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.
Then it seems to me the discussion you should be participating in is why there is correlation between race and income levels instead of race and crime.
From my experience at least here in Oregon, the racial makeup of a city isn't always a good indicator of determining economic well-being. There are towns that are ~90% white and they can be very wealthy or very poor. Education levels, human capital, and local infrastructure are what really determine your economic fate.
Then it seems to me the discussion you should be participating in is why there is correlation between race and income levels instead of race and crime.
I'm not sure if quantity is a weighing factor. It affects national averages, but moot towards whether or not you're safe in a particular area, of whether or not racism plays into how safe you feel.
Low income white neighborhoods in CLE, surrounding suburbs don't see a lot of gun activity. Most are not traffickers; they're users. Heroin, prostitution, petty theft, the occasional domestic violence call. Nothing you need a vest for, despite open carry laws and ccw. Do consider though, I'm also white, and I'm sure that plays a factor in the ability to move around freely and safely in those environments. I can't speak for experience for other races and whether or not they would be safe in those areas, but having experienced it in reverse I can only assume its the same
I assume that its the same or similar, because I've experienced first hand what it is to be a white boy in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've been surrounded before, asked to leave establishments because I was white, ejected from another despite being there with black friends, threatened, harassed while parked at intersections for being in the wrong neighborhood and more. At that time, at that age I did not know better, I didn't know the area as well; I was ignorant. On some occasions, we were simply lost coming back from an event on the west side, as we don't know it well enough
Ironically, one of my friends (note that being black is relevant) made this same mistake, when he settled into a hillbilly biker bar packed with Harley's outside.... And when the police responded, everyone in the bar blamed him, even the bartender. I said the same thing. What were you thinking man? If you wanna find a white racist, then a dive biker bar full of old ass harley riders with long hair, tats, leather vests and club patches is the first place you'd look. Jesus dude
Wrong as it may be either way, its real. Ignoring it, pretending otherwise as to not seem racist could cause you serious harm. We make the best decisions we can every day, using what we've learned and know.
Yamaha, I agree with much of what you're saying in theory, but I'd be really careful about how you phrase it. I personally think it's totally possible to say everything you just said and not be racist, but I don't think most people are going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I think the most important thing to do when making that kind of argument is to make it absolutely clear that there's no causal relationship between being black and being violent/low-income/whatever. Obviously there is some kind of relationship between those things, but I would say it's due to a history of institutionalized racism that's left behind inequalities that still exist today. In other words, one could say it's by total chance that black people are the traditionally oppressed race and white people are traditionally the oppressors. It's not because there are actually different species of humans, but just a combination of luck, different skin colors, and maybe some kind of Jungian preference for associating white with good and black with bad.
I would guess you basically agree with all of that, but I think it's really important to spell all of that out if you're going to put forward a position like that.
EDIT: After reading over Yamaha's initial post again, I found it to be a little more uncomfortable than I remembered. I agree with the certain parts of it on a certain level of abstraction, but I definitely wouldn't publicly stick up for someone who was saying stuff like that in real life.
After thinking some more, I'd like to address a point that has often been repeated in this thread, which is this sentiment that we shouldn't be calling people racists, because that would be seen as too confrontational, and that a much better approach is to try not to offend these people in the hopes that they might turn over to the other side without being alienated. An example can be seen here:
Quote from Mad Mat »
I argued that trying to root out racism by faulting people for it and calling them out may not be an effective approach, because it does not address the causes of their racism (racism as in, discrimination based on racial characteristics). This makes them much more likely to reject your judgment and become even more convinced that their behavior is not unjust. A more effective approach is dealing with the most important of these causes directly.
Now, I have already discussed how this sentiment is problematic due to two major issues:
1. It completely ignores the role racists play in the propagation and continued existence of racism
2. It places the onus on the people suffering from discrimination to prove that they should not be discriminated against.
But I'd also like to point out a huge problem with claiming the above is a "more effective approach," which is: When has this ever been true?
When, in our nation's history, has this fear of confrontation, don't rock the boat mindset ever once yielded the advancement of human rights in the face of those trying to deny them?
I don't believe it ever has.
Every instance I know of has been the result of people standing up and demanding their rights from those who would infringe upon them. America became independent as a result of the American colonies proclaiming that England had infringed upon their God-given, inalienable rights and demanding that they be released from King George's tyranny, and in turn fighting a bloody war over it. The slaves were freed because Abraham Lincoln demanded that they be freed and granted their rights as human beings, and later because the Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal. Women gained the right to vote because women demanded to be given their right to vote. Then there's the Civil Rights Movement, which involved numerous Supreme Court decisions demanding that all people be given equal rights regardless of race. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, demanded that school segregation be outlawed. In this regard, consider the case of Little Rock Nine, who were escorted BY THE NATIONAL GUARD to and from school to enforce the government's demand that they be allowed to attend a previously white-only school. And then there's marriage equality, which came about through Supreme Court demanding that people of mixed race be allowed to marry in every state and then again when the Supreme Court demanded that same-sex marriages be allowed in every state.
Exactly zero of these freedoms were obtained as a result of people doing nothing and things just spontaneously happening. All of these victories came from people demanding what was theirs by right, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America.
Well, first of all, it seems pretty clear to me that you don't agree with Mad Mat, because what you're saying is very different from what Mad Mat is saying. In fact, you even say so here:
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.
Second, Lithl has already expressed all of this better than I can, but the problem with what you're saying can be found here:
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.
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're simultaneously saying that you're perfectly justified for presuming that you're not safe around black people due to the black neighborhoods you've encountered having high amounts of crime, AND that you disagree with people feeling unsafe around Muslim or black people if you're in a nice neighborhood.
So what you're saying is that crime is not correlated to people being black or Muslim, it's correlated to whether you're from a nice neighborhood or a low income neighborhood.
So... The answer is would be yes, being black IS irrelevant, because crime isn't correlated to people being black, it's correlated to people being poor.
The other thing I want to once again stress:
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.
There is nothing racist about saying your car isn't safe in a neighborhood that has a lot of crime.
What is racist is to say that your car isn't safe in a neighborhood because there are black people around.
When, in our nation's history, has this fear of confrontation, don't rock the boat mindset ever once yielded the advancement of human rights in the face of those trying to deny them?
I don't believe it ever has.
[...]
Exactly zero of these freedoms were obtained as a result of people doing nothing and things just spontaneously happening. All of these victories came from people demanding what was theirs by right, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America.
Someone else has said this earlier, but why are you framing this like your two options are aggressive confrontation and doing nothing? I'd say it's clear that neither of these are good strategies. What I and the others are saying is that people get defensive if you call them out as being wrong. No one is saying we should just leave them alone and everything will be okay. You basically have to "Incept" people, i.e., make them think it was their idea all along. Fortunately, you don't need a lucid dreaming machine to accomplish this: all you have to do is be respectful, make sure you understand where they're coming from, and argue with them in a way that makes sense to them. This doesn't always work, of course, but there's no shortcut to it.
Well, I guess you could also try to flood their news feed with viewpoints that are opposed to their own, in the hopes that they change their minds due to social pressure. But as we now know, social media tends to do the complete opposite.
But anyway, Highroller, I'm not sure why you're (again) framing this like being rude and doing nothing are your only options. For what it's worth, I agree with much of your assessment of Yamaha's post, though.
