at least a bit more complicated than that, though not in a sense to reduce inclusivity of the definition of racism.
I'd certainly not say that you were describing it as "being for no reason." I doubt that you believe that it is "for no reason" any more than I do.
Except whites making under $50k went to Clinton. The alt right types come mostly from banking and tech.
On phasing:
Hell, imagine a murder trial in which all evidence points to the defendant being guilty, including camera footage of the defendant committing the murder, DNA evidence linking the defendant to the scene of the crime, and the defendant making a Twitter post saying how he murdered the guy. Is the judge justified in saying, "Well, I dunno, I mean, one side says the other side is wrong and they're right, but the other side says that the other side is wrong and they're right, seems equivalent to me"? NO! That's absurd! And that's what you're doing!
... *Sigh* Just... Don't become a judge.
Polarization is not a problem when the other side is unambiguously wrong. It's why any sane person would look at the Civil War and say that, however horrific and unfortunate the war was, to have allowed slavery to continue in order to prevent the war would be a far worse circumstance.
Sometimes we do, when the polarization means compromising on our morals, fundamental values, and human decency. Tolerating injustice in order to play nice with people who are unjust is unacceptable in any society that wishes to claim it is a just society. Therefore, accepting intolerance and bigotry is unacceptable. Moreover, it is not only unacceptable, it is fundamentally against the equal protection under the law that every citizen is guaranteed.
"This utensil is a spoon, therefore all utensils must be spoons" is absolutely a fallacy. So too is "this black man is a criminal, therefore all black men are criminals" also a fallacy. Doesn't change to being a correct statement just because a black guy is suffering in this particular instance.
Oh were you under the strange assumption that an argument based purely on emotion and not facts or rational basis has any place in logical discourse? You're just digging yourself deeper into a hole.
Once again, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
An argument does not magically become correct just because you hate black people. Emotion does not dictate what is factual and what is not.
Incidentally, I love how you're simultaneously arguing that there is reasoning and statistical basis behind racism to osiorb, but then you make statements about how you never said that you never said racism was rational and how it is purely based on emotion, but somehow that's ok because of you don't think the burden of proof should apply to you.
These are, of course, completely contradictory statements - something cannot have both rational basis and have no basis in rationality - but you're arguing them anyway. Either you have no argument or you do not yourself know what it is.
You're not going to change it at all if you refuse to stand up to it. The Civil Rights Movement didn't happen because people were talking about how acceptable and understandable it is to be horrendous to one's fellow man.
Based on what? As I've said, crime statistics indicate that white people commit a far higher percentage of violent crimes. As I said, almost twice as many as black people. If I picked a random violent crime that was committed in the United States in 2012-2013, and told you it a violent crime was committed in the US in 2012-2013, and you knew nothing else about the crime, and I asked you to guess the race of the perpetrator, your best guess would be "white," because your likelihood of being correct would be higher than if you had guessed any other race. So by your logic, the odds are a WHITE person is the one whom you should be more afraid of.
And you're just demonstrating the problem of racism. You're presuming that black people are the greatest offenders of violent crime in this country when the actual reality is that white people commit FAR MORE violent crimes, and WAY more violent crimes against white people, than black people do. You've also presumed that complaints against black people leeching off the welfare system have basis, when the evidence points to the contrary, that the greater burden on the welfare system is poor white people.
And this demonstrates a huge problem. It's bad enough to completely misinterpret what data says, but you're making a statement and claiming there's data backing it up and the data's not even there!
Then define racist.
It's the topic being discussed. Jay and I are saying that the polarization is based around positions on the treatment of race and ethnicity - which you yourself seem to agree with - and we are arguing that while both sides view themselves as the correct side, one side has the superior claim because it is the side arguing against the racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory policies of the other.
So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.
So then shall we conclude that any given white person is a violent criminal until proven otherwise?
Because earlier you were perfectly ok with us making such presumptions about black people, and unlike you, I actually HAVE basis in saying that white people statistically commit more violent crimes.
I believe there is exactly zero chance of them changing if we continue to tell them that their behavior is acceptable, or simply ignore their behavior and let them get away with it. The only chance of creating a fair and just society is if people actively stand up and confront such people and tell them that such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
And this has been demonstrated with the Abolitionist movement. There was once a time when enslaving a black man was an unquestioned norm. Now it is unthinkable. This has been demonstrated with the Civil Rights Movement. There was once a time when forbidding a black person from entering the same building as a white person was a norm. Now it is unthinkable. And both of these practices are unheard of now because the majority of people recognize them as horrendous, harmful, immoral practices against one's fellow man. This happened because people stood up to injustice and said, "This is wrong, and you are wrong for performing it."
