Thank goodness we have wealthy, white men like George Will to tell us racism is not a serious issue. Otherwise, we'd only have the people victimized by it, as opposed to those who benefit from it.
On telling someone who the "real racist" is
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Thank goodness we have wealthy, white men like George Will to tell us racism is not a serious issue. Otherwise, we'd only have the people victimized by it, as opposed to those who benefit from it.
What you got out of it is moronic. To me, that would have been a clue that I didn't fully understand what was posted, and I would have asked for clarification. Obviously, you don't roll that way.
John Crotty
Member
Well thats exactly what you wrote. So write different words that make it mean what you wanted it to mean instead.
Obviously, it was not what I wrote, or I would not have objected to your characterization.
Your rewrite: people who don't experience a phenomenon and have not studied it are poor judges of when it occurs.
People who deal with it on a more personal level develop a persecution complex. This colors their own views on racism and when it occurs. This often makes them poor judges as well.
In the abstract, it can certainly happen that people who are regularly persecuted will occasionally see persecution where none exists (although more commonly, it would be persecution where it exists but is not intended as such). In the particular context of this discussion, which is about why it's generally not meaningful when white people refer to minorities as being the real racists on a position, it's not a significant issue.
Oof...
John Crotty
Member
This is accurate. People are able to truly step back and distance them from the situation are generally more able to give an accurate perspective on it.
Back to the topic.
1- White people can't be victims of racism because non-whites can't be racists.
2- White people just need to accept it when they are called racists. If you are white and called a racist, by default it must be true, even if you did not intend to be white.
Got it.
You mean, like the way someone who never played nor coached a game of basketball can offer the best take on whether a team's defense was effective? I'm not impressed by your reasoning.
You know very well that I don't say anything like that; I have explained it to you many times. Your sad parody diminishes the intelligent poster you can occasionally be.
John Crotty
Member
More like how when selecting a jury the goal, not for the defense or prosecution obviously, is to pick people who are removed from the situation and can be objective, not biased.
I am less than impressed with your basketball analogy.
The whole point of having a trial for the jury is so they can be informed, and make an informed decision. It's part of the prosecutor's job and the defense attorney's job to be informed, as well.
I have no trouble believing you'd much rather that people who are ignorant concerning racism make decisions on what actions are racist. After all, who else would qualify as "able to truly step back and distance them from the situation"?
Yes, I have heard your argument and I'm not buying.
While it makes sense to you, there are too many holes in it for me and some basic two way stuff that you fail to acknowledge as two way.
In all honesty, I posted that a bit tongue in cheek but it's not far off of how you sound when you pound out all the dross from your argument.
It's one thing to not buy into my argument. It's another entirely to pretend I'm making a completely different argument, and then parody the strawman.
Go on. What "two-way" stuff do I not acknowlede?
I just posted that I was sure you were intelligent. Please don't make me re-evaluate that. I believe you are capable of understanding the difference between "all A are X and all B are not-X" versus "both A and B are X and that they are X is beneficial to A and detrimental to B".
To use your own arguments, it's not about what argument you think you are making, or your intent. It all has to do with how I take it that matters as to what it is defined as.
For starters you beat around the bush in how you say it, but you consistently state that white people can't experience racism because they are white so only non white people can have anything meaningful to say about what it's like.
I know you have your "white privilege" arguments, but it's a load of crap in my opinion at least as to how far you take it. While white may have more numbers as a country there are plenty of other places or groups where that is not the case and racism against white people can be found and experienced. Discrimination of other sorts can be experienced and while not exactly that of racism they can be much the same and much of what is experienced or learned can cross and cover both.
Racism is not a one way street as you seem to make it sound.
I don't care if you think I'm intelligent. I am capable of distinguishing nuance, and feel I have to to filter the crap out of your statements.
I don't necessarily disagree in general with some of the things you talk about or feel are important, but I often disagree as to the scope, methods, and circle talk which makes it hard to be on the same page. Difficult to be at the same foundational level when there are foundational differences of opinion.
Basically we may agree something is wrong, but not agree on what is actually wrong, what is the cause, or what is the solution.
Go ahead and think less of me because I see things different than you do and disagree often.
You are presenting an interesting combination of statements. You say that it's my responsibility to explain myself clearly (I agree), and that you are capable of understanding nuance (implying that you understand the abstract distinction that I posted), yet seemingly insisting that I have not made the distinction clear to you. I do not understand how all three of these positions can be true. If you understand the distinction I made in abstract terms, but refused to recognize it when I offer a specific example, I can't see how the problem is with my explanation; it must be your refusal to understand (at no point in this paragraph am I talking about agreement, just basic comprehension). Did you understand the distinction when I put it into abstract terms?