Someone else has said this earlier, but why are you framing this like your two options are aggressive confrontation and doing nothing?
You continue to not understand what this conversation is about.
I am responding to Mad Mat, who has basically stated that any response that is not passive is overly confrontational, to the point where even calling someone "incorrect" is overly-confrontational and counterproductive, because it risks alienating them.
I am not framing things in a false binary. I am responding to a false binary, and calling it out for being ridiculous.
What I and the others are saying is that people get defensive if you call them out as being wrong.
Which is no excuse for not pointing out when someone is doing something morally wrong.
No one is saying we should just leave them alone and everything will be okay.
Read the thread and you might realize how mistaken you are.
all you have to do is be respectful, make sure you understand where they're coming from, and argue with them in a way that makes sense to them. This doesn't always work, of course, but there's no shortcut to it
Did you even read my post? Of course there is. It's called the Supreme Court.
The fact of the matter is that no opinion in this country about the justification of depriving someone of their fundamental rights, including equal protection under the law, holds any validity. This idea that it is the responsibility of those who are oppressed to convince those who would deprive them of human rights that they should be treated as human beings, the idea that rights are a privilege that must be earned and not rights, are antithetical both to the very principles of this country and human reason.
This "I don't agree, therefore you just don't understand" thing comes off as pretty conscending. If you can point out where someone said that ignoring the problem is the best solution, then fine. But from my perspective, you don't understand what Mad Mat is saying. I can read Mad Mat's post and think, "Yeah, that sounds pretty good." Then I read your response and think, "This is the least charitable interpretation of what he just said." Calling his approach "passive" or "doing nothing" totally misses the point, as does framing it as an attempt to preserve to preserve people's feelings. I tried to explain what a middle ground might look like and your response is that I don't know what I'm talking about. Which, I grant, is possible, but again, please point out where someone was legitimately arguing for leaving racists alone being the best solution.
Which is no excuse for not pointing out when someone is doing something morally wrong.
Well, it depends. It's not an "excuse," it's that your efforts will be counterproductive if you do it wrong.
Did you even read my post? Of course there is. It's called the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court doesn't change people's minds. That's what I was saying there's no shortcut to. It only changes the law, which can influence people's beliefs in future generatons, but it doesn't change beliefs.
This "I don't agree, therefore you just don't understand" thing comes off as pretty conscending.
I didn't say, "You disagree therefore you don't understand what's being said." I have pointed out how you don't understand what's being said.
Calling his approach "passive" or "doing nothing" totally misses the point,
Of course it isn't, because Mad Mat does not agree that racism is wrong or a problem. He has said so himself. He said so on this very page. Moreover, I have addressed his saying it in my posts. Moreover, I have pointed it out in a post specifically directed at you.
So coming into this thread saying things like, "Well Highroller, I'm pretty sure Mad Mat agrees with me, and nobody's actually arguing that racism isn't a problem," only belies that you obviously have not taken the time to read his argument and understand what he is saying, because neither of those assertions is correct. Moreover, it tells me you haven't taken the time to read what I'm saying, because I've pointed out why you're not correct in a post directly addressed to you on this very page.
There's no substitute for actually reading what that person has written to understand what a person has written. If you're not willing to do that, there is no reason to continue.
The Supreme Court doesn't change people's minds. That's what I was saying there's no shortcut to. It only changes the law, which can influence people's beliefs in future generatons, but it doesn't change beliefs.
It is not incumbent upon the people who are arguing against those who would infringe upon their inalienable rights to get the other people to agree that they should be allowed to have rights. It is the responsibility of the other side to grant them inalienable rights. That is the point of inalienable rights.
If someone's committing murders, are we going to say that the problem was people not being polite enough about explaining why his committing murders is wrong? Are we going to say that maybe people might alienate him by calling him a murderer, and we should refrain from using such a word? No, of course not. He has a moral and legal responsibility to not commit murders, and is violating it.
Likewise, we have a moral and legal responsibility to treat people with equal protection under the law. When people seek to create legal discrimination - or worse, advocate things like forced relocation or mass genocide - they are the ones who have violated their responsibilities. Moreover, it is the responsibility of everyone in this country to oppose such efforts. It is certainly not the responsibility of anyone who is protesting legal discrimination to avoid offending or confronting anyone.
as does framing it as an attempt to preserve to preserve people's feelings.
I didn't say, "You disagree therefore you don't understand what's being said." I have pointed out how you don't understand what's being said.
Well, you pointed out how your interpretation is different than mine. That doesn't make yours right.
Of course it isn't, because Mad Mat does not agree that racism is wrong or a problem. He has said so himself. He said so on this very page. Moreover, I have addressed his saying it in my posts. Moreover, I have pointed it out in a post specifically directed at you.
Again, I think you're just interpreting what he's saying in the least charitable way.
It is not incumbent upon the people who are arguing against those who would infringe upon their inalienable rights that they should be allowed to have rights. That is the point of inalienable rights. [...]
This doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if your goal is to change people's minds, changing the law doesn't necessarily help, and may even cause greater outrage in the short-run.
as does framing it as an attempt to preserve to preserve people's feelings.
I fail to see how that isn't precisely what this is.
Because preserving feelings isn't the end goal. I'm not arguing for a less aggressive approach because I directly care about the feelings of people who may hold racist beliefs. However, I indirectly care, because if I end up offending them, they're not going to listen to me, they'll think my side is just self-righteous, and I'll have no shot at actually changing their minds.
I don't really think you call someone racist because you're interested in changing their behavior long term. You do it to say you won't put up with racism and send a message to those witnessing that X behavior is racist and unacceptable, and they shouldn't do it either in the future.
Cause honestly? Passive or aggressive, you aren't going up change a racist's mind.
Again, I think you're just interpreting what he's saying in the least charitable way.
And I have pointed out why this is an erroneous mindset, and substantiated it with quotes from Mad Mat.
Mad Mat has made it clear he does not agree that racism is wrong. He has said so. Therefore, for you to say:
I feel pretty safe in saying that no one with whom you are arguing believes that racism is okay
demonstrates you don't understand what the argument is about. It is not simply a matter of our opinions conflicting. You are objectively false.
This doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if your goal is to change people's minds, changing the law doesn't necessarily help, and may even cause greater outrage in the short-run.
So why is it we have to tip-toe around people who are causing outrage by violating morals and laws by advocating things like disenfranchisement (or, you know, genocide), but somehow the same standards don't apply to the outrage they cause by advocating things like disenfranchisement or genocide?
Why is it you have to avoid outrage in pointing out when a group is advocating illegal and immoral acts, but not if you're promoting the illegal and immoral acts themselves? Why is offending people wrong only if it's racists taking offense?
Because preserving feelings isn't the end goal. I'm not arguing for a less aggressive approach because I directly care about the feelings of people who may hold racist beliefs. However, I indirectly care, because if I end up offending them, they're not going to listen to me, they'll think my side is just self-righteous, and I'll have no shot at actually changing their minds.
If you're going to argue that any belief that a person might be wrong will trigger defensiveness in that person, and that reaction of defensiveness is to be avoided at any cost, then you are arguing that making people feel that they're wrong is to be avoided at any cost.
Don't you think that's an argument that's both ridiculous, and very dangerous, to make when we're talking about people who are advocating immoral and illegal acts, particularly advocating the infringement of peoples' rights?
