LawTalkers - We are all Slave now.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519395)

If you act differently around a black person than a white person is that racism? Of course the answer to that is, it depends.

Is the effect of acting differently around a black person perpetuating racism? Again, it depends.

If you act differently around women than men, are you sexist? It depends.

The existence of pervasive racism, and whether any individual white person is racist, are two different concepts. Racism is unquestionably pervasive and its impacts are often unnoticed, and a big part of it is unintentional acts by, as you note, white people who think they are woke.

Where things go off the rails a bit is when people argue that most or all whites are racist because they're born into a racist system and indoctrinated, even subconsciously, with racism. There is of course some truth to that. But as a simple matter of logic and statistical probability, it can never be the case that because whites are born into a racist society most or all of them to some extent racist.

Maybe that's not what's being asserted. Perhaps I have it wrong. But it seems to me that there's an emerging definition of racism asserting that because society is flooded with racism, anyone born into that society is to some extent racist. The idea sounds logical, except that it's not. It's arguing that the society into which you are born determines your thinking whether you like it or not. If that's true for racism, it's true for almost anything. People would be almost fractal mini-representations of the society into which they were born. That logic doesn't work for me.

This is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is that when someone brings up the advantages white people have (because of how they have built this society), it is ignored unless someone can provide proof of specific, intentional racism that any one person has either exhibited or benefited from. And one of the ways white people do that is by asserting they aren't a bad person (as discussed to death above). Discussion over.

TM

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519395)

I think simply stated, the idea is perhaps you and I can't necessarily see what we might be doing differently that could be harmful. Of course we don't intend harm in such cases, but would you listen to someone tell you what harm you might unintentionally do? You don't have to listen, but then you can't say you don't want to do harm, or that you do not do it. I agree complicating the issue is that everyone has a theory about what we might be doing wrong, and half might be nonsense, but that doesn't mean there can't be some education somewhere, does it?

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519389)

What I said is entirely logical. The reason TM and I talk past each other is that we define concepts differently.

I never said you weren't logical.

You use this "I define things differently" trick to avoid engaging with what people are actually saying. If you want to have a conversation with, for example, TM, accept his definitions and tell him why he's wrong. Using the same words but saying that they mean something different to you is a dodge.

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

You are completely focused on intent. There are times (and I gave you an example with Trump (and Kelly Ann Conway is employing the same approach on her rounds as well as we speak--"The question is racist") when people intentionally use the concept of colorblindness to end any real discussion on race. And they do it because it works with white people.

I agree with this 100%.

Quote:

But--and here's where you get stuck because you have determined already that being colorblind is the best way to be--the problem with the concept of colorblindness is that it is impossible.

I agree with this. My only point was, when people profess to attempt to be colorblind, it's often not just a dodge. A lot of people really believe they can do this. They're wrong. But it's not a significantly disingenuous behavior.

Quote:

I gave you the reasons why--namely, we are programmed from very early on which races are supposed to be superior and then we reinforce that hierarchy in absolutely every possible way in this country. Therefore, in reality, one simply cannot be colorblind. Anyone who says they are is lying.

Here's an area where we differ. I don't see the programming element. I see people observing that blacks are often treated as second class citizens and just assuming that's how society works. Not all people believe the hierarchy is a just or sensible system. Most people think it is not. Most people believe life is unfair.

I sense, perhaps incorrectly, that you believe that most non-minorities have a hierarchy of races in their heads. That's soft white supremacy. There are people with that bizarre and twisted mindset, but not a huge number.

Quote:

You shift to an argument where we need to strive for colorblindness. Surely this in not controversial. In theory, in a vacuum, no. But the conditions in which colorblindness can exist will never come about. You then mention some distant future in which there will be no such thing as race. Fun to think about in a freshman-in-college-smoking-weed-after-sociology/anthropology-class sort of way, but beyond that, pointless.

Agreed 100% again. But I see no harm from striving to be colorblind. So you fail at attempting to be unrealistically decent. And that striving is not mutually exclusive with considering and addressing racism. One can attempt to be as colorblind as he can be, to hold that as an ideal, and still recognize and try to remedy racism around him in practical ways.

Quote:

Your underlying point about how it is something to strive for is a common refrain. I challenge you to think about why anyone would focus on the idea of colorblindness when the concept is completely unnecessary if there is no racism. If there is no racism, we wouldn't treat people differently based on race prejudice. Cultural and physical differences wouldn't be deemed negative simply because of who possesses them. So the concept is impossible in our current reality and completely unnecessary in future-world in which racism doesn't exist.