There is zero chance of getting someone to change their racist behavior until they acknowledge that (A) their behavior is racist, and (B) that racism is wrong. But most people aren't willing to admit that they have performed wrong and are part of the problem. The only way to get them to do so is by confronting them and saying they are part of the problem and that continued denial is unacceptable. Whether they choose to change is up to them, that's how free will works, but there's zero chance of getting someone to change an incorrect belief unless you tell them their belief is incorrect.
All prejudice is baseless. If it had basis, it would not be prejudice. It would be a logical judgement based on evidence, a judgment, and not a prejudgment.
Certainly not. But maybe we're defining the sides differently than you. I know that I am. E.g., I hope no one pours toxic waste in the river but that doesn't mean I have to support the E.L.F. (Or, similarly, a vote for Jill Stein doesn't justify E.L.F. behaviors.)
It wouldn't have prevented the war.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he was saying. And that made me feel uncomfortable. I mean, this guy is a racist, right? No good person should find themselves agreeing with a racist. Even after reading the whole post, and concluding that there was actually nothing racist about it, I still felt uncomfortable.
It's become so toxic to argue against something being racist. And it's so easy and rewarding to argue that something is racist. After all, you know you're on the side of good, right?
It's pretty worrying that anyone can read Mad Mat's post and come away from it thinking, yes, this guy is a racist, this is someone who believes that people should be judged by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character. At least in this case, I really think it comes down to one issue: the definition of racism. The definition I use (and I think that Mad Mat uses) is: believing that one race is inherently superior to another. And I think Highroller's definition (which, to avoid confusion, I call racial prejudice) is: incorporating information about a person's race into your treatment of them.
Racists exhibit racial prejudice, but not all who exhibit racial prejudice are racist. If you were to ask a real racist why he didn't hire that black man, he'd answer, "Because he's black." If you ask someone who is racially prejudiced, he might answer, "He looked unprofessional." It's not that the second guy is just hiding his racism. In his conscious mind, he doesn't believe any race is superior to another. But his prejudice comes out in his behavior.
You might say, "Well that's stupid, if they both act the same way towards black people, then it doesn't matter." But I think it does matter, for a few reasons. If someone is merely racially prejudiced, they'll change their behavior if they realize their bias. But calling them a racist isn't the way to do this. Remember, they don't think they're racist, and they'll just become defensive and unwilling to engage with you.
The second problem is, everyone exhibits racial prejudice. There was an experiment where subjects were shown faces of black or white people, and told to pair either positive or negative words with the faces. Basically everyone, as you might expect, is faster at putting positive words with white faces, and negative words with black faces. Even black experimental subjects showed this bias.
There have been other experiments with submitting job applications which are identical in everything but the name of the prospective employee. Resumes with stereotypically black-sounding names were less likely to be called back. This is not because all employers believe that black people are biologically inferior to white people. They've just grown up with certain experiences and pressures that shape their behavior. Mad Mat's explanation of how we use prejudice as a shortcut in decision-making is spot-on. It's just an optimization feature of the human brain that's actually totally necessary for everyday functioning. Some people (actually, probably all people) just have problems disabling this optimization in certain situations.
Finally, I just want to call out this one quote:
I find this attitude to be the biggest problem in this debate. If you want to actually change someone's mind, belittling and mimicking the other side's point of view is not going to get you anywhere.
If that's really what you hear when reading Mad Mat's posts, that's a valid reaction, but a constructive way to express this might be something like, "Wow, Mad Mat, when I read your posts, I can't get past the sense that what you're really saying is, 'Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out.' That can't really be what you're saying, right? If not, can you explain how what you're saying is different?"
You’re muddling the issue with the words you’ve chosen to use. First, not "belonging" somewhere is completely different than not being originally from somewhere. Fact, Vermont is 96% White according to the census. Another fact, other states especially those in the South have a much, much higher percent of Black populations. Given those two facts, forming a preliminary conclusion that a Black person you meet in Vermont is likely from another state is completely warranted. As Mad Max has said, people draw conclusions, and we do so because it is superior from an evolutionary standpoint to not doing so. Thank goodness we don’t have to shut down the inductive reasoning part of our brain to stop being racist. But nowhere in forming the conclusion that being Black in Vermont is not typical do I see discrimination, or the insinuation that someone doesn’t “belong”. Fact is, US citizens have a constitutional right of travel freely within the states, and in that sense at least, they “belong” everywhere.
Also, who are you saying that I consider “the problem”. It’s not a Black person who might not be comfortable talking about their background. It’s when one White person talks to a Black person about their background in a way that’s perfectly acceptable to both of them, then a third White person isn’t comfortable with them doing it. That White person will raise the eyebrow at the other White person, as if to say, “How could you openly discuss differences like that? That’s racist!”.
