Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

[Jazz Spazz]

Willie has put together a nice little run of posts...

I hope to add to / clarify what you saying by pointing out that when you reduce the historical sense of any concept to zero, then all you're left with is a principle sans context. In other words, via this process, demagogues find new tools for persuasion and assholes find different rationales for being assholes.

We need to find a happy medium between reducing history to zero as some are worried about, and magnifying history to be larger than it has to be.

I also think the fear and claim that people want to reduce the history of racism to zero is baseless and not at all what is wanted or expected.

Possibly more communication issues than gap in stance imo.

 

[RobDMB]

I have neither the time, nor the desire to try and reason with someone who is angry and ready to pass judgement on me based on poorly constructed posts in an athletic-team related forum. I could type all day long explaining and defending myself in an effort and prove that I am not what you label me as (a racist, ignorant, white-privileged twit with no idea about music), but we can all see how counter-productive my efforts have been so far.

My footprint on this forum is small, and One Brow and SirKickyAss simply reinforce my usual stance of reading but not posting much. I believe that the kind of negative, hateful, and aggressive methods that you choose to defend your own stances on racism do plenty more harm than good to your purported cause. You continually dismiss any ideas you don't currently hold, and chase tangents instead of answer direct questions. If bating me into arguing with you is what you're trying to do, than I am no longer keen to interact.

My time is much better spent on other pursuits.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

We need to find a happy medium between reducing history to zero as some are worried about, and magnifying history to be larger than it has to be.

Who is "we"? What kind of process do you imagine whereby people would work out this "happy medium"?

The answers to this question are difficult. I can say that very little is accomplished when any part of this "we" starts demanding a certain historical scale... And it seems Willie and I agree that those who would reduce history by the greatest amount have a worse grasp of the concept and its enduring effects than those who desire to historicize in one way or another.

I also think the fear and claim that people want to reduce the history of racism to zero is baseless and not at all what is wanted or expected.

I can't speak for Willie, but I think what he was trying to say is that these people are trying to reduce the history of racism to 'as close to zero as possible.' They want you to see some sort of 'bare principle' of racism, as if that sort of thing is possible. I, for one, see this happen all the time.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I have neither the time, nor the desire to try and reason with someone who is angry and ready to pass judgement on me based on poorly constructed posts in an athletic-team related forum. I could type all day long explaining and defending myself in an effort and prove that I am not what you label me as (a racist, ignorant, white-privileged twit with no idea about music), but we can all see how counter-productive my efforts have been so far.

My footprint on this forum is small, and One Brow and SirKickyAss simply reinforce my usual stance of reading but not posting much. I believe that the kind of negative, hateful, and aggressive methods that you choose to defend your own stances on racism do plenty more harm than good to your purported cause. You continually dismiss any ideas you don't currently hold, and chase tangents instead of answer direct questions. If bating me into arguing with you is what you're trying to do, than I am no longer keen to interact.

My time is much better spent on other pursuits.

bye

 

[JAZZGASM]

It seems to me that the misunderstanding happening between the two factions in this thread come down the historical sense of the concept "racism." Those board members who have that stubborn strain of libertarianism and/or cynicism over the social work of correcting systematic abuse want to shrink that historical sense to zero. The other camp asks for the recognition of a racism that has been shaped by knowable forces, the correction of which takes time, effort, and (obviously) an insistence on a certain historical memory.

I always distrust a libertarianism that demands we speak of things on a dramatically reduced historical scale. It's a meak way of looking at people and processes -- and is bad for spiritual health.

While I see your point, I can see both sides. Racism involves the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.Anyone can be racist, and it should not be tolerated. Blacks have had a history of "systematic abuse" or oppression by whites. However, racism and oppression are not the same thing. Systematic racism can lead to oppression, and that did occur in this country. And yes, it still has a rippling effect. But what is the fix????

