White student union proposed at Towson University

[sirkickyass]

Can we at least all agree that the notion of proposing a white student union is probably done precisely to provoke?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Can we at least all agree that the notion of proposing a white student union is probably done precisely to provoke?

 

[Stoked]

Can we at least all agree that the notion of proposing a white student union is probably done precisely to provoke?

More than likely but I like the fact that it creates this type of debate.

 

[The Thriller]

What's the point of this group?

I sincerely doubt their motives are to "celebrate" white culture. I could be wrong, but at best these guys were merely looking for attention. At worst, they're racist thugs.

Are they hoping to pass legislation for... Something?

I just don't see their motives being exactly noble. But that's just my opinion.

What would they stand for? How about things such as supporting and celebratign white culture. Communtiy service, better education, family values...

Certainly qualities unique to "white culture...." Cuz... No other race or culture supports or exhibits community service, better education, and family values....

 

[Julie Greengiant]

More than likely but I like the fact that it creates this type of debate.

It's a harmful debate. Just, fyi.

 

[Stoked]

It's a harmful debate. Just, fyi.

It could be harmful but only if we let it. If it makes us take a long hard look at racism and question ourselves and our society I think it is extrememly helpful. Hard introspection on an individual and societal level can be a wonderful thing.

 

[Julie Greengiant]

It could be harmful but only if we let it. If it makes us take a long hard look at racism and question ourselves and our society I think it is extrememly helpful. Hard introspection on an individual and societal level can be a wonderful thing.

Who is "us" though? I don't think our society is capable of that kind of introspection.

 

[Stoked]

Who is "us" though? I don't think our society is capable of that kind of introspection.

Well I picture those discussions happening as this one is. Little groups throught the country. I do not see some massive societal debate on this. Talking things out is almost ever bad.

 

[One Brow]

What would they stand for? How about things such as supporting and celebratign white culture. Communtiy service, better education, family values...
...
The idea that a group of whites or men cannot form a group that is not racist or mysogonist is insane to me.

1) Supporting and celebrating are not defending.
2) Community service, bettering education, and family values are already ingrained in American culture, they require no actions or changes to be engaged in, and certainly don't need defending.
3) I agree that groups formed by white people, or men, are not necessarily inherently racist or misogynistic.

Now, rather than addressing some strawmen, would you be so kind as to address the question I actually posed?

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" (or a non-misogynist group devoted to "men's rights") be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

 

[One Brow]

Based on your definition of what makes one a race expert then I'd have to say that Mr. Freeman is indeed a race expert.

I don't think you know what my definition of an expert on racial relations is. I don't think Morgan Freeman qualifies.

 

[One Brow]

Putting profiling under the banner of racism is certainly a disservice to any discussion. Is the percentage of drug possession truly equal in New York City of cars searched? You have to prove that. Also, are those cars being searched BECAUSE the alleged owner is black? Or is it because alleged owners of cars that arouse the suspicions of police happen to be black. And even if it is equal, racism isn't the only conclusion. The statements, or thought processes, "This guy is black, so he must be a bad guy, so I'm searching his car for drugs" and "This guy is black, and blacks seem to have a higher rate of drug possession, so I'm more likely to find drugs than a random guy" are two entirely different statements, even if the actions are the same.

I agree that all your questions are improtant, and need to be answered in any serious consideration of the issue. I'm sure it will come as no surprise that many studies on these issues have been done. For example, police are actually slightly more likely, after conducting a search, to find drugs in the searched car of the white person than in the searched car of the black person, even though the black person is more likely to be searched. Are you saying that we need some sort of double-blind study of this effect?

Stereotyping should also not be put under the banner of racism. Two different things.

Racism is a specific form of stereotyping. If humans did not stereotype, there would be no racism.

And this concept of "minorities can only accurately appreciate and portray racism accurately" is completely ridiculous. Sure, the wronged minority is surely more emotionally involved, but there's no way that the majority doesn't understand racism less than the minority.

