We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

More proof against Trump: the Bridgeoflove webpage is no longer live. Coincidence?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Oh my.

You never watched 24? That show was from what the 90s?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[*]You think that people who don't live near racially diverse people are agnostic about race in a country where every single person's status is measure by race

That's not what I said. What I meant by agnostic on race is what I said -- people who don't even think about the subject. These people exist.

[*]You don't understand that "not having to think about race" really just means: These people have isolated themselves such that they aren't personally confronted with racial unpleasantness

Or they live somewhere where race issues do not occur. And it's interesting that you assume these people isolate themselves. Have you considered that growing up in an area where race issues are not prominent could be unintentional? I highly doubt anyone in NE British Columbia runs into race issues very often. Has this person isolated himself? If you grow up in a town where nearly everyone is white, by dumb chance of birth, are you isolating yourself? You seem to suggest culpability in your use of "isolated themselves." Are you suggesting ignorance of race matters is negligent, or a bad act, on the part of such people?

[*]You haven't realized that all of the ideas that people who aren't personally exposed to people of color have about people of color is based on ignorance and the definitions of race they're bombarded with

This can be applied to any group. If you grow up in the North and have never visited the South, your view of Southerners is based on second hand definitions. If you've never met a German, your view of Germans is based on second hand definitions.

You can apply this reasoning to any group of people with whom you've not interacted. I don't understand the point being made here.

[*]You think it's possible for people in this country (no matter where they live) to not think about race

I do. I myself am thinking about race here, for the purposes of this discussion. I will be on vacation in two weeks, at which point I will not watch TV and will try to avoid newspapers. I will not think about race. At all. I will see people of various races, but I will have no reason to think about the fact that we come from different backgrounds, as it will be immaterial.

If I grew up on a farm in Utah, I'd never think about race. I think there are a ton of people out there exactly like me.

If you say these people have had the luxury of not thinking about race, I'd say that's true. I'd also say this has nothing to do with my point, and actually proves my point: There are a lot of people out there who don't think about race. And there are even more people out there who don't think about race very much.

Nah. You chose an example of something that is as innocuous as possible because you don't really want to confront the issue. Someone said a racist joke around you and you didn't respond, which doesn't make you racist? It's a stupid example.

You asked me a question about a bigoted country club. I was responding to your inquiry.

I don't care what someone's choices are or how much they want a President who is itching for a stupid trade war. If they vote for someone who is racist and who they knew was racist when they ran (and who ran almost exclusively on racism) and that person does racist things because that voter put them in office, that voter owns those racist things.

For the 10th time, I AGREE WITH THAT. What I do not agree with was Adder's loopy extensions of this reasoning to the propositions:

1. All Americans are racist; and,
2. All of our grandparents were racist;
3. Because America is comprised of systems which incorporate and perpetuate structural racism.

But if you vote GOP, do you own the fact that you're enabling racists within the party? ABSOLUTELY.

The fact that you always err on the side of, "that farmer voted for Trump despite his racism" instead of because of his racism given Trump's rhetoric, the Republican Party's history with race, and the realities in this country (especially after 8 years of the first black man holding the Presidency ever) is astounding. All signs point to that farmer voted for him because that farmer is fucking racist. But you would rather invent any other reason and you have pushed every single one on this board instead. You consistently ignore or shoo away the studies that say that the white working class voted for Trump because of a loss of status because you need smoking gun proof. And you consistently give credence to every single other theory of why he won without requiring smoking gun proof of any of it.

No, that's you and everyone here bristling at any challenge to the narrative. When I offer skepticism about the studies you cite to prove the point that the Trump vote was all about racism, I do so because, while those studies are evidentiary, they don't prove the point convincingly. And they certainly don't prove the point to the extent Adder or anyone else can run around here saying "All GOP voters are racists."

Trump has a significant amount of racist supporters. He also has a significant amount of supporters who are just greedy, want manufacturing jobs, hated Hillary, always vote GOP, etc. The list of reasons people voted for Trump and he was elected is a very long one.

Is racism a big part of it? Yes. But when you say it's the only part of it, or discuss it exclusively without reference to the other reasons people voted for Trump (which creates the narrative racism is the only cause), you're off, and someone needs to pick up the other side of the argument. When I disagree with you on this point, it's an argument of degree.

Ty will ask why I feel the need to do this. And if one buys into the logic that it's all defensiveness, white fragility, they'll try to discount my challenge as emotional. It's not. I join the statement that a large segment of Trump voters are racist. I will not join the statement that all or nearly all of them are racists. That's a step too far. And it is flatly absurd to state that all Americans are racist using the reasoning Adder and Ty have offered. That a person is born into a society filled with racist impacts, with structural racism, renders him an automatic racist strikes me as such a profoundly illogical statement, I have to wonder how someone could ever absorb it. (My suspicion is because studies on issues of race and gender are not done by the most rigorous academic minds, who tend to go into hard sciences, and because anthropology and psychology are inherently soft sciences. This has led to a body of credentialed but dubious work people like Ty and Adder will either buy into or use as intellectual cover.)