As our country was established, many whites had the racist belief that blacks were inferior. And while I think historical oppression still has an effect on blacks in this country, it doesn't allow them to use a double standard to be racist towards whites. Are the majority of whites racist? Are they knowingly oppressing blacks? Most of the people I know are not racist. Those that are happen to be very old. It is (unfortunately), human nature to differentiate, it is a survival type instinct. While we understand skin or hair color truly has no bearing on worth, we will always find something to discriminate (class, wealth, height, fit (proven that taller and fit people get chosen for jobs, etc.)). It makes me wonder, if we were all identical clones how would people be treated? I think we'd find a way to differentiate. My ancestors were essentially slaves (indentured servants) because they did not have the right bloodlines. Edit: My ancestors (Mormon) were essentially driven out of this country, and many were killed, and the stereotypes still exist today.

While it may appear that allowing blacks to make racist statements is OK because of historical oppression, to me, has the opposite effect as desired. Why do they get a pass? We are all equal, and should be held to equal standards. Affirmative Action has the same negative connotations. Is someone in school with you, or a Doctor, or your President because Affirmative Action helped them? Any time you hold a group to a lesser standard you create a stigma. I hold all people to the same standard. My wife is a minority, and she refused to put her race on college applications, because she wanted to get into a school based on her achievements and nothing else.

The fact is, the group that is oppressed the most in this country are the POOR. And yes, many black people are poor. If we want to fix issues, and allow the poor in this country an opportunity to succeed, we should have programs that are based on class, not race.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Who is "we"? What kind of process do you imagine whereby people would work out this "happy medium"?

The answers to this question are difficult. I can say that very little is accomplished when any part of this "we" starts demanding a certain historical scale... And it seems Willie and I agree that those who would reduce history by the greatest amount have a worse grasp of the concept and its enduring effects than those who desire to historicize in one way or another.

We in this instance would be we as individuals and members of the society of this nation/ and or world. We... you and I.

As to a process, I don't think there is a process per se that can be put into place. This would have to be don on the individual level, person by person, family by family, group by group. A happy medium would be somewhere between ignoring history, and living history every day so it is all consuming. It is possible to know history and use it to shape your daily life and choices without it swallowing you whole.

Interesting that you mention little is accomplished when a certain historical scale is demanded, yet your unspoken demand is for a certain scale because it's most effective/useful/whetever you want to call it.

There is a difference between reliving history by making it so big it's all around you and knowing the history and using that history and experience to do things better today. One way its in your face. One way it's in your mind and helping to shape decisions to make them better.

I suppose the difference in the opinion is how much is the right amount, is there a right amount, and when can you just move on. It is a hard thing and I'm sure it will take much patience on both sides of the issue as well as forgiveness, understanding, love, and compromise from both sides of the issue. Should I be held accountable for the things my parents and grandparents may or may not have done? I don't think so. Should I be understanding that those who had to deal with some of these issues find it difficult to trust or be in certain situations because of their experiences? Absolutely. Should I know the history of what people of different races and ethnicity have had to deal with? Yes. Should I have to deal with being called a racist when I am not? No.. but go ahead, it's a small thing when compared to what others have had to deal with even if it's wrong. Should I make sure my dealings with people are on an individual level and have as little race bias as possible.. yes.

btw, there is a difference between looking at and understanding the history, and calling everyone a racist.

I can't speak for Willie, but I think what he was trying to say is that these people are trying to reduce the history of racism to 'as close to zero as possible.' They want you to see some sort of 'bare principle' of racism, as if that sort of thing is possible. I, for one, see this happen all the time.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with these sentences. Will you elaborate?

 

[sirkickyass]

I can't speak for Willie, but I think what he was trying to say is that these people are trying to reduce the history of racism to 'as close to zero as possible.' They want you to see some sort of 'bare principle' of racism, as if that sort of thing is possible. I, for one, see this happen all the time.

I couldn't agree with this more.

It also just happens to be to their benefit when the bare principle is decontextualized because then they don't have any personal responsibilities on the matter.

