Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No. You didn't ask for the strongest example.

I’d assume one would lead with his strong foot. My bad.

I don’t think you have many compelling examples.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’d assume one would lead with his strong foot. My bad.

I don’t think you have many compelling examples.

So Sunday I had the pleasure of driving my son to the neighborhood in which his flop house exists. It was my first time in the neighborhood. It was vibrant 15 years ago. Chaldean town.

But driving to it Sunday, the streets were more and more abandoned buildings. Much of Detroit is having the gentrification that Brooklyn "enjoys," but not this neighborhood.

I dropped him off at 3 in the afternoon, half way down the block from a liquor store. Liquor stores are the only open businesses in much of the beat parts of Detroit. My son looks/is the part of someone who lives there. I'm not. My car isn't.

A man in front of the liquor store was staring at me as I was helping my son get his stuff out of my car. I noticed and was nervous. He was black. But he was also my age. He wasn't dangerous. He might ask me for a dollar, but he wasn't going to rob me. But I was nervous. A white rummy I'm pretty sure would not have put me on edge.

I walk by black people on normal sidewalks without thinking. Of the 10 people in life I'm closest to right now, 3 are black.

But there is a fear that saddens me when I'm in a position that could lead to danger. And that is harmful to black men generally. I try to be mindful of this fear and factor it into my initial thoughts re stuff. But that requires I acknowledge such bias might pop up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ben Sasse is a bad joke.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So Sunday I had the pleasure of driving my son to the neighborhood in which his flop house exists. It was my first time in the neighborhood. It was vibrant 15 years ago. Chaldean town.

But driving to it Sunday, the streets were more and more abandoned buildings. Much of Detroit is having the gentrification that Brooklyn "enjoys," but not this neighborhood.

I dropped him off at 3 in the afternoon, half way down the block from a liquor store. Liquor stores are the only open businesses in much of the beat parts of Detroit. My son looks/is the part of someone who lives there. I'm not. My car isn't.

A man in front of the liquor store was staring at me as I was helping my son get his stuff out of my car. I noticed and was nervous. He was black. But he was also my age. He wasn't dangerous. He might ask me for a dollar, but he wasn't going to rob me. But I was nervous. A white rummy I'm pretty sure would not have put me on edge.

I walk by black people on normal sidewalks without thinking. Of the 10 people in life I'm closest to right now, 3 are black.

But there is a fear that saddens me when I'm in a position that could lead to danger. And that is harmful to black men generally. I try to be mindful of this fear and factor it into my initial thoughts re stuff. But that requires I acknowledge such bias might pop up.

I could not possibly call you a racist for this incident, or anything like it. The proper description that fits is "Person who had a racist thought."

This gets to the meat of semantic and logical problems with loose and lazy use of the term, "racist." It cheaply trades in absolutes where an argument of degree is appropriate. Having a single racist thought, or a racist thought every four or five days, or when you're in a certain part of town, does not make you a racist. It makes you a person who's had some racist thoughts.

Odd example, but fitting... I was watching a Bond flick the other night. Gert Frobe, who most know as Goldfinger, was a Nazi for a few years in the 30s. He left the movement before the war and became a staunch liberal, living an admirable life. However, for a period of time far longer than any moment of racist fear you've had, Gert Frobe was a National Socialist. Does this mean that forever he is a Nazi?

Of course it does not. That's an absurd position to take. As absurd as the position that because one is born into a system, he is automatically guilty of the sins of that system. This is akin to original sin, and original sin is a silly religious fiction.

It's logically and semantically lazy and counterproductive to assert "everyone is racist." The accurate statement is, "everybody in the US lives in a racist system." This is fair. Because unlike you, Hank, who may have a passing racist thought every once in a blue moon, many of the systems in this country are discriminatory all the time.

Torturing language is never an effective way to make a point. This board, which leans left, may accept expansions of definitions, but the general public does not. When you define a word so broadly that a person such as Adder can argue that everyone fits into that category, you trifle with rendering the term utterly meaningless. That result would be a huge shame. Because few words are as important as this one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could not possibly call you a racist for this incident, or anything like it. The proper description that fits is "Person who had a racist thought."

This gets to the meat of semantic and logical problems with loose and lazy use of the term, "racist." It cheaply trades in absolutes where an argument of degree is appropriate. Having a single racist thought, or a racist thought every four or five days, or when you're in a certain part of town, does not make you a racist. It makes you a person who's had some racist thoughts.

Odd example, but fitting... I was watching a Bond flick the other night. Gert Frobe, who most know as Goldfinger, was a Nazi for a few years in the 30s. He left the movement before the war and became a staunch liberal, living an admirable life. However, for a period of time far longer than any moment of racist fear you've had, Gert Frobe was a National Socialist. Does this mean that forever he is a Nazi?