Racism is the default in this country. You seem to think it's the other way around. Burden of proof, given our history and current racial realities, is for one to prove race wasn't the driving factor. You squeeze your eyes closed as tight as you can and say, "prove it beyond any inkling of doubt."

We are never going to see eye to eye on that burden of proof. I accept it in certain situations (law enforcement, certain regions of the country, certain fields), but that burden shifting does not apply universally.

TM[/QUOTE]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I grew up on a farm in Utah, I'd never think about race.

remind who is class president at Napoleon Dynamite’s High School?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

remind who is class president at Napoleon Dynamite’s High School?

This is your best work.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not what I said. What I meant by agnostic on race is what I said -- people who don't even think about the subject. These people exist.



Or they live somewhere where race issues do not occur. And it's interesting that you assume these people isolate themselves. Have you considered that growing up in an area where race issues are not prominent could be unintentional? I highly doubt anyone in NE British Columbia runs into race issues very often. Has this person isolated himself? If you grow up in a town where nearly everyone is white, by dumb chance of birth, are you isolating yourself? You seem to suggest culpability in your use of "isolated themselves." Are you suggesting ignorance of race matters is negligent, or a bad act, on the part of such people?



This can be applied to any group. If you grow up in the North and have never visited the South, your view of Southerners is based on second hand definitions. If you've never met a German, your view of Germans is based on second hand definitions.

You can apply this reasoning to any group of people with whom you've not interacted. I don't understand the point being made here.



I do. I myself am thinking about race here, for the purposes of this discussion. I will be on vacation in two weeks, at which point I will not watch TV and will try to avoid newspapers. I will not think about race. At all. I will see people of various races, but I will have no reason to think about the fact that we come from different backgrounds, as it will be immaterial.

If I grew up on a farm in Utah, I'd never think about race. I think there are a ton of people out there exactly like me.

If you say these people have had the luxury of not thinking about race, I'd say that's true. I'd also say this has nothing to do with my point, and actually proves my point: There are a lot of people out there who don't think about race. And there are even more people out there who don't think about race very much.



You asked me a question about a bigoted country club. I was responding to your inquiry.



For the 10th time, I AGREE WITH THAT. What I do not agree with was Adder's loopy extensions of this reasoning to the propositions:

1. All Americans are racist; and,
2. All of our grandparents were racist;
3. Because America is comprised of systems which incorporate and perpetuate structural racism.

But if you vote GOP, do you own the fact that you're enabling racists within the party? ABSOLUTELY.



No, that's you and everyone here bristling at any challenge to the narrative. When I offer skepticism about the studies you cite to prove the point that the Trump vote was all about racism, I do so because, while those studies are evidentiary, they don't prove the point convincingly. And they certainly don't prove the point to the extent Adder or anyone else can run around here saying "All GOP voters are racists."

Trump has a significant amount of racist supporters. He also has a significant amount of supporters who are just greedy, want manufacturing jobs, hated Hillary, always vote GOP, etc. The list of reasons people voted for Trump and he was elected is a very long one.

Is racism a big part of it? Yes. But when you say it's the only part of it, or discuss it exclusively without reference to the other reasons people voted for Trump (which creates the narrative racism is the only cause), you're off, and someone needs to pick up the other side of the argument. When I disagree with you on this point, it's an argument of degree.

Ty will ask why I feel the need to do this. And if one buys into the logic that it's all defensiveness, white fragility, they'll try to discount my challenge as emotional. It's not. I join the statement that a large segment of Trump voters are racist. I will not join the statement that all or nearly all of them are racists. That's a step too far. And it is flatly absurd to state that all Americans are racist using the reasoning Adder and Ty have offered. That a person is born into a society filled with racist impacts, with structural racism, renders him an automatic racist strikes me as such a profoundly illogical statement, I have to wonder how someone could ever absorb it. (My suspicion is because studies on issues of race and gender are not done by the most rigorous academic minds, who tend to go into hard sciences, and because anthropology and psychology are inherently soft sciences. This has led to a body of credentialed but dubious work people like Ty and Adder will either buy into or use as intellectual cover.)



We are never going to see eye to eye on that burden of proof. I accept it in certain situations (law enforcement, certain regions of the country, certain fields), but that burden shifting does not apply universally.