In my experience in the US also, having a conversation about the place someone grew up is presumptively not unwelcome. But generally anyway, people are very good at having a sense of when another person is being genuine and is comfortable with them. If you are, it’s pretty unlikely that someone will perceive an honest question as needling you. And if you aren’t comfortable with that person, avoiding the acknowledgment of their race and background isn’t enough to get you an “I’m not racist” pass. To the contrary, they will probably see right through to the fact that your outlook is whitewashed.
Don’t want to take my word for it, go read what Black people in that kind of setting are saying about talking race with White people (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-i-dont-talk-about-race-white-people). Basically, people are tired of White people approaching the issue with the exclusive goal of establishing that they aren’t racist. The White person who refuses to acquaint themselves with somebody of another race due to not wanting to possibly discover uncomfortable differences, that person is out to reinforce their private, individual sense of non-racism. And even if they aren’t racist, seems like Black people feel that them keeping quiet to justify to themselves that they’re race-blind supports a racist system with these silent biases. Better to realize you are a different race than somebody and go on trying to find common ground with that person than just trying to ignore it. If they’ve been tiptoed around or similar by other people of your race, yeah that’s too bad, people should be less uncomfortable with races different than theirs.
This idea is really misplaced that you can prove/disprove a political opinion if you can find an invalid logical construction for it. Again, grey areas. Inductive reasoning is about likelihoods and probabilities, not scientific falsification and air-tight logic.
Certain people also seem to confuse when someone is mentioning the fact that people have a certain rationale with that person actually advancing that rationale as argument. Mad Mat should be able to say that some people think X about Black people based on Y, without being understood that he believes that himself. After all, we are talking as the topic of the thread why opinions are polarized, which would probably necessitate raising the fact of there being a polarized opinion toward one side. But as soon as he raises that viewpoint for the sake of the fact that it exists, he’s bombarded with questions about how he could possible believe such a thing himself. Racist! Come on, people.
This is the crux of it, really. And to borrow the prior analogy by osieorb with apples, pineapples, and pens, you certainly can have strong opinions on something without believing that thing is superior or inferior. Let’s say I have a pet that eats apples, and is poisoned by pineapples. Maybe a former pet of mine of the same species died of pineapple poisoning. My friend though has a pet that’s poisoned by apples, and eats pineapples. So, I don’t want pineapples in my house, but I would certainly not vote for laws prohibiting pineapples. And there is plenty of room for pens to be in my house, either way.
Odd that someone would bring up who is fit to be a judge and who isn’t, also. As I said before, confusion seems to be stemming from this precept that people ought to think like judges in their everyday lives, or that approaching issues of race, etc, with anything less than a judge’s impartiality is unfair. Fact is, the only real time where people are held to a standard of being blind to another person’s status is exactly that, a judge or jury in a court room. Sit down with drinks at party with someone and start talking about where their accent comes from, see how far it gets you to say something like, “Sorry, I’m not allowed to consider the fact of your national origin in my judgment of whether I enjoy this conversation, so I would prefer if we kept those facts out of it.” How absurd is that? And in the end, where is the benefit of diversity there? If people can’t hear the experiences of someone different without feeling uncomfortable that those differences might be influencing their opinion of that person, who benefits there? Way off base.
This probably explains a lot of your previous posts, so let me explain: an irrational argument is an argument we throw out. It's not like being "on base" in a game of tag, you don't get to say, "My argument is irrational, therefore you can't attack it."
No, you can attack it. On the grounds that it is irrational. Like, you admitting to me that your argument is irrational is admitting that your argument can be thrown away, you're doing my job for me.
So, this is what I find to be funny. You talk about how your argument has no rational basis and is completely irrational WHILE AT THE SAME TIME touting to osiorb the basis of your argument in statistics (which would constitute rational basis). Anyone is capable of seeing the contradiction right there.
But now, because I pointed out you have no statistics backing you, AND I have used my own statistics to take your argument down, you're attacking the validity of using statistics.
So, to review, you were trumpeting the rational basis and statistical basis of your arguments when you thought that was going to work for you, but when it was pointed out you have neither, your response was to come back and say, "Oh yeah? Well who needs rationality or statistical basis anyway? Not me! I don't need it!"
I don't think I need to say why it's impossible to take your argument seriously. Incidentally, what do you even have to support you at this point? "Irrationality!" Ok great, then I'm going to continue doing what I've been doing, which is throwing your argument away. Because everyone should. Because... Everyone together now:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If the idea is legalized mistreatment of our fellow citizens, yes. Going to war over such an issue is why we're a country in the first place.
