We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Adder said ALL people of my grandparents’ (and presumably his) generations were racist, and ALL modern conservatives are racist. My generalizations were as to quite finite groups. He spoke for an entire generation. There just a lil difference there. Just a tad...

But you knew that. Regroup. Take a different shot.

Please stop. It is not controversial to say that white people of our grandparents' generation were overwhelmingly racist. If you weren't completely careless with words in almost every post you've ever written, I might believe that you care as much about being technically correct when it comes to generalizations as you seem to be implying you do. But this whole string of responses just seems like a dodge.

"Hey! Not everyone is racist! Your argument is invalid."

Whatever.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Um, Adder has doubled down on his absolute position several times. Not only is anyone voting GOP today a racist, but all of our grandparents were racists.

And you've been angling to make the argument that, using impact as the deciding metric, anyone voting for a conservative is a racist. The problem is, you've a respect for basic logic and common sense, so you understand that as emotionally attractive as the argument might be, it's absurd. I don't think Adder has your discipline.

You clearly mean something different when you use "racist" as a noun than Adder does. That is what I mean when I say the argument is semantic. If you think I have a respect for common sense, it's because I understand that you are using a different language that employs the same words.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. If they harbor racists views that they keep to themselves, they are still racists. Expressing the view isn't requisite. Hold the view and you're a racist.

I asked the question about your comfort, and since you don't know what views others are harboring that they keep to themselves, you are patently unwilling to infer racist views about any particular individual, in the real world, unless they cop to it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You clearly mean something different when you use "racist" as a noun than Adder does. That is what I mean when I say the argument is semantic. If you think I have a respect for common sense, it's because I understand that you are using a different language that employs the same words.

I am on ignore?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Um, Adder has doubled down on his absolute position several times. Not only is anyone voting GOP today a racist, but all of our grandparents were racists.

And you've been angling to make the argument that, using impact as the deciding metric, anyone voting for a conservative is a racist. The problem is, you've a respect for basic logic and common sense, so you understand that as emotionally attractive as the argument might be, it's absurd. I don't think Adder has your discipline.

Good grief, here I go again.

Adder is correct. You are wrong. Your constant inability to understand racism as a system which benefits one group of people over others because all you can see is the good-bad binary that requires actual malice before one can be labeled as a racist is a huge problem.

We live in a racist society set up to benefit white people in every possible way. Continuing to vote to keep that system in place is a vote for that racist system. One party has made it clear that that is what they are about. Voting for politicians who fight tooth and nail against fixing the problems with the system is a vote for racism. Requiring a smoking gun before admitting any action is racist--as opposed to looking at how an action, decision, policy, or law actually impacts people, is racist.

For example, you can talk about how a voter ID law is race neutral til you're blue in the face. If the law addresses a nonexistent fraud issue and reduces black voters by multiples over white voters, that law is racist. Period. Impact. It doesn't even matter if the person who drew up the law loves it because it reduces the number of Democrats, because the impact is racist. This is the most obvious example I can give you, but there are a million examples of this type of thing that fall in different places on the systemic racist spectrum in this country--application of death penalty, drug laws, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, etc.

And this is just the institutional stuff. If you are a partner and you only work with associates with whom you identify (mutual friends, both like sailing, grew up in your township), and you end up only working with white men, that's racism. You don't need to sit behind your desk, rubbing your hands together trying to figure out how to keep the black man down. The impact of your "unintentional" actions is racist.

TM

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I am on ignore?

No.

And this isn’t really responsive to your post; I just like it. Spree: Song for Sebby.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I asked the question about your comfort, and since you don't know what views others are harboring that they keep to themselves, you are patently unwilling to infer racist views about any particular individual, in the real world, unless they cop to it.

Here's a question for you:

Do you think you have a right to place affirmative duties on voters, and the right to label them where they fail to meet such duties?

(Explanation: Different voters have different hierarchies of issues that are important to them. Bob from KS is populist on trade and wants to reverse Roe. He can't vote D and can only vote R given his desired policies. To say that if he votes R he is a racist puts Bob in an unwinnable predicament. He can vote for the issues most important to him and be a racist, or throw his convictions out the window and avoid being so labeled. By cudgeling him in this regard [saddling him with an awful descriptive if he chooses his hierarchy of policies over yours], you confer on yourself the right to dictate duties to Bob, and judge him, harshly, when he fails to meet them. You are telling Bob that, even though he voted the way he did because he had no acceptable alternative, he is a racist. This is a strange power to confer on yourself. Certainly, more would be needed to so harshly judge Bob, and there are numerous mitigating factors at play. But under this reasoning - the reasoning underpinning a strict impact vs. intent definition of racism/sexism/ethnic bigotry - Bob can be called a racist.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Good grief, here I go again.