Of course it does not. That's an absurd position to take. As absurd as the position that because one is born into a system, he is automatically guilty of the sins of that system. This is akin to original sin, and original sin is a silly religious fiction.

It's logically and semantically lazy and counterproductive to assert "everyone is racist." The accurate statement is, "everybody in the US lives in a racist system." This is fair. Because unlike you, Hank, who may have a passing racist thought every once in a blue moon, many of the systems in this country are discriminatory all the time.

Torturing language is never an effective way to make a point. This board, which leans left, may accept expansions of definitions, but the general public does not. When you define a word so broadly that a person such as Adder can argue that everyone fits into that category, you trifle with rendering the term utterly meaningless. That result would be a huge shame. Because few words are as important as this one.

Ten years ago i learned the secret to successful dieting. I was on a diet where I did not eat sweets. Then my daughter made me a cake and I ate a piece. I woke up the next day bummed about it. My prior beliefs would be that I am no longer on the diet. But then I had a revelation- I had done "wrong" but I can start over again. I was not 100% bad.

When adder says we are all racists, it doesn't mean he thinks you might as well have gone to Charlottesville- instead he means let's all recognize we can improve (I think that is what he means)

But let's flip it to your def: how far will I have to move to be racist? Like if I'm afraid of a black man in a suit in downtown Birmingham Mi is that enough? Do I need to have thoughts once an hour? Can you define your limit?

The heart of this is you seem to believe someone who is a racist should be shunned and the rest of these socks believe it just means em has work to do (and gets to folks that should be shunned).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Ten years ago i learned the secret to successful dieting. I was on a diet where I did not eat sweets. Then my daughter made me a cake and I ate a piece. I woke up the next day bummed about it. My prior beliefs would be that I am no longer on the diet. But then I had a revelation- I had done "wrong" but I can start over again. I was not 100% bad.

When adder says we are all racists, it doesn't mean he thinks you might as well have gone to Charlottesville- instead he means let's all recognize we can improve (I think that is what he means)

But let's flip it to your def: how far will I have to move to be racist? Like if I'm afraid of a black man in a suit in downtown Birmingham Mi is that enough? Do I need to have thoughts once an hour? Can you define your limit?

The heart of this is you seem to believe someone who is a racist should be shunned and the rest of these socks believe it just means em has work to do (and gets to folks that should be shunned).

The heart of it is that this is a difficult argument of degree which should not be avoided by applying a term in an absolute manner. To do that is simply stupid. We have brains. We can assess degrees and develop boundaries where a term ought to fit and where it shouldn't.

Using the logic that everyone in the US is racist, all of the kids born during this thread are and will be racists. Try that argument in a forum where logic and adherence to proper use of language are demanded.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Try that argument in a forum where logic and adherence to proper use of language are demanded.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The heart of it is that this is a difficult argument of degree which should not be avoided by applying a term in an absolute manner. To do that is simply stupid. We have brains. We can assess degrees and develop boundaries where a term ought to fit and where it shouldn't.

So you've redefined the word "racism," to only include that which is intentional--intended to harm. Therefore, in your numb skull, any attempt to apply the word to unintentional acts or even to apply it with any kind of degree or nuance is wrong and impossible. This is fucking stupid. The fact that you keep repeating your stupidity does not serve as an effective argument.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Using the logic that everyone in the US is racist, all of the kids born during this thread are and will be racists. Try that argument in a forum where logic and adherence to proper use of language are demanded.

You are an asshole who has had this explained to you a number of times. You are not born a racist. But if you are born into a racist society, you internalize racism at a very young age. I provided you the studies. Hell, the fucking Doll Study* would help any halfway intelligent person understand the idea. These are not difficult concepts to understand.

TM

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZryE2bqwdk

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could not possibly call you a racist for this incident, or anything like it. The proper description that fits is "Person who had a racist thought."

Why are you so invested in this distinction? A person who has a racist thought is, on some level, a racist.

You're stuck on Hank not being a bad person, because he's aware of and tries to counteract his racists thoughts. But he can't possibly do that if he doesn't recognize them for what they are.

This gets to the meat of semantic and logical problems with loose and lazy use of the term, "racist."

It's not lose and lazy. It's holding all of us accountable for our crap. Loose and lazy is excusing it, like you're doing.

The accurate statement is, "everybody in the US lives in a racist system." This is fair.

It funny that what you think is "fair" is to absolve everyone of personal responsibility.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why are you so invested in this distinction? A person who has a racist thought is, on some level, a racist.

You're stuck on Hank not being a bad person, because he's aware of and tries to counteract his racists thoughts. But he can't possibly do that if he doesn't recognize them for what they are.



It's not lose and lazy. It's holding all of us accountable for our crap. Loose and lazy is excusing it, like you're doing.



It funny that what you think is "fair" is to absolve everyone of personal responsibility.

