We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No doubt that people who use "racism" in the narrower sense are less likely to agree about the extent of racism and its effects, but cause and effect are not simply there. There is a powerful (exculpatory) instinct to want to talk about racism as malign intent. Once you do that, it's hard to find other good language to talk about systemic and hegemonic bias and discrimination, and it's easy to shout about whether someone has malign intent.

Yes. First, you're overselling. We are in agreement. Second, that was the point of the article and the whole conversation we had about the shift in diversity training efforts away from a "bad person" to an "effects" standard.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. First, you're overselling. We are in agreement. Second, that was the point of the article and the whole conversation we had about the shift in diversity training efforts away from a "bad person" to an "effects" standard.

TM

I think I posted that because I had an inchoate thought and wanted to try to articulate it. We now return you to your previously scheduled pile-on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Fundamentally, Sebby is wrong when he says that the country is tribal, and that Democrats are tribal. Conservatives are. The mainstream is not. Conservatives are tribal because they define themselves in opposition and reaction to the mainstream. The mainstream is not because it is the mainstream, and doesn't care about conservatives in the way that conservatives care about the mainstream. (E.g., conservatives like to trigger libs, but libs don't really care about triggering conservatives.)

There is a fundamental asymmetry at work, but he sees everything twice.

I agree, but he's not alone in seeing something that is labeled tribalism in America today. For most, it's the idea that people separate themselves from others.

This really isn't true. We have a high degree of mobility, and as a result few people live isolated lives never leaving the Shire. Almost everyone I know here in the heart of Bluedom has trumpish family members somewhere (mostly in southern retirement communities or other places where we came from, since we generally do screen them out at our border.) What is really happening is more of a move toward regionalism, something that we've cycled through before in this country.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I agree, but he's not alone in seeing something that is labeled tribalism in America today. For most, it's the idea that people separate themselves from others.

This really isn't true. We have a high degree of mobility, and as a result few people live isolated lives never leaving the Shire. Almost everyone I know here in the heart of Bluedom has trumpish family members somewhere (mostly in southern retirement communities or other places where we came from, since we generally do screen them out at our border.) What is really happening is more of a move toward regionalism, something that we've cycled through before in this country.

You can have a diminution in traditional forms of social attachment (labor unions, churches, Bowling Alone) without everyone identifying with tribes. The former is doubtless happening, for all sorts of reasons. Even before the internet, access to cars drove a lot of this. With the internet, e.g., my son is less likely to play with friends on our block and more likely to play XBOX with new friends in Iowa and Georgia.

When Sebby refers to tribalism, I think he describing something different, and I think he is describing conservatives. The idea that the left is like the right, but with different priorities, is really important to the Disciples of High Broderism, the sort of people who pride themselves on being centrist. Most of its adherents come from newspapers and TV media, where business imperatives meant that editorial content in one-outlet towns had to be center-right, but not too right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. First, you're overselling. We are in agreement. Second, that was the point of the article and the whole conversation we had about the shift in diversity training efforts away from a "bad person" to an "effects" standard.

TM

This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.

I agree with the approach, but this is the third rail conversations of all third rail conversations, apparently.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There is a powerful (exculpatory) instinct to want to talk about racism as malign intent.

Edit: Nevermind, already been covered.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Dude, that’s exactly what TM is saying. Let me channel what I think one of my union member cousins in the Ancestral Homeland thinks:

He may be a jerk to people, but I like his plan to reopen factories and save our jobs. Yeah, [insert name of his one black friend who he played basketball with in high school], hates him. And [] makes some good points. But I’m saving $1500 on taxes and the f——ts are kicking kicked out of the Army, so I think he just needs to cool it a bit with LeBron, and he’ll be good.

Bingo. My cousin Sully would tell you that he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, but is ok with a certain level of racism in Trump.

Let me channel my sole Trump supporting close friend: “He’s awful with that alt-right shit, but the liberals would fuck up the country, and I like money.”

No one is “okay” with it except for the racists (1/3-1/2 of Trump voters). They are doing what you slay third party voters for not doing: Weighing the good against bad and choosing which of the two party candidates most works for them.

You’re also discounting all the Trump voters who do not believe he’s racist or bigoted. You’ve got old relatives and so do I. The right wingers over 70 seriously do not see Trump as racist. You can say, “Come on... He’s using obvious dog whistles,” and they’ll call you a snowflake and say liberals are hypersensitive. You can’t be “okay” with what you can’t see because you’re so deluded.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let me channel my sole Trump supporting close friend: “He’s awful with that alt-right shit, but the liberals would fuck up the country, and I like money.”

No one is “okay” with it. They are doing what you slay third party voters for doing: Weighing the good against bad and choosing what on balance works most for them.

You’re also discounting all the Trump voters who do not believe he’s racist or bigoted. You’ve got old relatives and so do I. The right wingers over 70 seriously do not see Trump as racist. You can say, “Come on... He’s using obvious dog whistles,” and they’ll call you a snowflake and say liberals are hypersensitive. You can’t be “okay” with what you can’t see because you’re so deluded.

We had a guy in Massachusetts, John Silber, who was a Dem but a racist and ran for governor. I didn't weigh anything with him, I didn't vote for him. Deal. Breaker.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.

No.