You may have heard of a statement that goes along the lines of:
You might want to Google it. It's kind of important.
Uh, yes, clearly their values are different from mine. They do not believe in equal protection under the law and that all men are created equal. There's no subjunctive here, their values ARE different from mine.
Again, obviously.
YES!
Yes, I am tyrannical in that I am forcing freedom, equality, representative government, and the lack of any one person infringing upon the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness upon people. That is exactly how in the hell tyranny works. [/sarcasm]
Racism is indeed universally vile, yes.
"Crackdown" implies I'm in favor of a thought-police, which could not be further from the truth. I support the decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and absolutely believe in a free exchange of ideas. I would fight for the KKK's right to express their ideas. I do not, however, consider those ideas to be moral or remotely acceptable, which is why I believe it is the responsibility of all just and moral people to stand against them. There's a difference between disagreement and suppression. I don't believe in suppressing your beliefs, but I absolutely will disagree with them and vocalize my disagreement.
However, you then go into talk of "disenfranchising a significant segment of society." Firstly, no, I don't believe in disenfranchising people in society. This is why I stand against racists. You are standing FOR them. Your outrage is hypocritical. If you don’t like disenfranchisement, why are you defending the people who seek to disenfranchise others (you know, when they’re not looking to outright kill them)?
As for escalating things into political conflict, as I said, the fundamental right of every citizen to equal protection under the law regardless of race is one of the cornerstones of America, and of justice itself. If justice and moral right are not worth fighting for, then nothing is.
No, it's exactly the reasoning being used here. You're saying that "one black person wronged me, therefore all black people wronged me," is valid rational basis.
Well, more accurately, you're arguing the valid rational basis of your argument AND SIMULTANEOUSLY arguing that there is no rational basis at all and it's completely irrational. Which contradicts.
I'm not denying that people have emotions. I'm denying your claim that a conclusion based solely on emotion is valid. In fact, you, on some level, seem to agree with this, given that you're trying to defend the rationality of your arguments despite admitting elsewhere that you have none.
And you seriously have a problem understanding that things cannot have rational basis and simultaneously have no rational basis. Something cannot be p and not-p at the same time, that's a basic rule of logic.
It can't, actually. You can’t argue irrational fears have rational basis. You seem to be understanding this, given that you continue to state outright that your arguments aren’t based on rationality.
It's extremely easy to disentangle the difference between someone who draws a conclusion based on evidence from someone who makes an argument from an emotionally biased stance and then flimsily tries to throw in misinterpreted statistics and pseudoscience into the mix to try to hide the fact that there's nothing but emotion backing the argument.
They are utter bull*****, yes.
Yes, of course it does. These books and facts are complete bull***** because they have no rational basis behind them. Moreover, they are transparently bull*****. Literally any amount of factchecking, or any understanding of the fields of study they pertain to, would demonstrate that they are.
The key is scrutiny, and the lack thereof. Not applying scrutiny to a claim is ABSOLUTELY irrational.
You’ll notice this is what is going on in the scenario above, the person is demonstrating a deliberate lack of scrutiny because these things are telling the person in the scenario WANTS to hear. What you’re dealing is a person who came in with a bias against black people and who are actively looking for evidence to prove their biases, and so proceed to pull any statistic that might make black people look bad, and say, “HA! Proof!” when it’s not actually evidence that supports what he’s saying.
You're just going to continue to ignore that Civil Rights Movement thing, aren't you? Ok then.
And your best guess would be no, because the majority of black people aren't criminals. Incidentally, that's true of all races.
It's almost as though you need to base it on the PERSON, and not THEIR COLOR OF SKIN. Crazy right?
That’s obviously incorrect. You're arguing for the validity of these people based on statistics. So yes, you've argued that it's true.
Also, are you admitting that these arguments AREN'T true? Great! That means we can dismiss them! Because:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If reality doesn't matter to what you are arguing, that should be your first indication that there's a problem, Mad Mat.
And Flat Earth Theorists claim the Earth is not the shape I claim it to be.
Again, that's why we shouldn't be the person who sees two sides disagreeing, and then says, "Ok, well you say he's wrong and you're right, he's says you're wrong and he's right, I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU TWO!" No, we should not be this person.
What we should be doing is looking at what the two sides are arguing, and then look into the logic and evidence behind those arguments, and then attempt to evaluate the overall validity of the arguments.
Doesn't that sound good? Moreover, doesn't it sound better than, "Well, this argument has all the evidence behind it, and this argument has nothing but the emotions of hatred and vindictiveness behind it... They seem about equal to me"?
First of all, that would constitute confronting them about being wrong, which you are so vehemently against.