Of course, there is a key difference between a need to explain yourself clearly and the causation of unintended offense/othering, in that the first requires voluntary cooperation from the listener, while the second does not.
Occasionally white people get a small taste of racism:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...racist-quot-is&p=800977&viewfull=1#post800977
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...racist-quot-is&p=801217&viewfull=1#post801217
As franklin noted:
Racism undercuts these social structures. Being regularly stopped by the police means you are often late (for classes, for work, etc.), and it's not like you are going to tell you boss the police pulled you over today. At every stage of the process, black get worse treatment in the criminal justice system for the same crimes. We've talked how getting hired as a black man without a criminal record is as difficult as being hired as a white man with a criminal record. We've talked about differential treatment in schools. This is continual, throughout a person's life. You can read how just one incident affected Loggrad98 and franklin in the moment. White people will experience that perhaps a handful of times in their lives. For many black people, it often happens a few times a month. It creates an experience differential in addition to just wearing people out. Racism is a one-way street that allows for an occasional pedestrian to go the other way.
Mostly, I focus on the US, because I live here. It's quite possible that there are places in the world where white people are the victms of this sort of systemic discrimination. However, I don't know of any. You claim there are "plenty of places", but you haven't claimed any particular such place exists. Do you know of one?
I appreciate you disagree about scope, but am puzzled as to why you would disagree with me about methods when I almost never talk about methods, just scope. The only circles I argue in (on this topic) are the one where posters repeatedly misstate my meaning, and I repeatedly make corrections to it. The only bushes I beat around are the ones that contain claims I am not making.
I never think less of people for disagreeing (for example, I have a high regard for Stoked), nor more highly of people for agreeing (I often cringe at the posts AKMVP makes in evolution/creation threads). Whatever my opinion of you is or is not, it is not based on your disagreeing with me. I thought I stated very clearly what I was basing it on. Perhaps you could read it again and let me know if it was not clear for some reason?
First of all we have a disagreement about what racism is.
Secondly I will sometimes use your off base (imo) arguments back on you because at times it appears to me you like to present arguments but don't seem to feel they apply to you.
I'm 99% sure I understand your arguments.
Do you understand my arguments?
While it appears you softened your stance ever so slightly, we are still in different places on this. You still seem to be marginalizing with statements like "Occasionally white people get a small taste of racism".
So just focusing on the U.S., many pockets of population have the ingredients for this to happen.
I have lived in various places and specifically my time in Cali was educational. There was quite the mix of races and cultures where I lived. There was quite the mix of zero racism between races and groups depending on the people, as well as racism and fighting depending on the people. Most of the "racism" that went on was related to gangs, illegal activity, and violence. There were gangs that were limited to race fighting with gangs of another race. The police would target suspected gang members in attempts to reduce and/or limit some of the stuff going on which meant they would stop or pull over some races more than others. A lot of it had to do with the look of the individual, the cars they drove, the signs or tells that said they were a gang member. Most of the time the reason for the stop was not race, but the race card was still pulled. The white gang members would get the same treatment.
I'm sure out there in the US there are plenty of times Police pull people over because of race, but I think it's way overstated. I still think the bulk of reasons for pulling someone other has to do with all of the other tells of these people basically shouting "I'm up to no good" based on how they dress, what they drive, certain gang related tattoos, and other habits. The police would be stupid if they didn't pick up on the tells and signs that said they should stop someone... as long as they are following the law and procedures in doing so.
You show your methods in your posting. You bring it up and point it out. You say this drawing attention to what you see as "racist" will help and that it is educational and gets people to think about it. I say it gets people to think about it all right, but does not help. It's like when you are driving a car, you go where you look for the most part... if you are looking at racism that is where you will "drive". If you are treating all people as humans and people and equals and that is where you are looking, that is where you will "drive".
If you talk about something and repeatedly have to "correct" people about what you meant when you said it maybe you should think about the actual message you are presenting when you say what you say and post what you post.
Oh, then go ahead and think poorly of me for my parodies and mocking of arguments of yours I find hypocritical because they apply to others and not you. I prefer that angle to name calling although I'm not sure which is worse.
-- disclaimer -- Just keep in mind it's all about my own entertainment, it only has to be funny to me. Not necessary to be funny to you or anyone else.