Moreover, isn't it nonsensical to say, "Let's get these people to change their minds by doing whatever we can to prevent them from thinking that they're wrong?"
All I can say (again) is that there are different definitions of racism going on. I really don't feel like this is productive, though: I can tell you I think you're misinterpreting things, you can tell me I dont know what I'm talking about.
I think the most important thing in a debate is to be curious why someone would disagree with you. I know I'm not always great at doing this myself (and I've probably become worse at it as this exchange has advanced), but I feel like this is something that's severely lacking from the way you're arguing. This by itself doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it does make the conversation fairly dispiriting.
If you're going to argue that any belief that a person might be wrong will trigger defensiveness in that person, and that reaction of defensiveness is to be avoided at any cost, then you are arguing that making people feel that they're wrong is to be avoided at any cost.
Don't you think that's an argument that's both ridiculous, and very dangerous, to make when we're talking about people who are advocating immoral and illegal acts, particularly advocating the infringement of peoples' rights?
Moreover, isn't it nonsensical to say, "Let's get these people to change their minds by doing whatever we can to prevent them from thinking that they're wrong?"
The way you phrase it here is a little too extreme for me, but yeah, changing someone's mind is tricky business. I think the key is a shift from "you're wrong" to "we disagree".
He is debating his interpretation of Mad Mats argument, and what he feels the underlying argument is really about.
Personally I thought the focus was about everyday racism and a polarized society. To Tiax's point, carrying a polite and pleasant demeanor, but still holding reservations. And then, whether or not you should call people out for there reservations.
Statements keep getting made that seem like extremes. There's no real point in debating extremes. I would argue that everyday racism affects peoples lives more than extremists. IE, not hiring someone because of their race, not subletting to another race, not wanting to live across from other races, or not leaving a tip because of someones race. You're not debating about whether or not a neo-nazi should be called out for being racist. That would be unproductive.
I think the most important thing in a debate is to be curious why someone would disagree with you.
There's nothing wrong with understanding why someone would disagree with you, but there's absolutely nothing that requires me to either agree with that person or find their argument not completely objectionable. If someone is defending an immoral stance, there is nothing that should obligate me to not be morally outraged by their argument.
The way you phrase it here is a little too extreme for me, but yeah, changing someone's mind is tricky business. I think the key is a shift from "you're wrong" to "we disagree".
So you don't think infringing on peoples' rights is wrong? Or are we simply meant to hide the fact that we do?
Like, let me ask you something, if I had a group of people who...
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
of all non-white people in America, just because they're not white, would you argue that these people are wrong?
Please clarify your position for me: depriving someone of equal rights under the law, right, wrong, or no strong thoughts either way? How about racial genocide: right, wrong, or no strong thoughts either way?
Because THAT is what this conversation is about. And I know you're going to say, "Well here you go again, Highroller. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're being terribly presumptuous and trying to twist everything in a bad light. No one in this thread is saying that genocide isn't wrong." BUT - and this is very important - that's not true.
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.
That is Mad Mat disagreeing with me that the anti-genocide-against-anyone-not-white side has a superior argument over the pro-genocide side. That's not a distortion. That's not me twisting his words. That's what he actually argued, in his own words.
Now, do you agree with that? Because that's what I've been trying to explain to you, if you believe that not-genocide has a superior argument over pro-genocide, then you do not agree with Mad Mat.
And here's what this all boils down to: if you do believe all of that is wrong, then why would you not say so?
When we're dealing with people who want things like genocide, forced sterilization, forced relocation, or otherwise depriving people of equal protection of their law based purely on their race, we should tell these people that they're wrong.
I agree with Highroller's approach here that if you think someone/something is racist you should say so, and not necessarily worry about how that might make one feel. Unfortunately, though, I think this word - racist - is becoming increasingly less meaningful and, consequently, you should be ready to explain what you mean by that and why it's a problem. I also believe that Highroller has done a pretty good job of that in this thread.
I wanted to explain what my issue is with this word right now by way of an example. Recently, there was an article about Yusra Khogali on Huffington Post. She is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto. She's said many things that are preposterous from a factual perspective (e.g. claiming that Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist, some pseudo-science about race and the sun) and also things that I contend are viciously racist (e.g. that white people are subhuman, talking about how hard it is for her not to kill white people, etc.). Now if you read that article and scroll down to the comment section you will find many people defending her comments or her position in this group and, to my knowledge, she hasn't resigned or been dismissed from it. So here you have people holding up the banner of anti-racism saying that these comments aren't racist and attacking the editor, calling him a racist for calling such comments out. So that highlights some of the strange ways in which this word is being employed lately. Meanwhile, I don't think you can find a more primo example of racism than the labeling of any group of people as subhuman because of their skin-color. And I believe I was in a conversation here not too long ago with someone claiming that no one is ever falsely accused of racism, which would mean that I have to accept that Justin Trudeau really is a white supremacist and that is just silly.
Bottom line, call it like you see it (racism or anything else) and be willing to listen and respond.
I agree with Highroller's approach here that if you think someone/something is racist you should say so, and not necessarily worry about how that might make one feel. Unfortunately, though, I think this word - racist - is becoming increasingly less meaningful and, consequently, you should be ready to explain what you mean by that and why it's a problem. I also believe that Highroller has done a pretty good job of that in this thread.
I agree. Racism should absolutely be called out, but, as you say, you need to be able to explain. I would add I think there should be more explaining done upfront and less just throwing the accusation at people. It's not something you should use lightly, and the complexity of these issues in the modern world warrants careful consideration of detail, and people to be upfront about that detail or it isn't well heard.
Even more so, you need to be considerate that someone can do or say some racist thing without being deeply racist, or racist at all. True intentions don't always carry well, especially when the conservation becomes as polarised as it has, and you get caught out saying something you didn't mean or didn't understand. Or simply fall victim to a lapse in judgement and be a little prejudiced. It's certainly not good, but it's not the same as a genuine passionate belief in the supremacy of the white race or something.
Which is all to say- racism itself is truly abhorrent, but people involved in it aren't necessarily. It weakens the message about truly abhorrent racist people to throw everyone who says anything racist under the exact same bulldozer. Some are a LOT closer to being perfectly good people.
I so tried to avoid posting here anymore because the amount of time (I don't have right now) and frustration (I can't afford right now) it takes to answer Highroller posts, but this is just too much:
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.
That is Mad Mat disagreeing with me that the anti-genocide-against-anyone-not-white side has a superior argument over the pro-genocide side. That's not a distortion. That's not me twisting his words. That's what he actually argued, in his own words.
Now, do you agree with that? Because that's what I've been trying to explain to you, if you believe that not-genocide has a superior argument over pro-genocide, then you do not agree with Mad Mat.
This interpretation of my answer to your question only works if you assume racism is the same as genocide, which is simply not true. This is absolutely a distortion of what I have said.
To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
So, you think racism is the same thing as genocide?
No it isn't.
But as he has quoted you weren't sure which side had the superior claim, the one that was advocating measures that included at an extreme genocide die to peoples racist or the side that was standing up against those measures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Wow. If we are debating whether or not people who want "genocide, forced sterilization" should be called racist, then the thread is over. Nobody is contesting that. Nobody suggested that, without a lot of word twisting, debate traps and paragraph manipulation. That's a gross inflation using extremes degenerate to useful discussion. Inside the US, I don't see anyone "dealing" with that, unless your incapable of ignoring a fraction of a fraction of the population that most people write off as crazy. Maybe if you were fighting ISIS, or lived in the Congo...