Second, you yourself have agreed that there exist such people who are not objective and unbiased, but who are, quite the contrary, biased against a particular race or races, and turn to whatever "evidence" they can find to rationalize their own hatred. These are not otherwise objective people who mistakenly turned to faulty evidence, or misinterpreted actual facts, and so drew racist conclusions. These are people who do not actually care if the statistics are right or not, as long as their biases are legitimized. And no, such people - who very much make up "the problem of racism" - are not going to be dissuaded from their racist beliefs simply by my pointing out that they have no evidence to prop up their arguments.
I should absolutely decry any immoral or unjust argument. This isn't a mere statistical error, it's a person who is attempting to rationalize being horrible to their fellow man. Being horrible to one's fellow man not only should be decried, it MUST be decried for any just society to exist.
No, people who believe in injustice toward their fellow man based on their race, gender, creed, or sexuality are most emphatically people who do not agree with me.
You are conflating understanding the way someone thinks with agreeing with them. This is erroneous. I can perfectly understand why someone thinks the way they do without agreeing with it myself.
There's no problem with understanding why someone commits injustice towards his fellow man. There is every problem with condoning or affirming someone's committing injustice towards his fellow man.
Which is what you don’t seem to grasp. What you’re talking about isn’t “understanding,” it’s “complacency.” It’s complacency in the face of people being horrible and unjust and advocating atrocities against innocent people. And that is wrong. We should not be complacent in the face of immorality.
The Civil Rights Movement ruffled many feathers. It resulted in many people getting killed, and many people being jailed, and many people being harmed. It also resulted in a great deal of good. "Do not stand a chance of winning"? Only by fighting does one stand a chance of winning.
See, this is the very problem that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he states that the greatest stumbling block to black people gaining the freedom they sought was the person 'who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice:
He could have been speaking about this thread and his words would be just as apt.
Obviously.
You don't know whether people should be judge not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? You don't know whether we should treat people with fairness regardless of race? You don't know whether it's wrong or perfectly fine to disenfranchise, rape, kill, enslave, or exile millions of people based purely on their ethnicity?
It is.
Telling someone who is morally wrong that they are morally wrong is a "radical approach"? Telling someone who is incorrect they're incorrect is a "radical approach"?
I'm going to let Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do the talking.
No it’s not. You have absolutely no statistical basis whatsoever. That’s the whole point.
What I’m telling you is that, if you were to choose to interpret the fact that black people commit crimes as reason to fear black people, that is not only a gross misunderstanding/deliberate misrepresentation of what the actual statistics say, but by your own rationale, you would have to regard white people as FAR more dangerous. White people commit way more violent crimes as a whole than black people do. Furthermore, assuming you’re white, you would have much more cause to fear white people because white people not only commit violent crimes than black people do, they also commit FAR more crimes against white people than any other race does. In 2012-2013, over 50% of all violent crimes against white people were commited by white people. That’s right, over half!
Now, does this mean you should be afraid of a white person just because you know he’s a white person? Hell no! That’s the point: to illustrate the absolute absurdity behind what you’re saying.
Paranoia is not rational by very definition.
Is it rude to tell someone it is wrong to be horrendous to his fellow man?
What do you think people are trying to do? What do you think is actively being opposed by the very people you've spent so long in this thread defending?
Imagine if I jumped on your back and hung on to you while you were trying to run a 5K, and then when you were in the efforts of trying to get all of my weight off you, I said in response, “Really? Your only option is to be rude to me or do nothing? Why don’t you just run harder?”
Notice the presumptions, here. First, I’m acting like you’re the problem, when I’m clearly doing whatever I can to ACTIVELY OBSTRUCT YOUR FORWARD PATH. Second, running the race is exactly what you’re trying to do, and were doing before I jumped on and made things more difficult. Third, trying to get me to stop being horrible to you isn’t rude, it’s entirely justifiable.
So, with that in mind, reread what you wrote. It's the same thing.
It's like asking the people who were protesting during the 60s in the Civil Rights Movement, "Well why do you have to protest all the time? Why don't you just go get the legislation passed that would give you the equal rights that you want?" It belies a fundamental ignorance of why they're protesting and who they're protesting against.
Civil Rights Movement succeeded.
Because there were those who were willing to defend their unjust institutions through violence and force, and who did precisely that.
... Which is telling them they're being incorrect.
Basically, what I see in this exchange is Mad Mat and Jusstice laying out these nuanced arguments about prejudice, and your response is unfailingly, "But racism is wrong!"
I feel pretty safe in saying that no one with whom you are arguing believes that racism is okay, but given that you've taken to quoting Dr. King, it doesn't seem that we're on the same page. I think this is at least in part due to your more open-ended definition of racism.