First, we were talking about how best to address white people's feelings in order to effectively move past the defensive stage so that we can effect change. If white people feel like racism is solely about a person being "bad," they will throw everything they have in their arsenal to fight that characterization, never acknowledge their own racism, and we get nowhere. Therefore, there has been an evolution in how we approach racism so that we avoid those feelings altogether.

Second, either you believe race is a social construct or you do not. If you do, there is no point in examining how much "responsibility" a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances because their actions are necessarily influenced by their disadvantages. Any discussion of a race's responsibility for their circumstances is ridiculous because if there was no such thing as racism, their circumstances would be exactly the same as everyone else's in this country. People who say shit like, "I understand that black people have had it tough, but they have to start taking responsibility for where they are at some point," are either deluded as to what has happened and is currently happening in this country or are racist as fuck.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We had a guy in Massachusetts, John Silber, who was a Dem but a racist and ran for governor. I didn't weigh anything with him, I didn't vote for him. Deal. Breaker.

We had a candidate for President who was a bigot, xenophobe, and at voting time I was pretty sure was a racist (I held out hope he wasn’t...). Deal. Breaker.

You and I are not everybody.

When I said a person could compartmentalize, I was being literal. It cannot be stated that all Trump supporters are okay with his racism. That is an overstatement and a generalization.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can have a diminution in traditional forms of social attachment (labor unions, churches, Bowling Alone) without everyone identifying with tribes. The former is doubtless happening, for all sorts of reasons. Even before the internet, access to cars drove a lot of this. With the internet, e.g., my son is less likely to play with friends on our block and more likely to play XBOX with new friends in Iowa and Georgia.

When Sebby refers to tribalism, I think he describing something different, and I think he is describing conservatives. The idea that the left is like the right, but with different priorities, is really important to the Disciples of High Broderism, the sort of people who pride themselves on being centrist. Most of its adherents come from newspapers and TV media, where business imperatives meant that editorial content in one-outlet towns had to be center-right, but not too right.

I think you're right, but there is a kind of reaction going on the right's tribalism, which is that there are a whole lot of people just giving the right wingers a wide berth. Crossing the street when they see them. More true since the rise of Trump. And the right is reacting strongly to this, but doing everything they can at the same time to earn the reaction.

So there is a whole branch of my family who live in the district where the Congressman got hauled in for insider trading today. Some of them are getting ready to cast their first votes in many years for Democrats.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Let me channel my sole Trump supporting close friend: “He’s awful with that alt-right shit, but the liberals would fuck up the country, and I like money.”

No one is “okay” with it except for the racists (1/3-1/2 of Trump voters). They are doing what you slay third party voters for not doing: Weighing the good against bad and choosing which of the two party candidates most works for them.

This is exactly wrong. We are saying they do not put enough weight on his racism. If they did, they wouldn't fucking vote for him. But racism is either not that important to them or they like it. We are slaying them because their calculation when it comes to race is off such that they can see it with their own eyes and either cheer it, ignore it, or think it's not fatal to his candidacy.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re also discounting all the Trump voters who do not believe he’s racist or bigoted. You’ve got old relatives and so do I. The right wingers over 70 seriously do not see Trump as racist. You can say, “Come on... He’s using obvious dog whistles,” and they’ll call you a snowflake and say liberals are hypersensitive. You can’t be “okay” with what you can’t see because you’re so deluded.

Absolutely no one is discounting these people. These people are deluded about their own racism. If you don't can't see clear racism, then you are okay with racism.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No.

First, we were talking about how best to address white people's feelings in order to effectively move past the defensive stage so that we can effect change. If white people feel like racism is solely about a person being "bad," they will throw everything they have in their arsenal to fight that characterization. Therefore, there has been an evolution in how we approach racism so that we avoid those feelings altogether.

Second, either you believe race is a social construct or you do not. If you do, there is no point in examining how much "responsibility" a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances because their actions are necessary influenced by their disadvantages. Any discussion of a race's responsibility for their circumstances is ridiculous because if there was no such thing as racism, their circumstances would be exactly the same as everyone else's in this country. People who say shit like, "I understand that black people have had it tough, but they have to start taking responsibility for where they are at some point," are either deluded as to what has happened and is currently happening in this country or are racist as fuck.

TM

Second issue first. That’s not how this will be analyzed.

The analysis will necessarily have to involve an examination of how behaviors and customs of the group have contributed to unique disadvantages or perpetuation of disadvantages when controlled for impact of past institutional predations.

If you think that debate gets finished by applying the analysis you’ve offered, well, you’re wrong. I don’t think that analysis would hold in examining bigotry or racism toward any group anywhere in the world.

The Harris/Klein box gets opened really, really wide. That’s perhaps necessary. But man... that’s a messy conversation.

As to white people and effect approach, agreed. That is a better approach.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It cannot be stated that all Trump supporters are okay with his racism. That is an overstatement and a generalization.

Jesus fucking Christ. At this point I think it's intentional. They are okay with it enough that they will still vote for the guy. The bold, italicized words in that sentence are the key to the concept. Stop deleting them in your analysis. It is not a deal-breaker for them. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The analysis will necessarily have to involve an examination of how behaviors and customs of the group have contributed to unique disadvantages or perpetuation of disadvantages when controlled for impact of past institutional predations.

It's not in the past.