I agree with Highroller's approach here that if you think someone/something is racist you should say so, and not necessarily worry about how that might make one feel.
Thank you, Ljoss.
Unfortunately, though, I think this word - racist - is becoming increasingly less meaningful
I've never really bought into this argument. It seems to go along the lines of two directions.
1. The word "racist" is losing its meaning to just mean "bad" or "wrong," instead of what it originally meant.
2. So many things now are being called racist, including things I don't agree are racist.
So, addressing 2 first, yeah. That's what's supposed to happen. We're supposed to have a national discourse as to what how to get along between different races of people, and what is or is not appropriate. That's what's supposed to happen. Let us remember that not too long ago the debates were about whether or not it was ok to enslave people, or whether a black man is 3/5s of a person instead of a person. Later the debate became about whether or not it was ok to mandate black people use separate drinking fountains from white people. And we're STILL having issues about what makes a proper relationship between the police and ethnic minority communities. If there's conflicting opinions about what is or is not racist, that's not a sign that "racism" the word has lost meaning, it clearly hasn't. What it does mean is that we're in debate over what does or does not conform to the meaning of "racist," which means, necessarily, there must be a meaning to the word "racist."
As for 1, this is very simply not true. Because if I say, "Oh man, that restaurant is really racist," it's very different from, "Oh man, that restaurant is bad." Similarly, I can say, "this toothpaste is racist," and that means a different thing from, "this toothpaste is bad." Likewise, I can say, "this story is racist," and it's not the same thing as, "this story is bad." I can think of racist restaurants, racist toothpaste, and racist stories, but that's not the same thing as saying that they're bad. In fact, as at least one of those, Lovecraft's stories, is legitimately great despite the racism. It's bad that Lovecraft is racist, mind, because being racist isn't a good thing, but that doesn't mean he couldn't craft a chilling work of horror.
Which brings me to the point. Racist clearly hasn't lost it's meaning to mean "bad" or "wrong," but instead, people view things that promote racism as objectionable because they object to racism. Which is the exact opposite of "racism" losing its meaning.
Which is an infuriating sort of misrepresentation.
It's not. You explicitly said you DON'T KNOW which side has the superior claim.
Meaning you DON'T KNOW whether this side
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
has a superior claim over the other side, which is the group that objects to depriving people of equal protection under the law.
So either you are arguing the first group is superior, or you're ambivalent about the whole "equal protection under the law for everyone" thing; but either way, you're definitely sure that the second group shouldn't be calling the first group racist.
That's not distortion, that's actually what you are arguing.
Wow. If we are debating whether or not people who want "genocide, forced sterilization" should be called racist, then the thread is over. Nobody is contesting that.
Nobody should be contesting that. Somebody is contesting that, and has been for about five pages now. You understand my frustration.
The question you asked was whether racist behavior should or should not be reduced, specifically which of the groups advocating either has the superior claim. This implies racist behavior as it is claimed today, in the societies we live in. It is a direct reference to the discussions that polarize these societies. So why would you bring up genocide?
Because you brought up genocide as one of the stances of people who are influencing politics with racist agendas.
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
See?
If someone claims a certain type of behavior is racist and that is bad, while someone else disputes this, and I say I do not know who has the better claim, that does not mean I'd have the same doubts with any allegation of racist behavior. Precisely because it can mean so many different things.
Would you be willing to clarify your position by explaining which of the above examples you would express doubt about who has the better claim, versus which ones you would not, and what is the reasoning behind your agreeing with/disagreeing with/doubting that position?
I pointed out the political and social risk of accusing people of racism,
Risk to whom?
who do not consider themselves racist or bad because of it, as they have a different view of what the word entails or because they see themselves as victims and the accusations as an additional threat.
Whether or not one perceives oneself as being wrong is entirely irrelevant to whether or not one is actually wrong.
In such contexts, I don't think it's a productive way of addressing discrimination.
And I have demonstrated numerous historical examples of which that statement is not only false, but absurd.
You're treating people as the enemy,
If you are an opponent to equal protection under the law, and the goal is equal protection under the law, then yes, "enemy" is accurate. Remember that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is the ideological bedrock upon which our nation was built. If you are opposed to that, you are opposed to America.
Quote from Martin Luther King Jr., "The Montgomery Bus Boycott" »
And we are not wrong, we are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to earth. If we are wrong, justice is a lie. Love has no meaning. And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
while they consider themselves as under threat or as protectors from threats to society. This way, you're exacerbating the problem.
The problem is that people who seek to deny people equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, exist and are active.
So no, opposing these people is not exacerbating the problem. Calling out the incorrect statements these people make is not exacerbating the problem. Confronting the wrongdoing done by these people is not exacerbating the problem. Declaring these people as threats to our American values is not exacerbating the problem. Stopping these people from passing discriminatory legislation is not exacerbating the problem. Publicly decrying such acts as unacceptable is not exacerbating the problem. It's FIXING the problem.
Why would you call people who want genocide or forced sterilization racist?
So, Yahama1, do you still think I'm distorting an argument?
No, as an example of what people self-identifying as White Nationalists might believe. The most extreme example, in fact. Not one that is actually influencing politics today.
If White Nationalists are influencing politics today, and
White nationalists 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.
, then these sentiments are influencing politics today. Logic.
If someone out of the blue asks you the question "should we do something about racism today?", do you answer with "yeah, those guys who want to exterminate muslims and black people are getting too much power"?
With Trump in power, and his uncomfortable links to White Nationalism? Definitely would work its way into the conversation at some point, sure.
I see you misrepresenting my statement, yeah. Did you really think I'd have doubts about whether genocide is a good idea because I once listed genocide as something a racist group might want and pages later I said I'm not sure where I stand on today's issues concerning racism?
What you have posted with regards to your beliefs is you're not sure whether this White Nationalist element backing Trump, or the side adamantly against that group, has the superior claim. White Nationalists being the group whose beliefs include:
White nationalists 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.
So yes, if White Nationalists encompass all of these sentiments, as you so are so quick to remind us, and you are addressing White Nationalists, then you are addressing people who believe all of those. You don't get to yell at Jay13x for not addressing all of the various beliefs of White Nationalists and talk about how unfair he's being for failing to do so, only to NOW try to pick and choose only a handful of White Nationalist viewpoints to represent the whole. You don't get to complain about how Jay13x didn't include genocidal people when talking about White Nationalists, only to now claim that genocidal people are irrelevant and are to be ignored when it's brought up against your argument.
And if you aren't sure which is the superior argument with regards to ANY of those positions versus the group that believes that everyone should be treated with equality and fairness under the law - especially when you yourself have said that the first group is not rational and has only emotion backing their arguments - all I can ask is how?
In fact, I've repeatedly asked how, mystified as I am by it, but whenever I've asked you to clarify your position, you've dodged the question.
So, I ask again:
Quote from Highroller »
Would you be willing to clarify your position by explaining which of the above examples you would express doubt about who has the better claim, versus which ones you would not, and what is the reasoning behind your agreeing with/disagreeing with/doubting that position?