See, when you frame it like that, calling someone out sounds like a Good Thing. But again, I think you're talking about two different situations. Racism isn't this clear-cut thing, where there are evil racists and good non-racists. Most of the time, you have people with vestigial racial prejudice, and they're not even aware of it. If you tell such a person that he's being horrendous to his fellow man, he'll tell you to go... take a hike or something.
It's really hard to say to someone, "Hey, um, do you think, maybe, the reason you didn't hire that last guy... is because he was black?" without them hearing, "You are an evil person." You can't just give up and dehumanize someone who's acting racist. That doesn't make you the good guy.
Also, I want to address this rational/irrational thing, because I think this might be another case of having different definitions. The two possible definitions for irrational I'm seeing are:
1. Not in accordance with the objective truth
2. Not in accordance with one's general beliefs
If I was in a car accident that was caused by a freak accident involving a toothbrush, I might develop an irrational fear of toothbrushes, given that the likelihood of a toothbrush causing another accident hasn't increased. But on the other hand, I would expect my friends and family to understand why I have an aversion to toothbrushes, and I would expect them to help me get past it. But it would be rude of them to chastise me for my irrational fear (unless I was making no effort to confront it).
My irrational fear of toothbrushes, however, is an evolved mechanism, and it should be pretty obvious that, in humanity's days on the savanna, this was a really useful adaptation. We can call this fear irrational in the cosmic sense, but to me it's totally sensible. If there's a rational reason to override this fear, it's something I can do, but depending on the severity of the negative stimuli I've received, this can be a difficult process.
So basically, you're saying that you only read two posts in this thread before replying.
And look, we've all done the "look at the last post, read maybe the post before it, then hit reply" game, I've done it too, but it's a bad habit to be in, and the point is if you're wondering why you're confused about the way a conversation is going, and feel like you're on a different page from other people... That'd probably be why, right?
Because when you post something like this:
it's a pretty clear litmus test for whether or not you've been following along, because you cannot read this thread, pay attention to what is being said, and tell me that everyone agrees racism is not ok. That is precisely what is under dispute. It's what the point of contention is.
I suppose you missed this part of his most recent post, let me bring it to your attention:
Mad Mat has been disputing that the side speaking out against racism has the superior claim. He has been since page one. That's what this conversation's about.
Again, I strongly recommend reading this thread from the first page - it's not that long of a read, only 79 pages including this one - and reading it carefully, and then you'll have a better idea of what we're talking about.
Art is life itself.
I want to go back again to this quote right here:
This brings us back to what started this argument in the first place, the fact that you are arguing that you do not see any superiority between the arguments between one side and another, and so you merely see it as a matter of one side saying the other side is wrong, and the other side saying the first side is wrong.
To clarify, let’s take into account what the two sides are before proceeding. As noted, there is a political polarization between two sides of politics. We have both agreed that the polarization is formed around disagreements around the treatment of race and ethnicity.
So, in light of that, we have two sides.
1. Those who agree that racism is perfectly acceptable, and that one who prejudges someone based on race should not be faulted for doing so. This group, as you yourself have put it:
2. Those who disagree that prejudice against race is at all acceptable or ok, and who disagree with the above group.
Now, with all of that in mind, let’s take a look at your argument, which can be characterized in terms of two reactions to the above:
A. You are unsure of which side has the superior claim.
B. However, you are absolutely sure that the second group should not be calling the first group racists.
Let’s address [A] first. Keep in mind that you yourself have described the people that make up group [A] is irrational and has no rational basis for their positions. So we have group 1, who have no rational basis for their arguments, and favor immoral actions - including outright atrocities - against their fellow man.
And we have group 2, who say that the wrong things that people espouse are wrong, and have every rational basis behind their arguments.
Yet you are arguing that you can’t see the difference between them, or which side might be superior? Have you not basically declared the second side to be superior?
With this in mind, let’s address [B].
You have stated that, despite not knowing which side is right or wrong, which side is morally superior or inferior, you are absolutely certain that the second group should not be calling the first group racists. You give a variety of reasons:
It’s unfair
It’s confrontational
It’s alienating
It’s disenfranchising
So, with this in mind, I believe we can ascertain that you believe:
It’s wrong to be unfair to people
It’s wrong to be confrontational towards people
It’s wrong to alienate people
It’s wrong to disenfranchise people
So, in other words, what you are arguing is:
1. It is wrong to be unfair to people, and that is why it is not correct to call people racists when they are being racists. It is, however, perfectly ok to judge people based on their skin color, treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because being unfair is not being unfair to people when that group does it.