Adder is correct. You are wrong. Your constant inability to understand racism as a system which benefits one group of people over others because all you can see is the good-bad binary that requires actual malice before one can be labeled as a racist is a huge problem.

We live in a racist society set up to benefit white people in every possible way. Continuing to vote to keep that system in place is a vote for that racist system. One party has made it clear that that is what they are about. Voting for politicians who fight tooth and nail against fixing the problems with the system is a vote for racism. Requiring a smoking gun before admitting any action is racist--as opposed to looking at how an action, decision, policy, or law actually impacts people, is racist.

For example, you can talk about how a voter ID law is race neutral til you're blue in the face. If the law addresses a nonexistent fraud issue and reduces black voters by multiples over white voters, that law is racist. Period. Impact. It doesn't even matter if the person who drew up the law loves it because it reduces the number of Democrats, because the impact is racist. This is the most obvious example I can give you, but there are a million examples of this type of thing that fall in different places on the systemic racist spectrum in this country--application of death penalty, drug laws, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, etc.

And this is just the institutional stuff. If you are a partner and you only work with associates with whom you identify (mutual friends, both like sailing, grew up in your township), and you end up only working with white men, that's racism. You don't need to sit behind your desk, rubbing your hands together trying to figure out how to keep the black man down. The impact of your "unintentional" actions is racist.

TM

I agree there are endless forms of racist impacts. That's not what Adder is saying. Adder is saying that people who unintentionally contribute to those impacts are racist. That's where I get off the train.

Using that sort of reasoning, unless one is actively engaged in a rigorous and constant war against all racist imapcts, he is racist.

I've played golf at a club that at one time didn't admit Jews. I didn't know that at the time. Am I consequently an anti-semite? Of course not.

The problem with Adder's reasoning is the conflation of impact and actor. Of course non-racists can have racist impacts. Racists can have non-racist impacts. But to say that because society is filled racist impacts everyone in it is racist is creating a bizarre form of what Catholics call "original sin." I hardly think it's wise to follow reasoning approximating what that organization has preached.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree there are endless forms of racist impacts. That's not what Adder is saying. Adder is saying that people who unintentionally contribute to those impacts are racist. That's where I get off the train.

No. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if you continually vote for the status quo and the status quo is racism, you are contributing to and maintaining that racist system and are, therefore, racist.

Again, drop the good-bad binary. It just is. Maybe think of it two different ways. There are evil racists who have slurs bouncing around in their heads all day and there are those who benefit from racism at others' expense who absolutely do not want to give that up.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've played golf at a club that at one time didn't admit Jews. I didn't know that at the time. Am I consequently an anti-semite? Of course not.

If you're friends with and vote for the politician who is a member and whose policies permit such clubs to exist, are you still not an anti-semite?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The problem with Adder's reasoning is the conflation of impact and actor. Of course non-racists can have racist impacts. Racists can have non-racist impacts. But to say that society is filled racist impacts, and therefore everyone in it is racist, is creating a bizarre form of what Catholics call "original sin." I hardly think it's wise to follow reasoning approximating what that organization has preached.

I give up. Again.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I asked the question about your comfort, and since you don't know what views others are harboring that they keep to themselves, you are patently unwilling to infer racist views about any particular individual, in the real world, unless they cop to it.

That's dead fucking wrong. I'll call people racists all day long.

Tell a racist joke? Racist.
Sentence the black kid harshly while the white kid gets leniency? (I've seen this up close a bunch.) Racist.
Exclude other races at work because you're not comfortable with them? Racist.

The list could go on forever.

Half the fucking justice system is racist. If you don't believe me, talk to law enforcement sometime. Talk to prison guards. Talk to probation officers. The racism drips out of these people in every other statement. I'm happy to generalize a bit there because it's so damn pervasive.

Are some comedians trading on racism? Hell yes.

But do I infer racism quickly? No. I wait for proof, as is required before making any inference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if you continually vote for the status quo and the status quo is racism, you are contributing to and maintaining that racist system and are, therefore, racist.

So unless one is actively working to undo the status quo, one is racist. You realize this standard effectively renders almost everyone a racist. Who was the candidate who was going to upend the status quo last election? Nobody. Hillary was going to preserve the status quo. Trump lied about changing it and did none of what he promised.

Again, drop the good-bad binary. It just is. Maybe think of it two different ways. There are evil racists who have slurs bouncing around in their heads all day and there are those who benefit from racism at others' expense who absolutely do not want to give that up.