TM

I can't do this with you. You are either intentionally obtuse, stupid, or plugging your ears to anything other than what is bouncing around in your weird head. Anyone who thinks it's possible to not think about race no matter where they live in this country isn't worth talking to. Good luck with your ignorance.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

You never watched 24? That show was from what the 90s?

I will confess that I never watched 24.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Or they live somewhere where race issues do not occur. And it's interesting that you assume these people isolate themselves. Have you considered that growing up in an area where race issues are not prominent could be unintentional?

Dude, you keep using the word in a way that no one else is using it. TM is not talking about intentionality. You are the only one who is using the word "racism" in a way that includes some sort of specific intent.

Imagine a concept like your "racism," but without specific intent, a sort of ingrained prejudice that comes from living in a society where you grow up surrounded by all sorts of prejudice. Find a word that describes that sort of thing, and now read this exchange again but replacing (in your mind) "racism" with that other word. I'm betting it will all make sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Some deep context for conservative attacks on Soros:

The Soros stuff is just one of many manifestations of the the grand anti-Semitic trope (cosmopolitan Jews are destroying traditional nations) that pervades the alt-right and shades into the respectable right. Other examples: Frankfurt School, "Globalism". Anti-semitism has ancient & medieval roots but the variety we're talking about (idea that cosmopolitan Jews are destroying traditional nations) is really a hallmark of the nationalist right since the 19th century. The nationalist right posits and idealizes a cohesive volk community and therefore for structural reasons needs to have an internal scapegoat upon whom internal divisions can be blamed. So in West it's naturally drawn to already existing anti-Semitic narratives.

Right-wing nationalism needs anti-Semitism (or some very similar ideology) for structural reasons: all nations have internal divisions & therefore there has to be someone upon whom these can be blamed. Further, because capitalism is prone is recurring crisis, right-wing nationalists need someone to blame economic problems on. As nationalists, they are loath to blame wealthy who belong to ethnic majority (are part of "the people"). Hence, repeatedly, blame wealthy Jews. As August Bebel famously said, "anti-semitism is the socialism of fools"—i.e. a way of blaming structural problems of capitalism on unpopular minority. That's a big part of story, but there's more: anti-Semitism needed to explain mass uprisings.

Since the French Revolution, we've repeatedly witnesses popular uprisings of subaltern classes: workers, colonized, women, racial minorities, LGBT etc. This poses a conceptual problem for right-wing nationalists, who posit organic cohesion as norm. For the right-wing nationalist, popular uprisings (unless of nationalist intent) are unnatural. But how to explain the discontent of workers, colonized, women, etc? Acknowledging legitimate grievances would mean having to accept social change. Unable (because of commitment to social status quo) to acknowledge grievances of subaltern classes, the right-wing nationalist needs a scapegoat who can be blamed for discord. For historical reasons, easiest handy one is myth of conniving conspiratorial Jew.

The Soros of right-wing mythology (globalist intent on destroy cohesive nations) fit the long history of blaming internal discord on outside agitators as well as the Dolchstoßlegende. The nationalist needs a cosmopolitan nemesis...

via (but not by) Brad DeLong

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, you keep using the word in a way that no one else is using it. TM is not talking about intentionality. You are the only one who is using the word "racism" in a way that includes some sort of specific intent.

Imagine a concept like your "racism," but without specific intent, a sort of ingrained prejudice that comes from living in a society where you grow up surrounded by all sorts of prejudice. Find a word that describes that sort of thing, and now read this exchange again but replacing (in your mind) "racism" with that other word. I'm betting it will all make sense.

Oxford:

[I]racism
noun
mass noun

1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

racist
noun

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

adjective

Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Is Oxford an accepted authority? I'm using the term correctly. What you are describing is a variation of it: "systemic racist impacts," "systemic racist policies."

But for the 20th time now, the mere fact that one happens to be born into a system which is racist, which creates racist impacts, intentionally or not, does not automatically make one a racist. I don't know how else to say this. It's basic linguistics. That you wish to adopt a different definition for a word, and that lots of other people do as well, does not mean they are using the word correctly.

And now you'll go out and find me a definition that supports your usage. This is moronic. If you agree with Adder's propositions, let's just agree to disagree. Call me Harris, and I'll call you Ezra.

ETA: Related reading: https://medium.com/handwaving-freako...m-2d685d3af845

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oxford:

[I]racism
noun
mass noun

1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

racist
noun

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

adjective

Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Is Oxford an accepted authority? I'm using the term correctly. What you are describing is a variation of it: "systemic racist impacts," "systemic racist policies."

No, you're reading Oxford wrong. Oxford doesn't require intent: "A person who shows *or* feels prejudice *or* who believes...." Acting in a prejudiced way is enough -- the racist does not need to feel prejudice or believe racist things. That's what TM and Adder and I have all said, there are plenty of people who show prejudice even if they do not feel that they are prejudiced or think that they believe racist things. We, like Oxford, call them "racists." That is the crux of it, isn't it?