2. It is wrong to be confrontational towards people, and that is why it is not correct to tell someone who is being racist that he is racist, or to tell someone who is wrong that he is wrong. It is, however, perfectly ok to treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because such acts of confrontation are not being confrontational towards people when that group does it.
3. It is wrong to alienate people, and that is why it is not correct to tell someone who is being racist that he is racist, or to tell someone who is wrong that he is wrong. It is, however, perfectly ok to treat people differently based on their skin color, and call for the infringement of rights, disenfranchisement, rape, property destruction, abuse, murder, forced relocation, forced sterilization, and genocide of minorities, because being alienating is not alienating people when this group does it.
4. It is wrong to disenfranchise people. That is why it is wrong for people who disagree with racism to band together to try to prevent people who support racism from being able to enact the discriminating public policies they seek to enforce. However, people who are racist, who actively seek to disenfranchise people, are not in the wrong, because seeking disenfranchisement is not seeking disenfranchisement of people when this group does it.
You’re saying the side who objects to racism is in the wrong, and yet the principles upon which you claim them to be wrong – even if we were to agree that they actually applied to that group – are violated to a far greater degree by the very people you are trying to defend! And yet, you refuse to denounce these people as guilty of wrongdoing! How is this possible?
Because I can only come up with two reasons how one could argue this. Either you are arguing that:
1. Racists form a special category of people who have no responsibilities to anyone or anything, including the burden of proof, society, morality, the Constitution of the United States, rationality, etc., and are therefore above reproach and cannot be faulted for anything that they do, and therefore have a blank check to do whatever they want, because they are not to be judged by any standards that literally every other member of the human race has applied to them,
OR
2. Minorities do not count as people.
Which one are you arguing? Is it a combination of both statements? Or is there a third explanation I’m not seeing?
So, let me ask you this:
What we have in this country, as I said, is a sharp political divide that seems to be all the more divided. This, in particular, is due, as we both have agreed, in large part to a disagreement of how to treat minorities of race, gender, creed, and sexuality.
We have a large group of people who believe that our current president was elected on a groundswell of bigotry, and that the current administration is pursuing laws that are actively discriminatory and actively harmful to them.
My question to you is, assume that’s true: how should these people go about expressing their disagreement with the other side?
Because what this thread has taught me is that there is no way that these people could do this that would be deemed to be correct, as opposed to overly confrontational and radical. Protests would be too confrontational. Nonviolent demonstrations and acts of resistance would be too confrontational. Satire would be too confrontational. Calling racism “racism” would be too confrontational. Calling someone “incorrect” would be too confrontational. So in essence, ANY attempt to confront the matter is deemed too confrontational.
So what is the correct means of resistance? How do you get systemic abuse to stop?
You’re saying, “Well we should promote positive experiences with such people.” My problem with that is twofold. First and foremost, it’s basically putting the onus on the people who are being abused to prove that they should not be abused, as opposed to believing that they should not be abused by virtue of their being human beings.
Second of all, you’re acting like these positive experiences, such as the following…
… are not something that people are actively trying to do. Nor are you acknowledging that their major obstruction has been the other side actively opposing it. Which is why people are protesting in the first place. So once again, you’re blaming the people who are against the racists for not doing enough to convince the racists, and on top of that, blaming them for not doing enough to promote societal good when it’s the racists who are actively trying to stop them – and yet the racists are in no way to blame.
How does that make sense? How is that fair? And if it’s not fair, why is it not wrong for bigots to be unfair in their treatment of other people if you’re going to say that we shouldn’t treat people unfairly? Are the bigots the exception, do they have the right to do whatever they want? Or is it minorities who are the exception, do they have no rights to fair treatment? Or are both these statements true at the same time? Which is it?
Also, is it a blanket thing, or just particular to bigots? Like, if I’m just outright *****ty to someone, but it’s not because of race, creed, gender, or sexuality, do I have the right to be absolved from blame anyway? “Officer, yes, I understand that I assaulted this person, but you don’t understand – I don’t like the guy.” “Oh, you don’t like him, you say? Well why didn’t you say so? Go on ahead. Don’t worry, son, I’m sure some negative experience in your past planted the seeds of this emotional outburst you made that resulted in you violating this man’s rights, but that’s ok. It’s not your fault, and you have no reason to have to change or check your irrational behavior, because that’s what America’s all about.”
Is that how this works? Or does it only work if I’m white and he’s black? I’m just trying to figure out the rules here.
What difference does it make?