ONly a wronged party can accurately experience and protray the effects of that wrongness. Non-wronged parties can have discussions, but don't make good protrayals.

Can you assure me that, while in the circumstances where you race was more demographically minor, you were also a part of the disfavored class? Where you an untouchable in India? Or, did you mean that you were some European-descended guy who visited another country and was treated pretty much like European guys everywhere? Do you think the Afrikaaner's experience in South Africa is a close parallel to blacks/Hispanics here, while a Zulu there would have lived like a white man here? Do you think that since women are 51% of the population, they are not subjected to assumptions of inferiority and subservience?

 

[Stoked]

1) Supporting and celebrating are not defending.
2) Community service, bettering education, and family values are already ingrained in American culture, they require no actions or changes to be engaged in, and certainly don't need defending.
3) I agree that groups formed by white people, or men, are not necessarily inherently racist or misogynistic.

Now, rather than addressing some strawmen, would you be so kind as to address the question I actually posed?

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" (or a non-misogynist group devoted to "men's rights") be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

Due to the reality of the American culture, it's not possible for a group defending "white rights" group to not be racist (nor is it possible for a group defending "mens rights" to not be misogynist). Being white (or male) makes your life easier in dozens of ways, most of which an individual person doesn't even see.

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

These two seem to disagree. Care to explain?

 

[One Brow]

These two seem to disagree. Care to explain?

Lack of reading skils on your part, regarding qualifying clauses and how they change the meaning of a sentence. To me, it is very clear that the types of groups in the second quote are a very specific subset fo the types of groups mentioned in the first group. I have no explanation why you think otherwise.

 

[Stoked]

1) Supporting and celebrating are not defending.
2) Community service, bettering education, and family values are already ingrained in American culture, they require no actions or changes to be engaged in, and certainly don't need defending.
3) I agree that groups formed by white people, or men, are not necessarily inherently racist or misogynistic.

Now, rather than addressing some strawmen, would you be so kind as to address the question I actually posed?

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" (or a non-misogynist group devoted to "men's rights") be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

Lack of reading skils on your part, regarding qualifying clauses and how they change the meaning of a sentence. To me, it is very clear that the types of groups in the second quote are a very specific subset fo the types of groups mentioned in the first group. I have no explanation why you think otherwise.

That can be thrown right back at you. Where did I argue that such a group had to be defending "white rights"? That is entirely a requirement you threw in. Not me.

We were originally arguing that they are not racist just becasue they are a white group. T hen it involved to be a white group defending white rights.

If you are going to argue readin comprehension then perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I agree that all your questions are improtant, and need to be answered in any serious consideration of the issue. I'm sure it will come as no surprise that many studies on these issues have been done. For example, police are actually slightly more likely, after conducting a search, to find drugs in the searched car of the white person than in the searched car of the black person, even though the black person is more likely to be searched. Are you saying that we need some sort of double-blind study of this effect?

Logically, that would end up making sense. If police are looser in deciding to check cars of black people, percentage-wise, you'd expect negative searches to be higher than choosing to search cars of white people on tighter requirements if the rate of drug possession across the two demographics are the same. Regardless, can end result studies really state that the reason black car owners are checked more is due to the owner of the car being black, or that cars that police find to be suspicious have proportionally more black owners? Trumpeting racism helps in neither circumstance.

Racism is a specific form of stereotyping. If humans did not stereotype, there would be no racism.

They're related, but neither is subservient. The collective term is preconceptions. Racism is rooted in irrationality, a preconceived irrationality. Stereotyping is rationality, a preconceived rationality.

ONly a wronged party can accurately experience and protray the effects of that wrongness. Non-wronged parties can have discussions, but don't make good protrayals.

Thus it is anecdotal, and not terribly useful in and of itself to discuss the extremely broader concepts of race relations and demographic conflict. I could just as easily say that wronged parties can have discussions, but are jaded on the overall picture. It becomes more of a debate of emic versus etic, which is fine, but loses sight of the actual issue.