But for the 20th time now, the mere fact that one happens to be born into a system which is racist, which creates racist impacts, intentionally or not, does not automatically make one a racist. I don't know how else to say this. It's basic linguistics. That you wish to adopt a different definition for a word, and that lots of other people do as well, does not mean they are using the word correctly.

And now you'll go out and find me a definition that supports your usage. This is moronic. If you agree with Adder's propositions, let's just agree to disagree. Call me Harris, and I'll call you Ezra.

I can't tell what you disagree with Adder apart, other than that you use the word "racist" differently. Maybe if you try to respond without using that word, we'll get closer to clarity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some deep context for conservative attacks on Soros:



via (but not by) Brad DeLong

It's deep (hundreds of characters so), but the tunneling reaches a point one could've accessed with a garden shovel: Jews are always the go-to scapegoat because, otherwise, the uprising might topple the real entrenched elites.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you're reading Oxford wrong. Oxford doesn't require intent: "A person who shows *or* feels prejudice *or* who believes...." Acting in a prejudiced way is enough -- the racist does not need to feel prejudice or believe racist things. That's what TM and Adder and I have all said, there are plenty of people who show prejudice even if they do not feel that they are prejudiced or think that they believe racist things. We, like Oxford, call them "racists." That is the crux of it, isn't it?



I can't tell what you disagree with Adder apart, other than that you use the word "racist" differently. Maybe if you try to respond without using that word, we'll get closer to clarity.

You're parsing the definition. It's short. People can read it in full.

Sure, you can argue one can show discrimination toward others unintentionally. But Adder's point was that because we live in this country, we are (like our grandparents) all automatically racist.

That's flatly nuts, unless you believe that ALL people in this country at some point show discrimination toward others. That cannot be said. There is no way anyone can satisfy that standard.

The clarity you seek is something I've repeatedly provided:

You may not logically (and certainly not credibly) make the statement that all of our grandparents were racists, or that all current Americans are racist, simply because they were born into a society filled with racist systems.

Why? Because it's impossible. You would have to prove, using the Oxford definition, that everybody in those groups at some point showed discrimination or felt discriminatory feelings toward others. That's an unsustainable claim.

What Adder can say is, "We have systemic racism in this country, and a lot of people are unintentionally and intentionally racist." He can also say, as TM has, "If you vote GOP, even for non-racist reasons, you are enabling racists."

I suspect, however, that Adder, and people with similar thinking, like the "punch" of saying "everyone is a racist." There's a compelling extremism in saying things like that. Makes people think. Caused me to write 20 posts refuting that linguistic and logical foul. But it's wrong. And being wrong on important indictments like that makes a serious and sober discussion of the issue which might actually lead to policy changes all the more difficult to hold.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's deep (hundreds of characters so), but the tunneling reaches a point one could've accessed with a garden shovel: Jews are always the go-to scapegoat because, otherwise, the uprising might topple the real entrenched elites.

The piece that I didn't share, prior to that, shows how various conservatives' messaging about Soros echos common anti-Semitic tropes.

I saw a lot of conservatives in the last couple of days reacting to the Michigan congresswoman who accused opponents of BDS of dual loyalty (eta: also an anti-Semitic trope*). It would be nice if they reacted the same way to what their fellow travelers say about Soros.

* If that phrase has bad associations, what's the best way to get at the problem with using US laws to stop US citizens from boycotting another country?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're parsing the definition. It's short. People can read it in full.

I'm not parsing it at all, I just eliminated words that were not relevant to my point.

Sure, you can argue one can show discrimination toward others unintentionally. But Adder's point was that because we live in this country, we are (like our grandparents) all automatically racist.

That's flatly nuts, unless you believe that ALL people in this country at some point show discrimination toward others. That cannot be said. There is no way anyone can satisfy that standard.

I believe it isn't nuts, because I believe that discrimination is so deeply ingrained in the way we think and act that one can't escape it. I do believe that all people in this country show discrimination toward others. Any Christian who believes in original sin should have sympathy for the idea that we are all flawed and yet we can all find redemption. Maybe it's easier for you to appreciation if the flaws are not necessarily intentional.

But instead of talking about people in the abstract, and arguing about a hypothetical white person who acts and feels at all time without a hint of prejudice, I find it more interesting to talk about specific people. As I said to you yesterday, the fact is that you are extremely disciplined to say that someone is a racist unless you can discount all other possible explanations for their behavior. I don't see any reason to disagree about hypothetical non-racists when you are willing to defend the man who gave us Willie Horton as decent.