Imagine I listed once that willing to decimate the human population on earth is something an extreme environmentalist might want to do. Does that mean it's what I will always be talking about whenever I'm discussing environmentalist issues?
Not analogous. There is no such thing as White Nationalism that isn't racist. Nor are there racists who aren't racist, for that matter. There is certainly, however, environmentalism that isn't extremist.
Now, were we talking about something actually analogous, which would be if you were talking about extremist environmentalists? Then I think you'd certainly be remiss not to talk about those who seek to kill human life, certainly.
And conveniently, you once again leave out the rest of what I said in that sentence?
I thought I covered that pretty well in the statement before it. You know, the one you conveniently left out of your post and didn't address.
Quote from Highroller »
The problem is that people who seek to deny people equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, exist and are active.
So no, opposing these people is not exacerbating the problem. Calling out the incorrect statements these people make is not exacerbating the problem. Confronting the wrongdoing done by these people is not exacerbating the problem. Declaring these people as threats to our American values is not exacerbating the problem. Stopping these people from passing discriminatory legislation is not exacerbating the problem. Publicly decrying such acts as unacceptable is not exacerbating the problem. It's FIXING the problem.
Post 1: OP makes a thread about the polarization about politics, and discusses polarization along the lines of racial discourse.
Post 7: Jay13x makes a post about how you cannot compare those who seek racial equality with white nationalists.
White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
Post 9: You come in asking what the difference is in terms of validity of argument between people who want equal rights and people who are white nationalists. You also criticize Jay13x as being wrong for his characterization of White Nationalism, saying:
White nationalists 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.
Now let's keep all of that in mind, because it's important.
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.
Post 102: I point out that in saying this, you are saying that you do not know whether those who, by YOUR OWN WORDS,
White nationalists 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.
or those who are against this, have a superior claim, and chastise you for it, as any sane person would.
Post 109: You allege that I'm misrepresenting you, because you're only talking about racism in society today.
Except, we're talking specifically about White Nationalism. And how did YOU, specifically, characterize White Nationalists?
White nationalists 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.
So yes, if you're talking about White Nationalists, then clearly we are meant to talk about the above. That was YOUR point against Jay13x. I cannot be claimed to be misrepresenting your statements.
Also, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What you want to say is that you're not addressing the entirety of White Nationalists
White nationalists 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.
Like, not all of these guys, but a smaller portion of them? Tell me, would that smaller portion include those who specifically, say, wish to deport nonwhite people or who want to make nonwhite people second class citizens? Because:
Quote from Jay13x »
White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
That's precisely what in the hell Jay13x said, and it's what you criticized him for!
You can't simultaneously fault Jay13x for not including the worst of White Nationalists in his statement and only addressing the ones who want to deport nonwhites and make nonwhites second-class citizens, and THEN come around and say, "No, you can't accuse me of talking about the worst of White Nationalists, I'm only talking about the ones who want to deport nonwhites and make nonwhites second-class citizens." That's completely the opposite thing as the last thing you said on the subject!
Now I assume you're going to say something along the lines of, "Oh no, this is TOTALLY different!"
Because the questions in each situation were fundamentally different.
Yep. Called it.
Because the questions in each situation were fundamentally different. On page 1, we were talking about whether white nationalists can be compared to equal rights activists. I made that list to show that there is a gradient in what people may believe among those groups, so that if you really want to compare them, you'd have to look at groups with similarly extreme ideas.
Many pages later, you asked which side I thought had the superior claim. It does not make sense that this "claim" would imply all of the beliefs in that list. That's even impossible. You can't want extermination and assimilation at the same time.
It makes perfect sense because of exactly what you just said! You're saying that one side is White Nationalism, and the other side is the side against White Nationalism, and you chastised Jay13x for presenting a limited view of White Nationalism, and then affirmed that each and every one of those viewpoints were part of the White Nationalist movement as it exists today, and that we needed to address their existence as a multitude.
You cannot then flimsily try to backpedal by saying, "Oh no, I was only addressing the ones that Jay13x was talking about. You know, the ones I told him he was wrong for addressing only those parts of White Nationalism instead of all of them."
Also let's take a closer look at that first paragraph:
On page 1, we were talking about whether white nationalists can be compared to equal rights activists. I made that list to show that there is a gradient in what people may believe among those groups, so that if you really want to compare them, you'd have to look at groups with similarly extreme ideas.
Except that's wrong because ALL White Nationalists view non-white people as worthy of marginalization. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who are anti-White Nationalism who are legitimately interested in equality.
Likewise, this analogy is bogus as well:
Catholics are influencing politics today. Some catholics are pedophiles. That doesn't mean that's what we refer to when we talk about catholic political influence.
Except not only are Catholics who are pedophiles not pedophiles because they are Catholic, but Catholic ideology explicitly condemns pedophilia, and those Catholics who are pedophiles are genuinely seen as being contrary to what Catholicism stands for.
This is explicitly not the case with White Nationalists. There may be varying levels of extremism between someone who wants to exterminate all nonwhites vs. someone who wants to deport all nonwhites vs. someone who wants to make nonwhites second-class citizens, but the fundamental ideology is still in place, and all of these expressions stem from a common ideology. All of these are White Nationalists, and all of these were explicitly mentioned by you when talking about White Nationalism as it exists today. Therefore, it cannot be similarly argued that such positions are contrary to White Nationalism, for they are indeed recognizably White Nationalist positions. Therefore the analogy fails.
Actually, I've refused to answer it, because I did not find it relevant to the debate. My doubts as to who had the right claim weren't even relevant.
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.
... here it was the central question of this discussion. But now it's irrelevant? How can a discussion on which of two sides is superior be the heart of a discussion but your thoughts on the subject be irrelevant to the discussion?
Once again, you're saying one thing and now you're saying the exact opposite thing. It seems as though you're just trying to gainsay whatever I'm saying without having any argument of your own, but as we know, empty contradiction is not the same as an argument.
The only reason I took the time to get back on this is because I was exasperated at how you framed me as someone supporting genocide.
Now, hang on, I didn't say you supported genocide, I said that you said you weren't sure which group between the supporters of genocide or those opposed to genocide had the superior claim. Completely different.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm not sure if quantity is a weighing factor. It affects national averages, but moot towards whether or not you're safe in a particular area, of whether or not racism plays into how safe you feel.
Low income white neighborhoods in CLE, surrounding suburbs don't see a lot of gun activity. Most are not traffickers; they're users. Heroin, prostitution, petty theft, the occasional domestic violence call. Nothing you need a vest for, despite open carry laws and ccw. Do consider though, I'm also white, and I'm sure that plays a factor in the ability to move around freely and safely in those environments. I can't speak for experience for other races and whether or not they would be safe in those areas, but having experienced it in reverse I can only assume its the same
I assume that its the same or similar, because I've experienced first hand what it is to be a white boy in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've been surrounded before, asked to leave establishments because I was white, ejected from another despite being there with black friends, threatened, harassed while parked at intersections for being in the wrong neighborhood and more. At that time, at that age I did not know better, I didn't know the area as well; I was ignorant. On some occasions, we were simply lost coming back from an event on the west side, as we don't know it well enough
Ironically, one of my friends (note that being black is relevant) made this same mistake, when he settled into a hillbilly biker bar packed with Harley's outside.... And when the police responded, everyone in the bar blamed him, even the bartender. I said the same thing. What were you thinking man? If you wanna find a white racist, then a dive biker bar full of old ass harley riders with long hair, tats, leather vests and club patches is the first place you'd look. Jesus dude
Wrong as it may be either way, its real. Ignoring it, pretending otherwise as to not seem racist could cause you serious harm. We make the best decisions we can every day, using what we've learned and know.