That’s what this really boils down to: what difference does it make? Do you really think that when someone says he wants all the black people in America to be sent back to Africa, there’s a big difference whether he said it in 1880 or 1960 or 2017? Do you really think there’s a complete difference to people who would deny gay people their full personhood and rights to equal treatment under the law during the Trump administration versus the Reagan administration? Do you think that when someone wishes to deny women equal rights on the basis that they do not believe women and men should be treated equally, there’s an overwhelming amount of difference between the people doing it in the 1920s, the 1950s, and the 2000s? Do you really think that the people who are looking to deny people equal protection under the law, to deny people their equal rights, are all that different from the people who did it 50 years ago?
For goodness sakes man, this is not a new invention.
You'd be a damn fool to ignore all of your previous experiences, ignore all surrounding circumstances and make terrible decisions for the sake of "not coming across as racist"
Our kid is on a traveling baseball team. We've been to nearly every park in a 50 mile radius. One park in particular is in a largely black township. The first thing that struck me was all the warning signs about protecting or hiding your property. When you park it becomes obvious why: groups of youths in the parking lot checking for unlocked cars (doing nuffin.)
Now under some peoples thinking, the fact that your in a black neighborhood is irrelevant. You could be in any park, with any race of youths in the lot checking for unlocked cars. But experience tells you, you've been to the other 40 parks many times over many years and you know there is a direct correlation here. We as the better part of society simply don't say or imply anything out loud because "That's racist". But if you think your car and your belongings are safe, you'd be an idiot.
My wife and I own rental property in a diverse group of neighborhoods. Housing is a topic that gets a lot of attention in the race debate. In accordance with the law, we'd never turn down an application based on race. But its a very fair statement we have experience with different ethnics in different neighborhoods on this topic. I'll talk about low income housing since that is where the largest disparities can be seen. In black neighborhoods its constant break-ins, violent crimes related to drug trafficking and a constant police presence. In white neighborhoods they take their disability money, sell their prescriptions and solicit themselves to buy heroin from blacks who traffic it. Hispanics somehow live in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood with a strong sense of community.
In regarding to soliciting (often for heroin) black people rob those who respond or show up. Show up at the girls house, and a black man jumps out of the bathroom and robs you at gunpoint. Now again you could say that ANY race is capable of doing this. That's hypothetically true. But do other races do it? No. Then notice more than half of the ads literally say "No black men", "NO AA" or "No black men under 30" Are the girls racist, or have they learned through experience that they get robbed, they get their ass beat, they get pimped?
Now make choices about where you want to buy properties, and what subsets of behavior are you willing to deal with. Are you ready to spend $7K or more to repair a damaged property like I have? Risk having a property condemned because it was used as a meth lab? (note: labs are more common among whites) Tenants move out because of heavy police presence and break ins? If you had collective information would you ignore it completely for the sake of not seeming 'racist' ?
According to city data, the town we live in is 95.6% white alone. The black people we do have, carry some very unlikable behavior. For example, they will walk out in front of your car at Walmart, hoping you'll hit them so they can sue. This is factual. You need to be aware of it when you shop there. They also jay walk across 5 lane roads. You need to have some sense of "racism" or you might hit someone. Everyone simply tolerates it, because nobody wants to "be racist".
I think what Mad Mat is saying, is that we can't toss collected experience and knowledge out the window because we might be seen as racist. And in some cases, doing so is downright stupid. I mean, its nice to live in the Ivory tower, looking down and proclaiming "All of humanity should live like this, never making negative assumptions or judging each other." Its easy to post from a nice college campus how things should "theoretically" be in the world outside. But this is the real world. The one we actually live in. Go live it - get your hands dirty. Go see. Looking at numbers and percentages online doesn't teach you anything about how it is
I hold the door for absolutely anyone. I'm polite in person - to everyone. But I'd never park a Lexus on MLK overnight. I can attest from personal experience that if you are white, you're not welcome on MLK to begin with. I'd never buy property on Fulton & Clark. And damn straight I'm on the lookout at Walmart.
What I won't agree with, is any statement that you shouldn't feel safe if a muslim or black person moved in across the street. If you ALREADY live in a nice neighborhood, the reason they move in is to ALSO live in a nice neighborhood just like you. Neighborhoods can go down hill and they often do as they age. But there's just as many low income white neighborhoods. And if your neighborhood begins to slide, you have the freedom to move out.
My Buying Thread
"This is not a safe parking lot, because people's cars are broken into regularly" is not racist.
"This is not a safe parking lot, because it's in a predominantly-black neighborhood" is racist.
You seem to be implying that race is not actually an indicator of whether you should feel afraid. That the local housing market (or more generally, income levels) is a better indicator of probability of crime. Is that accurate?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It is very accurate. Poverty and crime are directly related. That's not to say every poor neighborhood is bad. You can also be murdered in an upscale neighborhood. But one is rarely present without the other.
My Buying Thread