You're far too conversant in statistics to accept the generalization, "everyone here is [insert]." We all know what's being done there. People want to create a really strong narrative. It's all with good intention. But it's not factual. "All Germans alive from 1930 to 1950 are Nazis." "All men alive in the 50s were sexists." "All Americans are capitalists." "All Soviets were communists." This could go on forever.

But people don't say these things. Because these things are facially untrue.

People are careful, and use this thing we call language, with all sorts of words in it, to state a thing in an accurate fashion. Instead of saying all Soviets were Communists, they say "The Soviet Union was a communist society." This allows for the obvious reality: Not every man, woman, and child in the USSR was a communist. The system, the society, was generally communist.

Not every man, woman, and child had personal responsibility for what Soviet society did or did not do. Some did, some did not. It also depended on what act or omission you're discussing.

If you wish to describe a complex concept, you have more than adequate words with which do so accurately. If you wish to expand words to create narratives that support a view of society you'd prefer people accept rather than the actual reality, you're free to do that as well. But understand -- anyone can do that. Donald Trump says extreme things and generalizes all day long. People read through that sort of intentional generalizing. Ultimately, it doesn't work. And that you have good motives for doing it is not an excuse.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People are careful, and use this thing we call language, with all sorts of words in it, to state a thing in an accurate fashion.

No Americans (probably no people) (oh, wait for the big concession) - aside from newborns - are free from racially biased attitudes and beliefs that influence their behavior. This is a factually accurate statement.

You just want to insist that "racist" means something other than "has racially biased attitudes and beliefs that influence their behavior."* It doesn't.

*Note, this is not intended as an exhaustive definition of the term, but it's part of it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No Americans (probably no people) (oh, wait for the big concession) - aside from newborns - are free from racially biased attitudes and beliefs that influence their behavior. This is a factually accurate statement.

You just want to insist that "racist" means something other than "has racially biased attitudes and beliefs that influence their behavior."* It doesn't.

*Note, this is not intended as an exhaustive definition of the term, but it's part of it.

That's a definition so expansive it means nothing. We all have biases about everything we see. When you encounter anything, your brain will analyze all sorts of features of the thing, scan its history regarding encounters with such things or with similar things, and develop an immediate bias towards it. Could be positive, negative, neutral, whatever.

If one has a bias of any sort toward people of a certain race, its among a million other biases he has towards an endless number of stimuli. You're effectively saying that to allow a person's race to impact your bias toward the person renders one racist. This would make it impossible to not be a racist in regard to anyone of any race (unless you were blind). One would necessarily be racist toward all races. So this ludicrous definition is useful how?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I could not possibly call you a racist for this incident, or anything like it. The proper description that fits is "Person who had a racist thought."

This gets to the meat of semantic and logical problems with loose and lazy use of the term, "racist." It cheaply trades in absolutes where an argument of degree is appropriate. Having a single racist thought, or a racist thought every four or five days, or when you're in a certain part of town, does not make you a racist. It makes you a person who's had some racist thoughts.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Odd example, but fitting... I was watching a Bond flick the other night. Gert Frobe, who most know as Goldfinger, was a Nazi for a few years in the 30s. He left the movement before the war and became a staunch liberal, living an admirable life. However, for a period of time far longer than any moment of racist fear you've had, Gert Frobe was a National Socialist. Does this mean that forever he is a Nazi?

Of course it does not. That's an absurd position to take. As absurd as the position that because one is born into a system, he is automatically guilty of the sins of that system. This is akin to original sin, and original sin is a silly religious fiction.

It's logically and semantically lazy and counterproductive to assert "everyone is racist." The accurate statement is, "everybody in the US lives in a racist system." This is fair. Because unlike you, Hank, who may have a passing racist thought every once in a blue moon, many of the systems in this country are discriminatory all the time.

Torturing language is never an effective way to make a point. This board, which leans left, may accept expansions of definitions, but the general public does not. When you define a word so broadly that a person such as Adder can argue that everyone fits into that category, you trifle with rendering the term utterly meaningless. That result would be a huge shame. Because few words are as important as this one.

Remember when I said you were close to getting it? Never mind. You are fucking hopeless.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’d assume one would lead with his strong foot. My bad.

I don’t think you have many compelling examples.

If you want to argue semantics, you should stick to semantics. When you do shit like this, you leave a different impression.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to argue semantics, you should stick to semantics. When you do shit like this, you leave a different impression.

I don't think you have many compelling examples because I do not think you are involved in acts or omissions which perpetuate racism.

Now do I think you've done so in the past.

I think this emphasis on defining racism to include everyone and everything in society lacks intellectual rigor and abuses semantics. I think you lose on the semantics so quickly and completely (people arguing for this expansive definition cannot even clearly define it themselves) that we needn't get to the logic. But if we did, you's lose there as well.