I was using colorblindedness to mean a situation in which one does not care about color or race. Color and race were synonyms. You and I disagree, I think, about how much of racism is based on the cultural and how much is based on the physical. I still see the physical as significant -- the color and feature differences that enable the simple lizard brain circuits of a racist mind label someone an "other."

Quote:

Once it is clear that the concept has no use outside of what people use it for right now, we need to address why people use it right now. It sounds good to say, "I don't see color." The inference to be drawn is that you don't (or don't want to) make decisions based on color. That's where we all want to be, right? This is your main point. But this isn't true for anyone, so it serves to act as a barrier to a genuine conversation and any efforts toward actual change. If someone refuses to acknowledge that their decisions are always influenced by how they have been conditioned by a lifetime of programming when it comes to race, one cannot have a productive conversation with that person.

I agree with this. I can understand how it's frustrating for someone to say they strive to not see color or race. Perhaps they shouldn't say that out loud. But it's very hard for me to say that they shouldn't privately think of that as a goal because it should be the goal. As a basic matter of common sense and logic, fixing how you act toward another, particularly in a negative manner, based on his or her race or color is intellectually indefensible. It's moronic.

But I do understand your point about not making the ideal the enemy of the practical solution needed.

Quote:

And to be clear, I don't exempt myself from that conditioning. I see it in myself all the time. I am extremely light-skinned and I find myself trading on that and expecting better treatment because of it. It disgusts me, but it's there.

The book runs through a number of examples of people applying this good/bad binary through color-blindness to squelch conversation and to shift the focus away from them being a bad person. I don't know if you will read it with an open mind, but it would be interesting to have this conversation again after you have.

I will read it. I'm far too invested in considering the topic not to do so, and every review of it has deemed it excellent.

Quote:

_______
You also said: "I do not agree with the definition of racism having nothing to do with intent."

I never said this. I cannot believe you got this from anything in our conversation. I said it has become almost impossible to discuss or address racism with white people because they have limited racism to something that only bad people do. Once they feel like they are put in the "bad people" box, no conversation about what they did or said can be had because they are so focused on defining themselves as a good person (thus the term "fragility"). Hell, you can't even talk pure numbers and impact because any such discussion is immediately turned back towards how the white person was raised or who their ancestors are or how they came from nothing, etc. Do you see what I'm saying? The goal is to remove "intent" from the conversation when we would like to talk about impact. White people cannot do this because they don't want to be labeled bad and because of that, any practical discussion beyond how that white person is not bad is impossible.

I think intent and impact are two different issues. I agree with the proposition that impact is the more important consideration.

Quote:

There are surely people who are intentionally racist. But, as we know, implicit bias, confirmation bias, etc. are examples of ways in which how we've been conditioned influences our decisions. We need to be able to discuss things like that with white people without having every conversation get stuck on how they feel like they are being attacked for being "bad."

Again, I agree. I think the best way to approach this is to simply focus on impact. There's no sensible white person who'll argue with the statement, "It's easier to be white, and you've all kinds of advantages over blacks." That's just a fact. From there, the conversation naturally goes to, how does society start to remedy that? Where I think the conversation goes sideways is when the suggestion is made that a white person is complicit in this inequity. For a lot of white people, that's true. They take actions to protect the status quo inequity. But for a lot of white people, it's not true. They were simply lucky -- born white in a society where it helps a lot to be white.

But if the conversation focuses on fixing the inequity, there's no reason to get bogged down in according blame or complicity. If an honest white person sincerely engages in a conversation on how to fix the problem and learn how it feels to endure systemic racism from a black person's perspective, just focus on the solution, long and arduous as it may be.

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519397)

No, not in the least. A discussion about how white people are unintentionally perpetuating the inequity can only be positive.

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

I don't see the programming element. I see people observing that blacks are often treated as second class citizens and just assuming that's how society works.

How is that not programming?

Quote:

There's no sensible white person who'll argue with the statement, "It's easier to be white, and you've all kinds of advantages over blacks."

Perhaps, but if so, there are lots of unsensible white people out there.

Quote:

Where I think the conversation goes sideways is when the suggestion is made that a white person is complicit in this inequity.

Or we white people can try to get over our fragility and accept, yeah, we are complicit. We try not to be, but we are. We do book problem harm, even when we're trying like hell to minimize it.

Quote:

But if the conversation focuses on fixing the inequity, there's no reason to get bogged down in according blame or complicity.