My Buying Thread
We're polarized not along equal intellectual lines, but as we always have been: between good and evil.
Pick the right side.
I think the most important thing to do when making that kind of argument is to make it absolutely clear that there's no causal relationship between being black and being violent/low-income/whatever. Obviously there is some kind of relationship between those things, but I would say it's due to a history of institutionalized racism that's left behind inequalities that still exist today. In other words, one could say it's by total chance that black people are the traditionally oppressed race and white people are traditionally the oppressors. It's not because there are actually different species of humans, but just a combination of luck, different skin colors, and maybe some kind of Jungian preference for associating white with good and black with bad.
I would guess you basically agree with all of that, but I think it's really important to spell all of that out if you're going to put forward a position like that.
EDIT: After reading over Yamaha's initial post again, I found it to be a little more uncomfortable than I remembered. I agree with the certain parts of it on a certain level of abstraction, but I definitely wouldn't publicly stick up for someone who was saying stuff like that in real life.
I have no idea what to make of this. I feel obliged to leave this here.
Now, I have already discussed how this sentiment is problematic due to two major issues:
1. It completely ignores the role racists play in the propagation and continued existence of racism
2. It places the onus on the people suffering from discrimination to prove that they should not be discriminated against.
But I'd also like to point out a huge problem with claiming the above is a "more effective approach," which is: When has this ever been true?
When, in our nation's history, has this fear of confrontation, don't rock the boat mindset ever once yielded the advancement of human rights in the face of those trying to deny them?
I don't believe it ever has.
Every instance I know of has been the result of people standing up and demanding their rights from those who would infringe upon them. America became independent as a result of the American colonies proclaiming that England had infringed upon their God-given, inalienable rights and demanding that they be released from King George's tyranny, and in turn fighting a bloody war over it. The slaves were freed because Abraham Lincoln demanded that they be freed and granted their rights as human beings, and later because the Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal. Women gained the right to vote because women demanded to be given their right to vote. Then there's the Civil Rights Movement, which involved numerous Supreme Court decisions demanding that all people be given equal rights regardless of race. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, demanded that school segregation be outlawed. In this regard, consider the case of Little Rock Nine, who were escorted BY THE NATIONAL GUARD to and from school to enforce the government's demand that they be allowed to attend a previously white-only school. And then there's marriage equality, which came about through Supreme Court demanding that people of mixed race be allowed to marry in every state and then again when the Supreme Court demanded that same-sex marriages be allowed in every state.
Exactly zero of these freedoms were obtained as a result of people doing nothing and things just spontaneously happening. All of these victories came from people demanding what was theirs by right, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America.
Well, first of all, it seems pretty clear to me that you don't agree with Mad Mat, because what you're saying is very different from what Mad Mat is saying. In fact, you even say so here:
Second, Lithl has already expressed all of this better than I can, but the problem with what you're saying can be found here:
You're simultaneously saying that you're perfectly justified for presuming that you're not safe around black people due to the black neighborhoods you've encountered having high amounts of crime, AND that you disagree with people feeling unsafe around Muslim or black people if you're in a nice neighborhood.
So what you're saying is that crime is not correlated to people being black or Muslim, it's correlated to whether you're from a nice neighborhood or a low income neighborhood.
So... The answer is would be yes, being black IS irrelevant, because crime isn't correlated to people being black, it's correlated to people being poor.
The other thing I want to once again stress:
There is nothing racist about saying your car isn't safe in a neighborhood that has a lot of crime.
What is racist is to say that your car isn't safe in a neighborhood because there are black people around.
Well, I guess you could also try to flood their news feed with viewpoints that are opposed to their own, in the hopes that they change their minds due to social pressure. But as we now know, social media tends to do the complete opposite.
But anyway, Highroller, I'm not sure why you're (again) framing this like being rude and doing nothing are your only options. For what it's worth, I agree with much of your assessment of Yamaha's post, though.
I am responding to Mad Mat, who has basically stated that any response that is not passive is overly confrontational, to the point where even calling someone "incorrect" is overly-confrontational and counterproductive, because it risks alienating them.
I am not framing things in a false binary. I am responding to a false binary, and calling it out for being ridiculous.
Which is no excuse for not pointing out when someone is doing something morally wrong.
Read the thread and you might realize how mistaken you are.
Did you even read my post? Of course there is. It's called the Supreme Court.
The fact of the matter is that no opinion in this country about the justification of depriving someone of their fundamental rights, including equal protection under the law, holds any validity. This idea that it is the responsibility of those who are oppressed to convince those who would deprive them of human rights that they should be treated as human beings, the idea that rights are a privilege that must be earned and not rights, are antithetical both to the very principles of this country and human reason.
Well, it depends. It's not an "excuse," it's that your efforts will be counterproductive if you do it wrong.
The Supreme Court doesn't change people's minds. That's what I was saying there's no shortcut to. It only changes the law, which can influence people's beliefs in future generatons, but it doesn't change beliefs.
Of course it isn't, because Mad Mat does not agree that racism is wrong or a problem. He has said so himself. He said so on this very page. Moreover, I have addressed his saying it in my posts. Moreover, I have pointed it out in a post specifically directed at you.
So coming into this thread saying things like, "Well Highroller, I'm pretty sure Mad Mat agrees with me, and nobody's actually arguing that racism isn't a problem," only belies that you obviously have not taken the time to read his argument and understand what he is saying, because neither of those assertions is correct. Moreover, it tells me you haven't taken the time to read what I'm saying, because I've pointed out why you're not correct in a post directly addressed to you on this very page.
There's no substitute for actually reading what that person has written to understand what a person has written. If you're not willing to do that, there is no reason to continue.
It is not incumbent upon the people who are arguing against those who would infringe upon their inalienable rights to get the other people to agree that they should be allowed to have rights. It is the responsibility of the other side to grant them inalienable rights. That is the point of inalienable rights.
If someone's committing murders, are we going to say that the problem was people not being polite enough about explaining why his committing murders is wrong? Are we going to say that maybe people might alienate him by calling him a murderer, and we should refrain from using such a word? No, of course not. He has a moral and legal responsibility to not commit murders, and is violating it.
Likewise, we have a moral and legal responsibility to treat people with equal protection under the law. When people seek to create legal discrimination - or worse, advocate things like forced relocation or mass genocide - they are the ones who have violated their responsibilities. Moreover, it is the responsibility of everyone in this country to oppose such efforts. It is certainly not the responsibility of anyone who is protesting legal discrimination to avoid offending or confronting anyone.
That's precisely what this is.
Again, I think you're just interpreting what he's saying in the least charitable way.
This doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if your goal is to change people's minds, changing the law doesn't necessarily help, and may even cause greater outrage in the short-run.
Because preserving feelings isn't the end goal. I'm not arguing for a less aggressive approach because I directly care about the feelings of people who may hold racist beliefs. However, I indirectly care, because if I end up offending them, they're not going to listen to me, they'll think my side is just self-righteous, and I'll have no shot at actually changing their minds.
