We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize this standard effectively renders almost everyone a racist.

[Sebby finds this conclusion intolerable, so the meaning of the word must be changed to avoid it.]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

[Sebby finds this conclusion intolerable, so the meaning of the word must be changed to avoid it.]

I don't find it intolerable. I find it absurd. "Everyone is racist." It sounds nuts because it is nuts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Actually, the post to which you were responding was one in which I was referring to specific people as racist.

I did not list all of the judges, prison guards, probation officers, comedians, and various other individuals who have exhibited behavior or made statements indicating they are racists because I'd prefer to avoid libel claims. But those are people, not "systems."

You're actually the one claiming racism is a system all around us. Recall just a few posts back that discussion of a racist status quo? A status quo is a condition resulting from a system (actually, it's many systems working together, but whatever...).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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!"

A system may be racist. A person may be racist. That a person lives within a system that is racist does not automatically make him a racist. That a person does not actively combat racism within the system does not make him racist. If a person works to perpetuate racism in the system, he is a racist. However, if in a two party system, a person is faced with the choice of voting for a party which stands for the policies he holds most important, but also stands for racist policies, or a party with a platform that stands in opposition to all policies he holds most important, but works against racism, and he votes for the former, he is not necessarily a racist. He's the recipient of a miserable forced choice.

Is that concept too complex for you, or is this your your intentional obtuseness shtick at work?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't find it intolerable. I find it absurd. "Everyone is racist." It sounds nuts because it is nuts.

Why do you think that? Is it just an inherent belief that people are good? That doesn't really sound like you to me, but I'm struggling with why you have such a hard time facing the obvious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

I agree that the Democrats are of course millions of miles better on the issue. Again, my sole point was, we can't have a standard like, "You vote for the GOP, you are racist." I sense you don't even agree with that. Being a reasonable person, you understand that people vote for varieties of reasons. And our stupid two party system has bizarrely forced people with legitimate policy desires to wind up under an umbrella with lunatic racists. The GOP doesn't get a pass for any of it, of course. It owns the Southern Strategy. But that farmer in Nebraska who doesn't know jack about race issues, but desires certain GOP economic policies, is not a racist.

No there aren't.

Spend some time in flyoverland. There are people who have never had any reason to think about the issue.

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

I was highlighting the "miserable choice" scenario people are faced with regarding bigotry using the golf course analogy. People are compelled to compromise principles all the time. It doesn't make them bigots. I've bitten my lip on god only knows how many occasions, as I'm sure many of us have, because business interests dictated it. This includes hearing people make awful bigoted jokes. I'm not a racist for doing so. I was a guy who needed a job, or who couldn't afford to alienate a referral source. In the same vein, a guy who really truly believes that Hillary was an existential threat on issues he deemed important was left with a Hobson's choice of having to vote for Trump. He can't be reflexively labeled a racist. His situation is much more complex than that.

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why do you think that? Is it just an inherent belief that people are good? That doesn't really sound like you to me, but I'm struggling with why you have such a hard time facing the obvious.

Because it is insane. This would mean that people who marched with MLK in Birmingham were racist.

It's also illogical and impossible. Try to make the case that all humans born into a racist system are inherently racist. Try to make the case that all individuals of age of reason in the US (I'm guessing 200 million people) are racist.

A person's biases are not controlled by the culture into which he was born. (You might want to read some studies on nature vs. nurture, where nurture is losing badly under current scholarship.) The inner workings of his head may not be determined or labeled based on the general behaviors of the society around him. If this were true, all Germans would be Nazis. (Arguably, all French would be Nazis, as they lived under Nazi rule.) All Italians of Mussolini's time would be fascists. Your extreme, rote application would never be accepted in any rigorous analysis. It's new agey, vague, and tenuous at best. It has the ring of humanities professors and sociologists using soft science as though it were hard science. This has led to a lot of bizarre thinking, and it is indeed bizarre thinking to advocate for the phrase "All US citizens are racist."

The system may be racist. This does not mean all bodies born into are racist. If you argue for that proposition, you argue something objectively absurd.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Spend some time in flyoverland. There are people who have never had any reason to think about the issue.

This is funny for a number of reasons. Here are some:

1. You think I haven't spent time in flyover land
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. You think it's possible for people in this country (no matter where they live) to not think about race

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was highlighting the "miserable choice" scenario people are faced with regarding bigotry using the golf course analogy. People are compelled to compromise principles all the time. It doesn't make them bigots. I've bitten my lip on god only knows how many occasions, as I'm sure many of us have, because business interests dictated it. This includes hearing people make awful bigoted jokes. I'm not a racist for doing so. I was a guy who needed a job, or who couldn't afford to alienate a referral source. In the same vein, a guy who really truly believes that Hillary was an existential threat on issues he deemed important was left with a Hobson's choice of having to vote for Trump. He can't be reflexively labeled a racist. His situation is much more complex than that.

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.

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.

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.

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."

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A person's biases are not controlled by the culture into which he was born.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't find it intolerable. I find it absurd. "Everyone is racist." It sounds nuts because it is nuts.

So many people here have spent so much time explaining why they think it's true. How you dismiss all that work so deftly by calling it "nuts"! What aplomb! Truly you are a master of the rhetorical arts!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, the post to which you were responding was one in which I was referring to specific people as racist.

I did not list all of the judges, prison guards, probation officers, comedians, and various other individuals who have exhibited behavior or made statements indicating they are racists because I'd prefer to avoid libel claims. But those are people, not "systems."

You're actually the one claiming racism is a system all around us. Recall just a few posts back that discussion of a racist status quo? A status quo is a condition resulting from a system (actually, it's many systems working together, but whatever...).

Here's what you said:

[quote]

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 don't actually refer to any specific people here as racist. When we actually talk about specific individuals, you are much inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. George H.W. Bush, for example, turned William Horton into a household ogre so he could get a job, and you say he's not racist, he's decent. Sure, you're willing to agree that politicians are racist, just not any specific politicians.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A system may be racist. A person may be racist. That a person lives within a system that is racist does not automatically make him a racist. That a person does not actively combat racism within the system does not make him racist. If a person works to perpetuate racism in the system, he is a racist. However, if in a two party system, a person is faced with the choice of voting for a party which stands for the policies he holds most important, but also stands for racist policies, or a party with a platform that stands in opposition to all policies he holds most important, but works against racism, and he votes for the former, he is not necessarily a racist. He's the recipient of a miserable forced choice.

Is that concept too complex for you, or is this your your intentional obtuseness shtick at work?

It's not complex at all, but it's also not the way you roll. George H.W. Bush worked to perpetuate racism in the system, but you called him decent.

eta: I think it's more accurate to say that you require proof of specific racist intent to call someone a racist, and that where there is some possibility of some other intent (self-interest, partisan gain, what have you) you will accept that alternative explanation instead.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

This whole approach should be adopted by the Supreme Court (and yes, I know it won't). But I'm posting the link for this specific finding:

'Eaton ends his opinion by making the subtext of this case explicit. Zullo believes, with good reason, that he was subject to racial profiling, or “implicit discriminatory bias.” Article 11 allows racial minorities to “produce evidence in which a factfinder could find” bias, even if they cannot prove that the officer himself is a flagrant racist. In other words, cops can no longer pull over black drivers because they’re black, then justify the stop on the basis of some trivial or nonexistent infraction.'

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...marijuana.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Oh my.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rick Wilson FTW.