If we can't name the problem - that white supremacy is a system that we all participate in and those of us who are white benefit from - how can we have any conversation about how to solve it?

Those people at the Trump rallies? They think they're the victims.

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Okay, I feel like we're getting somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

My only point was, when people profess to attempt to be colorblind, it's often not just a dodge. A lot of people really believe they can do this. They're wrong. But it's not a significantly disingenuous behavior.

I think you mean to say it's not always disingenuous behavior. That statement is correct. I gave you an example of when it is, but the whole crux of the book and my focus on this board is in addressing when it isn't disingenuous but serves as a barrier to any type of progress anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

Again, you have broken down what I am saying into intentional vs. unintentional. I know you understand that whites enjoy "all kinds of advantages over blacks," so the fact that there just is a racial hierarchy in this country is not up for debate. Almost everything we encounter solidifies this reality.

Here's where we break from each other: Does that mean that all white people (or any people, for that matter) are sitting there thinking, "I'm at the top of this hierarchy. I want to keep it that way." No. Of course it doesn't. But here's the rub. You cannot mention the general fact that whites enjoy a certain status within this reality and give examples without whites turning it into something personal to them that says they are a bad person. At that point, we're talking about how they're not bad people, they are colorblind, they grew up rough, their families are diverse somewhere, they have black friends, their ancestors were Irish and need not apply. It is impossible to get around that and get back to how something is set up (an approach to hiring at a law firm, for example) that favors them and what we can do to change it. All time is spent confirming to said white person that they are indeed good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

I sense, perhaps incorrectly, that you believe that most non-minorities have a hierarchy of races in their heads. That's soft white supremacy. There are people with that bizarre and twisted mindset, but not a huge number.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that there is no such thing as colorblindism. Either you strive to not be racist or you don't. Either you have race prejudice or you don't. Either you act with racial discrimination or you don't. People say they are colorblind because it is a way (intentional or not) to not deal with actual racism. Even if you could be completely colorblind, how does that help anyone in a world built such that every business, neighborhood, school, government institution, court, police force, etc. favors one race over all others?

If I say, "Can we talk about why you gave that assignment to Chad and not me when I have more experience with that type of work and have been here longer?" and you say, "I don't see race," where does that leave me? How can we have a conversation about the reality I am facing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

Why is colorblindness the goal? The goal is to not be racist. The goal is equity. Equality. If you have those things, what does being colorblind get anyone? You're using it as a shorthand for those things (I think). And it's getting in the way because it is impossible to be colorblind given how we are all raised and the messages we are all bombarded with from birth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

I will read it. I'm far too invested in considering the topic not to do so, and every review of it has deemed it excellent.

Cool. I look forward to discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

Here is another disconnect. If I say that you are enjoying status that benefits you without taking intentionally racist action, you're saying you're simply lucky. I'm saying, "Hey! That's unfair. I would like to enjoy that kind of status too here [at work] [in school] [in court]." You say, "Dude, I'm not racist. It's not my fault you get longer sentences from judges than I do. I'm a good person. My family blah blah blah..." No need to address the difference in status anymore. You're just lucky, right? Not your problem because you aren't intentionally participating. You're just enjoying your status. Conversation over. No action taken by anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

But if the conversation focuses on fixing the inequity, there's no reason to get bogged down in according blame or complicity.

This makes no sense because the only reason why the system remains the way it is, is because it benefits the dominant culture. White people don't want to give it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519399)

If an honest white person sincerely engages in a conversation on how to fix the problem and learn how it feels to endure systemic racism from a black person's perspective, just focus on the solution, long and arduous as it may be.

And here's where we end. That would be great. Too bad whenever we try to get there, we can't get past the good/bad binary which is the focus of the book.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.

How does RBG break 3 ribs in a fall? She is only 3 inches off the ground to begin with.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF2 (Post 519403)

How does RBG break 3 ribs in a fall? She is only 3 inches off the ground to begin with.

What does Kavanaugh weigh?

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 519404)

What does Kavanaugh weigh?

too soon.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519405)

too soon.

I can't believe 3 days and I haven't seen a word about this. Coincidence, no? She's fine until his groping drunk ass comes around.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 519380)

But will you say "Long time, no see?"

Damn, I was trying to bait Adder in all his earnestness - https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/06/l...ered-offensive

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 519407)

Damn, I was trying to bait Adder in all his earnestness - https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/06/l...ered-offensive

I'm guessing so is the phrase I was going to use to respond "How?"https://imageproxy.themaven.net/http...2UiC7iOCfRs7aA

Re: Color-blind Nationalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519397)

Of course, we should never discount that there are a lot of folks who simply intend to do harm. There are plenty of conscious, intentional bigots out there these days.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 519407)

Damn, I was trying to bait Adder in all his earnestness - https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/06/l...ered-offensive

You have to read ridiculous things like Reason to know about these things.