Cause honestly? Passive or aggressive, you aren't going up change a racist's mind.
Mad Mat has made it clear he does not agree that racism is wrong. He has said so. Therefore, for you to say:
demonstrates you don't understand what the argument is about. It is not simply a matter of our opinions conflicting. You are objectively false.
So why is it we have to tip-toe around people who are causing outrage by violating morals and laws by advocating things like disenfranchisement (or, you know, genocide), but somehow the same standards don't apply to the outrage they cause by advocating things like disenfranchisement or genocide?
Why is it you have to avoid outrage in pointing out when a group is advocating illegal and immoral acts, but not if you're promoting the illegal and immoral acts themselves? Why is offending people wrong only if it's racists taking offense?
If you're going to argue that any belief that a person might be wrong will trigger defensiveness in that person, and that reaction of defensiveness is to be avoided at any cost, then you are arguing that making people feel that they're wrong is to be avoided at any cost.
Don't you think that's an argument that's both ridiculous, and very dangerous, to make when we're talking about people who are advocating immoral and illegal acts, particularly advocating the infringement of peoples' rights?
Moreover, isn't it nonsensical to say, "Let's get these people to change their minds by doing whatever we can to prevent them from thinking that they're wrong?"
I think the most important thing in a debate is to be curious why someone would disagree with you. I know I'm not always great at doing this myself (and I've probably become worse at it as this exchange has advanced), but I feel like this is something that's severely lacking from the way you're arguing. This by itself doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it does make the conversation fairly dispiriting.
The way you phrase it here is a little too extreme for me, but yeah, changing someone's mind is tricky business. I think the key is a shift from "you're wrong" to "we disagree".
Personally I thought the focus was about everyday racism and a polarized society. To Tiax's point, carrying a polite and pleasant demeanor, but still holding reservations. And then, whether or not you should call people out for there reservations.
Statements keep getting made that seem like extremes. There's no real point in debating extremes. I would argue that everyday racism affects peoples lives more than extremists. IE, not hiring someone because of their race, not subletting to another race, not wanting to live across from other races, or not leaving a tip because of someones race. You're not debating about whether or not a neo-nazi should be called out for being racist. That would be unproductive.
My Buying Thread
So you don't think infringing on peoples' rights is wrong? Or are we simply meant to hide the fact that we do?
Like, let me ask you something, if I had a group of people who...
of all non-white people in America, just because they're not white, would you argue that these people are wrong?
Please clarify your position for me: depriving someone of equal rights under the law, right, wrong, or no strong thoughts either way? How about racial genocide: right, wrong, or no strong thoughts either way?
Because THAT is what this conversation is about. And I know you're going to say, "Well here you go again, Highroller. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're being terribly presumptuous and trying to twist everything in a bad light. No one in this thread is saying that genocide isn't wrong." BUT - and this is very important - that's not true.
That is Mad Mat disagreeing with me that the anti-genocide-against-anyone-not-white side has a superior argument over the pro-genocide side. That's not a distortion. That's not me twisting his words. That's what he actually argued, in his own words.
Now, do you agree with that? Because that's what I've been trying to explain to you, if you believe that not-genocide has a superior argument over pro-genocide, then you do not agree with Mad Mat.
And here's what this all boils down to: if you do believe all of that is wrong, then why would you not say so?
When we're dealing with people who want things like genocide, forced sterilization, forced relocation, or otherwise depriving people of equal protection of their law based purely on their race, we should tell these people that they're wrong.
I wanted to explain what my issue is with this word right now by way of an example. Recently, there was an article about Yusra Khogali on Huffington Post. She is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto. She's said many things that are preposterous from a factual perspective (e.g. claiming that Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist, some pseudo-science about race and the sun) and also things that I contend are viciously racist (e.g. that white people are subhuman, talking about how hard it is for her not to kill white people, etc.). Now if you read that article and scroll down to the comment section you will find many people defending her comments or her position in this group and, to my knowledge, she hasn't resigned or been dismissed from it. So here you have people holding up the banner of anti-racism saying that these comments aren't racist and attacking the editor, calling him a racist for calling such comments out. So that highlights some of the strange ways in which this word is being employed lately. Meanwhile, I don't think you can find a more primo example of racism than the labeling of any group of people as subhuman because of their skin-color. And I believe I was in a conversation here not too long ago with someone claiming that no one is ever falsely accused of racism, which would mean that I have to accept that Justin Trudeau really is a white supremacist and that is just silly.
Bottom line, call it like you see it (racism or anything else) and be willing to listen and respond.
I agree. Racism should absolutely be called out, but, as you say, you need to be able to explain. I would add I think there should be more explaining done upfront and less just throwing the accusation at people. It's not something you should use lightly, and the complexity of these issues in the modern world warrants careful consideration of detail, and people to be upfront about that detail or it isn't well heard.
Even more so, you need to be considerate that someone can do or say some racist thing without being deeply racist, or racist at all. True intentions don't always carry well, especially when the conservation becomes as polarised as it has, and you get caught out saying something you didn't mean or didn't understand. Or simply fall victim to a lapse in judgement and be a little prejudiced. It's certainly not good, but it's not the same as a genuine passionate belief in the supremacy of the white race or something.
Which is all to say- racism itself is truly abhorrent, but people involved in it aren't necessarily. It weakens the message about truly abhorrent racist people to throw everyone who says anything racist under the exact same bulldozer. Some are a LOT closer to being perfectly good people.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No it isn't.
But as he has quoted you weren't sure which side had the superior claim, the one that was advocating measures that included at an extreme genocide die to peoples racist or the side that was standing up against those measures.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
My Buying Thread
I've never really bought into this argument. It seems to go along the lines of two directions.
1. The word "racist" is losing its meaning to just mean "bad" or "wrong," instead of what it originally meant.
2. So many things now are being called racist, including things I don't agree are racist.
So, addressing 2 first, yeah. That's what's supposed to happen. We're supposed to have a national discourse as to what how to get along between different races of people, and what is or is not appropriate. That's what's supposed to happen. Let us remember that not too long ago the debates were about whether or not it was ok to enslave people, or whether a black man is 3/5s of a person instead of a person. Later the debate became about whether or not it was ok to mandate black people use separate drinking fountains from white people. And we're STILL having issues about what makes a proper relationship between the police and ethnic minority communities. If there's conflicting opinions about what is or is not racist, that's not a sign that "racism" the word has lost meaning, it clearly hasn't. What it does mean is that we're in debate over what does or does not conform to the meaning of "racist," which means, necessarily, there must be a meaning to the word "racist."
As for 1, this is very simply not true. Because if I say, "Oh man, that restaurant is really racist," it's very different from, "Oh man, that restaurant is bad." Similarly, I can say, "this toothpaste is racist," and that means a different thing from, "this toothpaste is bad." Likewise, I can say, "this story is racist," and it's not the same thing as, "this story is bad." I can think of racist restaurants, racist toothpaste, and racist stories, but that's not the same thing as saying that they're bad. In fact, as at least one of those, Lovecraft's stories, is legitimately great despite the racism. It's bad that Lovecraft is racist, mind, because being racist isn't a good thing, but that doesn't mean he couldn't craft a chilling work of horror.