Can you assure me that, while in the circumstances where you race was more demographically minor, you were also a part of the disfavored class? Where you an untouchable in India? Or, did you mean that you were some European-descended guy who visited another country and was treated pretty much like European guys everywhere? Do you think the Afrikaaner's experience in South Africa is a close parallel to blacks/Hispanics here, while a Zulu there would have lived like a white man here? Do you think that since women are 51% of the population, they are not subjected to assumptions of inferiority and subservience?

To answer the first, of course not, though I was lumped in by the country's media as being the preconceived type of person. However, my experiences were anecdotal, and I can't say, based on them alone, that said experiences accurately portray race relations in that country.

 

[PearlWatson]

Can we at least all agree that the notion of proposing a white student union is probably done precisely to provoke?

Black Student Union? Great!

Hispanic Student Union? Wonderful!

White Student Union? RACIST!!! [Provocative!!!]

 

[One Brow]

That can be thrown right back at you. Where did I argue that such a group had to be defending "white rights"? That is entirely a requirement you threw in. Not me.

https://collegeinsurrection.com/201...-drive-launched-by-townson-university-senior/

Towson University senior Matthew Heimbach has launched an effort to form a “White Students Union” on his campus, saying he is frustrated by the political correctness that holds his and other colleges hostage. He hopes to combat what he claims is a series of racially motivated black-on-white crimes near Towson, and give a voice to his white peers.

The purpose of this student union is to defend white rights. I think that makes the inclusion of that stipulation relevant to the conversation.

We were originally arguing that they are not racist just becasue they are a white group. T hen it involved to be a white group defending white rights.

It was always a group defending white rights.

Now that this has been cleared up, will you either answer my question, or acknowledge that it is reasonable to consider this a racist group?

 

[Stoked]

No that is just what you always want it to be about.

 

[One Brow]

Regardless, can end result studies really state that the reason black car owners are checked more is due to the owner of the car being black, or that cars that police find to be suspicious have proportionally more black owners? Trumpeting racism helps in neither circumstance.

I don't think double-blind studies are realistic. Since all the studies must by nature be epidemiological, you will never have a precise tool for correlation and causation. However, you also seem to lack an alternative explanation. Given that racism is prevalent, and this has been confirmed in a variety of other studies where better controls were possible, it's a quite resonable connection.

They're related, but neither is subservient. The collective term is preconceptions. Racism is rooted in irrationality, a preconceived irrationality. Stereotyping is rationality, a preconceived rationality.

I am unfamiliar with the existence of rational stereotypes. I'm certaqinly not aware that the acceppted connotation for stereotype is that of a rational determination. Please go on.

Thus it is anecdotal, and not terribly useful in and of itself to discuss the extremely broader concepts of race relations and demographic conflict.

I acknowledge personal experiences are anecdotal in nature. How else can we determine if a stereotype is specifically harmful? There are stereotypes about people who play board games. However, such stereotypes don't seem to cause harm to boardgamers. I agree you can't use anecdote as a substitute for staatistical data, but anecdote, especially the common elements in a large number of anecdotes, are useful for making determinations about other things.

I could just as easily say that wronged parties can have discussions, but are jaded on the overall picture. It becomes more of a debate of emic versus etic, which is fine, but loses sight of the actual issue.

Wht is the actual issue, to you?

To answer the first, of course not, though I was lumped in by the country's media as being the preconceived type of person. However, my experiences were anecdotal, and I can't say, based on them alone, that said experiences accurately portray race relations in that country.

Perhaps you should consider the difference between being majority and being privileged more carefully, then. Your example was not relevant because it was mis-aligned on that axis.

 

[One Brow]

No that is just what you always want it to be about.

Fine, just take your ball and go, then.

Seriously, I understand you not wanting to defend this particular group.