I'd agree with that. But there are also people who are "race agnostic." A farmer in NE isn't thinking much about race when he's voting based on which party is going to give him subsidies.

If you're friends with and vote for the politician who is a member and whose policies permit such clubs to exist, are you still not an anti-semite?

Depends. If you're fine with bigotry, yes. If you're doing what adults have to do every day - engage in trade offs in imperfect situations - no.

I've uncomfortably listened to numerous vile and bigoted jokes during my life because someone with power over me was telling them. The trade off there was conceding a paycheck to stand on principle. Does that make me an enabler? Maybe. But there were a whole lot of mitigating factors at play.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So unless one is actively working to undo the status quo, one is racist. You realize this standard effectively renders almost everyone a racist. Who was the candidate who was going to upend the status quo last election? Nobody. Hillary was going to preserve the status quo. Trump lied about changing it and did none of what he promised.

Jesus fucking Christ. You really only see shit in black and white, don't you? Both candidates would have kept an overwhelmingly racist system in place. The point is that one party fights any change to that system whatsoever tooth and fucking nail. The other party is at least attempting to make corrections. No candidate exists that will upend the nature of this racist system. That's the beauty of systemic racism. It is not easily undone.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'd agree with that. But there are also people who are "race agnostic."

No there aren't.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've uncomfortably listened to numerous vile and bigoted jokes during my life because someone with power over me was telling them. The trade off there was conceding a paycheck to stand on principle. Does that make me an enabler? Maybe. But there were a whole lot of mitigating factors at play.

? I don't understand the point of this response.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Good grief, here I go again.

Adder is correct. You are wrong. Your constant inability to understand racism as a system which benefits one group of people over others because all you can see is the good-bad binary that requires actual malice before one can be labeled as a racist is a huge problem.

We live in a racist society set up to benefit white people in every possible way. Continuing to vote to keep that system in place is a vote for that racist system. One party has made it clear that that is what they are about. Voting for politicians who fight tooth and nail against fixing the problems with the system is a vote for racism. Requiring a smoking gun before admitting any action is racist--as opposed to looking at how an action, decision, policy, or law actually impacts people, is racist.

For example, you can talk about how a voter ID law is race neutral til you're blue in the face. If the law addresses a nonexistent fraud issue and reduces black voters by multiples over white voters, that law is racist. Period. Impact. It doesn't even matter if the person who drew up the law loves it because it reduces the number of Democrats, because the impact is racist. This is the most obvious example I can give you, but there are a million examples of this type of thing that fall in different places on the systemic racist spectrum in this country--application of death penalty, drug laws, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, etc.

And this is just the institutional stuff. If you are a partner and you only work with associates with whom you identify (mutual friends, both like sailing, grew up in your township), and you end up only working with white men, that's racism. You don't need to sit behind your desk, rubbing your hands together trying to figure out how to keep the black man down. The impact of your "unintentional" actions is racist.

TM

He understands all of that. He doesn't have a word that indicates systemic discrimination, and he uses the word "racist" to mean, as you say, only systemic discrimination combined with specific intent.

If Sebby wanted to talk about racism in the sense that the rest of us use the word, he would find a word to describe it. He doesn't want to do that, so he doesn't, and using the word the way he wants to lets him redirect the conversations, on his terms, to what he prefers to talk about.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's a question for you:

Do you think you have a right to place affirmative duties on voters, and the right to label them where they fail to meet such duties?

I don't know what that means. Voters have plenty of duties. What you mean by "affirmative duties" is anyone's guess. On an internet chat board, I have the right to label whomever I please, at least until the terms of service are next updated. The First Amendment keeps the government from telling me how to label people, more or less.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's dead fucking wrong. I'll call people racists all day long.

Tell a racist joke? Racist.
Sentence the black kid harshly while the white kid gets leniency? (I've seen this up close a bunch.) Racist.
Exclude other races at work because you're not comfortable with them? Racist.

The list could go on forever.

Half the fucking justice system is racist. If you don't believe me, talk to law enforcement sometime. Talk to prison guards. Talk to probation officers. The racism drips out of these people in every other statement. I'm happy to generalize a bit there because it's so damn pervasive.

Are some comedians trading on racism? Hell yes.

But do I infer racism quickly? No. I wait for proof, as is required before making any inference.

You are fine labeling jokes and systems as racist. You do not call individual people "racists" hardly ever, because, as you say, you refuse to infer it. You require proof, which means that the person needs to self-describe as a racist. You're committed to the idea that it is everywhere around us, but almost never anywhere in particular, like an electron -- strong negative effects, but hardly any discernible actual mass.