Which brings me to the point. Racist clearly hasn't lost it's meaning to mean "bad" or "wrong," but instead, people view things that promote racism as objectionable because they object to racism. Which is the exact opposite of "racism" losing its meaning.
It's not. You explicitly said you DON'T KNOW which side has the superior claim.
Meaning you DON'T KNOW whether this side
has a superior claim over the other side, which is the group that objects to depriving people of equal protection under the law.
So either you are arguing the first group is superior, or you're ambivalent about the whole "equal protection under the law for everyone" thing; but either way, you're definitely sure that the second group shouldn't be calling the first group racist.
That's not distortion, that's actually what you are arguing.
Nobody should be contesting that. Somebody is contesting that, and has been for about five pages now. You understand my frustration.
See?
Would you be willing to clarify your position by explaining which of the above examples you would express doubt about who has the better claim, versus which ones you would not, and what is the reasoning behind your agreeing with/disagreeing with/doubting that position?
Risk to whom?
Whether or not one perceives oneself as being wrong is entirely irrelevant to whether or not one is actually wrong.
And I have demonstrated numerous historical examples of which that statement is not only false, but absurd.
If you are an opponent to equal protection under the law, and the goal is equal protection under the law, then yes, "enemy" is accurate. Remember that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is the ideological bedrock upon which our nation was built. If you are opposed to that, you are opposed to America.
The problem is that people who seek to deny people equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, exist and are active.
So no, opposing these people is not exacerbating the problem. Calling out the incorrect statements these people make is not exacerbating the problem. Confronting the wrongdoing done by these people is not exacerbating the problem. Declaring these people as threats to our American values is not exacerbating the problem. Stopping these people from passing discriminatory legislation is not exacerbating the problem. Publicly decrying such acts as unacceptable is not exacerbating the problem. It's FIXING the problem.
So, Yahama1, do you still think I'm distorting an argument?
, then these sentiments are influencing politics today. Logic.
With Trump in power, and his uncomfortable links to White Nationalism? Definitely would work its way into the conversation at some point, sure.
What you have posted with regards to your beliefs is you're not sure whether this White Nationalist element backing Trump, or the side adamantly against that group, has the superior claim. White Nationalists being the group whose beliefs include:
So yes, if White Nationalists encompass all of these sentiments, as you so are so quick to remind us, and you are addressing White Nationalists, then you are addressing people who believe all of those. You don't get to yell at Jay13x for not addressing all of the various beliefs of White Nationalists and talk about how unfair he's being for failing to do so, only to NOW try to pick and choose only a handful of White Nationalist viewpoints to represent the whole. You don't get to complain about how Jay13x didn't include genocidal people when talking about White Nationalists, only to now claim that genocidal people are irrelevant and are to be ignored when it's brought up against your argument.
And if you aren't sure which is the superior argument with regards to ANY of those positions versus the group that believes that everyone should be treated with equality and fairness under the law - especially when you yourself have said that the first group is not rational and has only emotion backing their arguments - all I can ask is how?
In fact, I've repeatedly asked how, mystified as I am by it, but whenever I've asked you to clarify your position, you've dodged the question.
So, I ask again:
Not analogous. There is no such thing as White Nationalism that isn't racist. Nor are there racists who aren't racist, for that matter. There is certainly, however, environmentalism that isn't extremist.
Now, were we talking about something actually analogous, which would be if you were talking about extremist environmentalists? Then I think you'd certainly be remiss not to talk about those who seek to kill human life, certainly.
Post 1: OP makes a thread about the polarization about politics, and discusses polarization along the lines of racial discourse.
Post 7: Jay13x makes a post about how you cannot compare those who seek racial equality with white nationalists.
Post 9: You come in asking what the difference is in terms of validity of argument between people who want equal rights and people who are white nationalists. You also criticize Jay13x as being wrong for his characterization of White Nationalism, saying:
Now let's keep all of that in mind, because it's important.
Post 71: You post the following statement,
Post 102: I point out that in saying this, you are saying that you do not know whether those who, by YOUR OWN WORDS,
or those who are against this, have a superior claim, and chastise you for it, as any sane person would.
Post 109: You allege that I'm misrepresenting you, because you're only talking about racism in society today.
Except, we're talking specifically about White Nationalism. And how did YOU, specifically, characterize White Nationalists?
So yes, if you're talking about White Nationalists, then clearly we are meant to talk about the above. That was YOUR point against Jay13x. I cannot be claimed to be misrepresenting your statements.
Also, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What you want to say is that you're not addressing the entirety of White Nationalists
Like, not all of these guys, but a smaller portion of them? Tell me, would that smaller portion include those who specifically, say, wish to deport nonwhite people or who want to make nonwhite people second class citizens? Because:
That's precisely what in the hell Jay13x said, and it's what you criticized him for!
You can't simultaneously fault Jay13x for not including the worst of White Nationalists in his statement and only addressing the ones who want to deport nonwhites and make nonwhites second-class citizens, and THEN come around and say, "No, you can't accuse me of talking about the worst of White Nationalists, I'm only talking about the ones who want to deport nonwhites and make nonwhites second-class citizens." That's completely the opposite thing as the last thing you said on the subject!
Now I assume you're going to say something along the lines of, "Oh no, this is TOTALLY different!"
Yep. Called it.
It makes perfect sense because of exactly what you just said! You're saying that one side is White Nationalism, and the other side is the side against White Nationalism, and you chastised Jay13x for presenting a limited view of White Nationalism, and then affirmed that each and every one of those viewpoints were part of the White Nationalist movement as it exists today, and that we needed to address their existence as a multitude.
You cannot then flimsily try to backpedal by saying, "Oh no, I was only addressing the ones that Jay13x was talking about. You know, the ones I told him he was wrong for addressing only those parts of White Nationalism instead of all of them."
Also let's take a closer look at that first paragraph:
Except that's wrong because ALL White Nationalists view non-white people as worthy of marginalization. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who are anti-White Nationalism who are legitimately interested in equality.
Likewise, this analogy is bogus as well:
Except not only are Catholics who are pedophiles not pedophiles because they are Catholic, but Catholic ideology explicitly condemns pedophilia, and those Catholics who are pedophiles are genuinely seen as being contrary to what Catholicism stands for.
This is explicitly not the case with White Nationalists. There may be varying levels of extremism between someone who wants to exterminate all nonwhites vs. someone who wants to deport all nonwhites vs. someone who wants to make nonwhites second-class citizens, but the fundamental ideology is still in place, and all of these expressions stem from a common ideology. All of these are White Nationalists, and all of these were explicitly mentioned by you when talking about White Nationalism as it exists today. Therefore, it cannot be similarly argued that such positions are contrary to White Nationalism, for they are indeed recognizably White Nationalist positions. Therefore the analogy fails.
Really? Because...
... here it was the central question of this discussion. But now it's irrelevant? How can a discussion on which of two sides is superior be the heart of a discussion but your thoughts on the subject be irrelevant to the discussion?
Once again, you're saying one thing and now you're saying the exact opposite thing. It seems as though you're just trying to gainsay whatever I'm saying without having any argument of your own, but as we know, empty contradiction is not the same as an argument.
Now, hang on, I didn't say you supported genocide, I said that you said you weren't sure which group between the supporters of genocide or those opposed to genocide had the superior claim. Completely different.