We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Certainty, even stridently offered, ain’t proof. Plenty of people are striving for it for legitimate reasons.

And you heard this from the only person here more cynical than you.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Why is it I hate people, but like get-togethers? - LessinSF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuXpD3xDwvU


#chinaskistyle

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

TM

Whoa- if I didn't have to keep the "most handsome avatar" label I'd swipe that- that's my current political stance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can take a bunch of screwed-up inputs and process them in a way that is entirely logical, and you will end up with a bunch of screwed-up outputs.

What I said is entirely logical. The reason TM and I talk past each other is that we define concepts differently. I do not agree with the definition of racism having nothing to do with intent. He then says I do not know what I’m talking about. That is incorrect. He is not in possession of the final definition of racism. He may say he is all he likes, but all he will be in possession of is an emerging definition of it that competes with past intent-based definitions of it.

Unsurprisingly, using his definition, any comment that does not agree almost 100% with what he says he deems invalid and illogical. And then the clown car of pile-on comments pulls up and dumps a bunch of crap on the board.

And the truly crazy thing is I often agree with him. Where he tends to become frustrated is, as he noted, where I talk around the issue, at the periphery. It’s mere intellectual curiosity on my part. The argument that racism has no element of intent, and that to focus on intent undermines serious discussion of racism, is not axiomatic. It’s not even close to that. It’s something worth testing, even if only gently tested initially, at the periphery.

I’ll read the recommended book. But like any book, I very much doubt I’ll buy all of it. It’ll enlighten me, I’m sure. But it won’t stop me from questioning. The reason for that simple: Nothing is beyond critique. And telling me I’m ducking an issue while I’m talking about it with you isn’t proving otherwise.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What I said is entirely logical. The reason TM and I talk past each other is that we define concepts differently. I do not agree with the definition of racism having nothing to do with intent. He then says I do not know what I’m talking about. That is incorrect. He is not in possession of the final definition of racism. He may say he is all he likes, but all he will be in possession of is an emerging definition of it that competes with past intent-based definitions of it.

This paragraph proves you're not listening--or maybe you're just incapable of hearing what you don't want to hear. Either way, I'm not explaining this shit to you again.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Unsurprisingly, using his definition, any comment that does not agree almost 100% with what he says he deems invalid and illogical. And then the clown car of pile-on comments pulls up and dumps a bunch of crap on the board.

More bullshit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And the truly crazy thing is I often agree with him. Where he tends to become frustrated is, as he noted, where I talk around the issue, at the periphery. It’s mere intellectual curiosity on my part.

You are so consumed with yourself that you don't even see that you are uninterested in anything but your own take. Your responses never address the substance of what I'm saying. It's always just how you'd like to see it. I've worked in diversity for 20 years and lived it my whole life. I'm not saying your opinions aren't valid. I point out when they are ignorant and wrong. You then plug your ears and repeat yourself. If that's how you want to approach it, there ain't no stopping you. But stop jerking yourself off by thinking you have any level of intellectual curiosity when it comes to this topic.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The argument that racism has no element of intent, and that to focus on intent undermines serious discussion of racism, is not axiomatic.

No one has ever said this. If that's what you're taking from this discussion, you are a moron.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ll read the recommended book. But like any book, I very much doubt I’ll buy all of it. It’ll enlighten me, I’m sure. But it won’t stop me from questioning. The reason for that simple: Nothing is beyond critique. And telling me I’m ducking an issue while I’m talking about it with you isn’t proving otherwise.

More strawmen. Yeah, the goal is to get you to stop questioning. How you set these issues up in your head is so fucking weird.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Certainty, even stridently offered, ain’t proof. Plenty of people are striving for it for legitimate reasons.

And you heard this from the only person here more cynical than you.