You asked me for a decent outline of Lukainoff's and Haidt's book. I offered what I thought were decent ones which covered the main arguments of the book. Here's a much better one: https://quillette.com/2018/10/14/mor...oned-critique/

Pardon the framing of the piece, to the extent it responds to a less than stellar critique of the book by someone named Weigel. I think it still gets the outlined main ideas of the book across.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 519410)

You have to read ridiculous things like Reason to know about these things.

Or the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46146766

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519405)

too soon.

These words, "too soon"... What do they mean?

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519413)

These words, "too soon"... What do they mean?

For a Kavanaugh assulted RBG joke

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519414)

For a Kavanaugh assulted RBG joke

...Feel the breeze.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519415)

...Feel the breeze.

it was meta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519411)

Nothing in that review -- the brief description of the big ideas in the book, the critique by this Weigel person, the response to the critique -- says anything useful, as far as I can tell. The Great Untruths are hard to argue with, but the idea that they capture something important about the way some set of people is thinking -- that seems silly.

Quote:

In the book, we outline three misguided principles (“Great Untruths”) that form the foundation of the new moral culture we are seeing on some college campuses:

The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.
The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
The Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

We also trace six explanatory threads—cultural trends and practices that explain why this new moral culture, which we call “safetyism,” seemed to emerge so rapidly between 2013 and 2015:

Rising teen depression and anxiety.
The damaging effects of overprotection and social media.
The loss of play in childhood.
The polarization of the country.
New ideas about justice.
The bureaucratization of higher education.

It's not that any of this is wrong, it's that it feels manufactured and irrelevant.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519416)

it was meta.

I'd analogize it to Dave Parker flailing at a slider and falling down on home plate.

(Maybe that's a bit harsh.)

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519419)

Heh.

so? that's like me confusing GGG and Sgt. Club. Maybe I should know the difference, but also rans in my dusty rearview all look the same.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519420)

so? that's like me confusing GGG and Sgt. Club. Maybe I should know the difference, but also rans in my dusty rearview all look the same.

He thought the Canadians burned the White House: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44394156

And he thinks if you exercise, you shorten your life by expending more quickly a finite store of energy: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/polit...ise/index.html

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519421)

And he thinks if you exercise, you shorten your life by expending more quickly a finite store of energy: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/polit...ise/index.html

I've heard T say basically the exact same thing to explain the weight gain; first connection we can make to tie him to Trump's bandwagon?

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519422)

I've heard T say basically the exact same thing to explain the weight gain; first connection we can make to tie him to Trump's bandwagon?

Maybe it's me, but I really don't get your sense of humor. I don't even know what this means.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 519423)

Maybe it's me, but I really don't get your sense of humor. I don't even know what this means.

TM

It isn't you.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 519424)

It isn't you.

I’m an enigma?

Re: We are all Slave now.

I was musing that one could tie Andy Kaufman to President Trump, like maybe Andy IS alive? I googled to see if they have ever been photographed together- no photos, but Newsweek had published the same riff a few years ago. I do IP- I know nothing is ever 100% new, still it hurts to see this was derivative.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519426)

Have you tried using “Tony Clifton”? That’d be the alter ego suited to a meeting with Trump, no?

I think Tony even loved pro wrestling.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 519424)

It isn't you.

Srsly? How could you both miss that joke?

Re: We are all Slave now.

Good for Fox News for supporting CNN's lawsuit over Acosta.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Among the three-fourths of Americans who are NOT white evangelicals, Democrats won 66/32.

https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/statu...20439817252864

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519430)

Among the three-fourths of Americans who are NOT white evangelicals, Democrats won 66/32.

https://twitter.com/ed_kilgore/statu...20439817252864

I can't believe 25% of voters are evangelicals. That is disturbing.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519431)

I can't believe 25% of voters are evangelicals. That is disturbing.

They’re very into voting. I’d guess more than 50% of Evangelicals vote in every election.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519432)

They’re very into voting. I’d guess more than 50% of Evangelicals vote in every election.

More than 50%? They let their woman vote?

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519433)

More than 50%? They let their woman vote?

Women if Mormon splinter polygamists count as evangelicals.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Growing up we hardly had cereal to eat. But my grandma was here without papers so that might explain it?