 

[sirkickyass]

I have neither the time, nor the desire to try and reason with someone who is angry and ready to pass judgement on me based on poorly constructed posts in an athletic-team related forum. I could type all day long explaining and defending myself in an effort and prove that I am not what you label me as (a racist, ignorant, white-privileged twit with no idea about music), but we can all see how counter-productive my efforts have been so far.

My footprint on this forum is small, and One Brow and SirKickyAss simply reinforce my usual stance of reading but not posting much. I believe that the kind of negative, hateful, and aggressive methods that you choose to defend your own stances on racism do plenty more harm than good to your purported cause. You continually dismiss any ideas you don't currently hold, and chase tangents instead of answer direct questions. If bating me into arguing with you is what you're trying to do, than I am no longer keen to interact.

My time is much better spent on other pursuits.

And nothing of value was lost.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

that whole "music" discussion was hideous/hilarious. I like how it brought Hantlers into the scrum. I'd make a decent wager that he either was or still is a big Creed fan.

 

[franklin]

I find it interesting that you think white people blow stuff out of proportion because they are "fear-soaked white man" yet much of what you claim can be dismissed in exactly the same manner by some "racism seeking (insert Onebrow's minority of choice) man".

Racism is out there. It is a two way street. It is less and less as the years go by, and even today I think it is only small groups of people that focus on it and make it a big deal. I don't think everyone is a racist.
It's terrible for those that still have to deal with it, it's sad and disturbing regarding those that practice and/or teach it.

We need to treat all people with respect.

People acting in a racist manner will not help.

Neither will calling non racist people racists and claiming it's fine because if they are not they will be ok with it but if they are... haha.. gotcha.

When we are closing up fences we need to make sure the racists that were behind us as we did so, but then disappeared into thin air don't mess with our heads.

Some of you have stated we can't forget about history and what has gone on... no we cannot and we definitely cannot repeat it or anything close to it. That is not the issue being debated here. Nobody has said racism isn't out there, or racism isn't bad. Some tend to think racism is only racism if it's coming from the race with the largest numbers or dominance. I deny that and say it goes both ways even if not on the same level of magnitude.

We also cannot turn this into a "boy who called racist" story, because then who will believe us when for once it actually is true?

There are a couple of fundamental differences between what I believe racism is and what One Brow believes racism is.
1- racism can only be from the dominant race to a minority race vs racism can go both ways
2- racism can exist in a person without them knowing it vs racism has to be the intent in some way otherwise it is something else

Did I miss any differences One Brow, or is it just those two?

/rant

It's very common for those who a) focus on "reverse racism" to b) claim there is little racism left in America. This is an ideological p.o.v. and not indicative of the reality we live in.

 

[franklin]

I have neither the time, nor the desire to try and reason with someone who is angry and ready to pass judgement on me based on poorly constructed posts in an athletic-team related forum. I could type all day long explaining and defending myself in an effort and prove that I am not what you label me as (a racist, ignorant, white-privileged twit with no idea about music), but we can all see how counter-productive my efforts have been so far.

My footprint on this forum is small, and One Brow and SirKickyAss simply reinforce my usual stance of reading but not posting much. I believe that the kind of negative, hateful, and aggressive methods that you choose to defend your own stances on racism do plenty more harm than good to your purported cause. You continually dismiss any ideas you don't currently hold, and chase tangents instead of answer direct questions. If bating me into arguing with you is what you're trying to do, than I am no longer keen to interact.

My time is much better spent on other pursuits.

You were treated very poorly in this thread, most likely because of your low post count. Stick around and I'm sure a bit of the assholishness will rub off.

Most of the people I know are not racist. Those that are happen to be very old.

Many racists claim to not be racist while making racist statements on the regular, old or young. For example, both Stoked and Farmer have recently claimed there are systemic problems with black culture and then blamed this on certain unlinked characteristics of black culture while not applying the same standard to white culture. Both will claim they are not racist, and both probably believe as much, but both have deep-seated racism that gets expressed through their views of black Americans.