Haha! Perfect! You out-brilliant yourself with every post. "Certainty, even stridently offered, ain’t proof." So good. Coming from you!!! You should literally close your eyes, cross your legs, and repeat these words ten times before you post anything here. And I'm sorry, Mr. Jaded Cynic Dude, but anybody who is so starry-eyed and cloud-headed to think that Trump's caravan hate-mongering did not mobilize a significant number of voters is NOT a cynic. (And is also not someone who read any exit polls.) Ha. I can just see you in your smoking jacket at some douchebag cocktail party in the suburbs spouting off your wisdom. "You see, people are inherently rational. This caravan nonsense is intended to play on the baser emotions of fear and hatred, but it will get no traction, because the rational will always rise above the emotional. I, myself, and the most rational and unbiased man I know . . . ." You may not be the most cynical person on the board, but you are the person whose perception of self is the most disassociated from reality. So that's something, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not agree with the definition of racism having nothing to do with intent. He then says I do not know what I’m talking about. That is incorrect. He is not in possession of the final definition of racism. He may say he is all he likes, but all he will be in possession of is an emerging definition of it that competes with past intent-based definitions of it.

This book he's talking about splashed biggest with the thought that white people who think they are the most woke are actually maybe the biggest part of the problem. That is, people with no conscious intent often do real harm- you seem to be having a fight about a definition, again- what if we created a new definition- say "book problem harm," instead of racism? No one is attacking you, and the piling on is odd, as implicit in what I understand this issue to include is the fact that at least most of the piler-ons are guilty of book problem harm. It goes beyond intent- as I understand book problem harm you likely do it if you notice a black person and then form pretty much any conclusion, good or bad, because you are likely to treat them other than you would a white person? I admit to doing book problem harm, even though I try like hell to minimize it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This paragraph proves you're not listening--or maybe you're just incapable of hearing what you don't want to hear. Either way, I'm not explaining this shit to you again.

More bullshit.

You are so consumed with yourself that you don't even see that you are uninterested in anything but your own take. Your responses never address the substance of what I'm saying. It's always just how you'd like to see it. I've worked in diversity for 20 years and lived it my whole life. I'm not saying your opinions aren't valid. I point out when they are ignorant and wrong. You then plug your ears and repeat yourself. If that's how you want to approach it, there ain't no stopping you. But stop jerking yourself off by thinking you have any level of intellectual curiosity when it comes to this topic.

No one has ever said this. If that's what you're taking from this discussion, you are a moron.

More strawmen. Yeah, the goal is to get you to stop questioning. How you set these issues up in your head is so fucking weird.

TM

The substance of what you have been saying in the past exchange comes down to:

1. White people do not want to discuss race.

Agreed.

2. White people frequently deflect serious conversations about race by asserting they are colorblind.

Agreed.

The sole area of disagreement I had with you, which was not even really a disagreement (and I noted in what I wrote that it was specifically not intended to, and did not, refute any of your points), was in stating the following:

I do not think that all people who profess to be colorblind do so as a dodge. I think a lot of people actually believe that is how they should be behave and try to behave that way for the best of reasons.

Is that really controversial?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The substance of what you have been saying in the past exchange comes down to:

1. White people do not want to discuss race.

Agreed.

2. White people frequently deflect serious conversations about race by asserting they are colorblind.

Agreed.

Sure.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The sole area of disagreement I had with you, which was not even really a disagreement (and I noted in what I wrote that it was specifically not intended to, and did not, refute any of your points), was in stating the following:

I do not think that all people who profess to be colorblind do so as a dodge. I think a lot of people actually believe that is how they should be behave and try to behave that way for the best of reasons.

Is that really controversial?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
_______
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.

There are surely people who are intentionally racist. I skip over this here because it is not at issue. As we know, implicit bias, confirmation bias, etc. are examples of ways in which how we've been conditioned influences our decisions unintentionally. Unconsciously. 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."

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

This book he's talking about splashed biggest with the thought that white people who think they are the most woke are actually maybe the biggest part of the problem. That is, people with no conscious intent often do real harm- you seem to be having a fight about a definition, again- what if we created a new definition- say "book problem harm," instead of racism? No one is attacking you, and the piling on is odd, as implicit in what I understand this issue to include is the fact that at least most of the piler-ons are guilty of book problem harm. It goes beyond intent- as I understand book problem harm you likely do it if you notice a black person and then form pretty much any conclusion, good or bad, because you are likely to treat them other than you would a white person? I admit to doing book problem harm, even though I try like hell to minimize it.

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.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

_______
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.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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?

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