It's unconscious racism that's the root of our issues today. It's obviously progress from conscious racism, but it's hard to deal with in its way because people don't believe it exists.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And nothing of value was lost.

To you maybe who acted like a know it all snobface to him.

Nice of you to jazzfanz him in your own special way.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It's very common for those who a) focus on "reverse racism" to b) claim there is little racism left in America. This is an ideological p.o.v. and not indicative of the reality we live in.

nice try. The only reason I spent most of my time in your "reverse racism" side of the coin was there were more people in the everybody is a racist fanclub in these scrum/conversations. I don't have a "focus on reverse racism" other than to balance things and point out the bullcrap the racism paul reveres spout. I get you have to be over the top to get people to listen to you... doesn't mean I have to buy in to the rhetoric.

Glad you disagree with my p.o.v. Maybe I think your p.o.v. is a pessimistic view of people and not indicative of the reality we live in. Is this a catch 22?
Most likely it's somewhere in the middle between everyone is a racist and few people are racists.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

you've been around long enough to know that franklin is an optimist at heart.

Why do you always feel so compelled to "balance" perspectives?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

you've been around long enough to know that franklin is an optimist at heart.

Why do you always feel so compelled to "balance" perspectives?

I probably get sick of one side of an argument being very vocal when I see flaws in their stance and/or argument as much as there may be flaws in the other.
There is something to be learned from both sides despite most people's strong feelings one way or the other. If nobody speaks for another point of view there are things of value lost. Keep in mind I'm not going to say stuff I think is false just because it's the other side of an argument, but I may be more vocal about something.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action)

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a medium-length historical perspective on this issue.



OK... person3 is the least helpful person in this exchange because he accepts person2's premise for limiting the historical context of the discussion. He isn't balancing the conversation; instead, he tips the conversation in favor of person2 (and this issue is perhaps the most critical one for person1). The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses a false balance.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I couldn't agree with this more.

It also just happens to be to their benefit when the bare principle is decontextualized because then they don't have any personal responsibilities on the matter.

Could you expound more on what you think a person of today's personal responsibilities on the matter are aside from not being a racist and correcting racism where it truly exists?
Do you think there is more that should be laid upon the shoulders of people today for what happened in the past? ( just assume the people we are talking about are not racists today, otherwise they would have to correct and deal with what they heap upon their own shoulders.)

 

[Darkwing Duck]

just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action)

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a medium-length historical perspective on this issue.



OK... person3 is the least helpful person in this exchange because he accepts person2's premise for limiting the historical context of the discussion. He isn't balancing the conversation; instead, he tips the conversation in favor of person2 (and this issue is perhaps the most critical one for person1). The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses a false balance.

Person 1 wants a diachronic study.
Person 2 wants a synchronic study.

Both are useful, are they not?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Serious question here (I'm not just trying to be provocative, even though it sounds that way):

What value is there in asking someone to limit the historical sense they have of a concept?

This move is either saying, "your history is wrong" or "your history is right in many respects, but we can't handle too much context... the only hope we have is through parsimonious accounts."

One thing is certain, this move does nothing to enrich our understanding of the concept under investigation. The only value I can find is the precedence it gives to a certain method for evaluating things. This method has nothing to do with the concept; rather, it is a moral process of measuring things that comes in from elsewhere and starts governing the discussion.

Next srs question:
What value is there in this person interceding in this debate with his "general theory of evaluation"? What do we get out of this??

 

[Jazz Spazz]

just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them and let it consume every living moment of my life, and let me pass blame where it is due to the 4th generation.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action) It's not helping, so lets do nothing.

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a robust historical perspective on this issue, and keep them in mind as we do what we can to correct the effects patiently and consistently and help the people that were wronged while still keeping balance in life and society.



OK... person3 is the most helpful person in this exchange because he accepts both people's premises and ideas. He is not only balancing conversation but helps to find a compromise so the boat doesn't tip to far either direction and sink the whole boat. The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses zero balance and tips the boat completely the other way to make up for a prior tip. Classic case of over correction, which usually leads to an accident

fixed