People of color.

[ImmortalFlame]

As Mark Twain noted, in order of perfidy,
theres ordinary prevarications, damn lies, and staristics.

Saying blacks get lomger sentences leaves out
any real,analysis of " why" and assumes the
chosen conclusion.

Why do you do that?

What conclusion do you think I am assuming?

 

[Audie]

I notice that many on the left tend to see
the humans as lacking agency, ie, people
are either victims of circumstances, or
successes because of privilege.
The Obama philosophy is that those
who lack deserve what other have because
someone else gave them success.

Who thought of the phrase,
"triumphantly the victim of all they survey"?

Mom had a way of saying it that comes
out better In Cantonese, but it means
"When you hear them blaming others,
you know they are irresponsible"

Or your Admiral Richover-
"Dont tell me you are not responsible.
if you are not responsible you are irresponsible."

 

[Audie]

What conclusion do you think I am assuming?

That they get longer sentences because of all their priors? : D

 

[Alien826]

I understand the frustration.

I think it's worth noting that, for a long time, there hasn't exactly been a single, unified equal rights movement. Intersectionality is becoming more popular, but it's also not agreed on by everyone and has sometimes just become another competing movement.

I totally see why it might seem like people are having a hard time getting their story straight or like you need to be constantly on top of the newest language, but the reality is that there are still a lot of competing ideas about which words to use, how to use them, or even how to approach these problems in general. It's a very complex and nuanced topic that genuinely is constantly evolving and changing over time as new issues enter our awareness and old issues come back in new ways.

Believe me, though, however frustrated you are by it, equal rights activists are even more frustrated with it because they're more directly involved with these sorts of problems and they have to deal with all of the other equal rights activists that can often be extremely zealous about their own perspective.

So, unfortunately, sometimes there aren't simple answers that you can just take and run with. Some people think "black" is disrespectful, and even the ones who don't usually see its use a noun as disrespectful, but some people also see "African American" as disrespectful because it qualifies their American status and puts them in relation to a country many of them have never been to. Equal rights activists have to figure out what language to use to both garner the support of the people affected without unintentionally insulting them and to avoid validating the dog whistles and language games that bigots hide behind.

It's just not an easy, straightforward task. It probably won't be for at least another few generations, although luckily these are now questions that are being seriously investigated by academics so we are genuinely making progress towards some sort of workable resolution since all parties involved are motivated to find one. It's just going to take awhile for the better ideas to win in conceptual combat.

And that's why, if you really want to help rather than do damage to these movements, it takes serious concerted effort and study and, yeah, you have to try to keep up to date with new information as it comes out. Even equal rights advocates slip up on this constantly; they just know how to apologize and correct themselves.

That's interesting and thanks for the time taken to reply, but ...

If you wish, I'd like you to address something that I perhaps didn't clearly express. It seems to me that this focus on words is ineffectual, if not even counter productive. To recap, the "rules" about using or not using certain words tend to be obeyed by those already on your side. Racist people may mute what they say in certain company, but what they say among themselves is a different matter. Racist mind sets are not changed by words (I know this is argued differently). Berating those that are trying to help over word usage will make some less willing to help or abandon the attempt to help altogether.

I also wonder how black people actually feel about this, as opposed to how those that are offended on their behalf say they feel. That is an actual question, I don't know the answer. Let's say there was an option of (say) making all policing totally fair but at the same time allowing the "n" word to be freely used. Would black people in general reject it? Yes, a silly example, hopefully you see where I am going with it.

I suppose I should offer my own solution. Get to know people in the group you dislike. Socially, not as some kind of "savior". It happened to me with gay men. I didn't hate them exactly, but thought they were, well, odd. I then made a gay friend and met a lot of his friends. I attended parties with them, and even watched gay porn with them (yes, really!). Nobody hit on me. I didn't have to kick my wallet to the door to avoid bending over (an old joke). In the end, a light went on. These are just people, with one difference from me. Good, bad, serious, funny, intelligent, not so intelligent, just like straight people. On balance I liked them.

 

[Audie]

That's interesting and thanks for the time taken to reply, but ...

If you wish, I'd like you to address something that I perhaps didn't clearly express. It seems to me that this focus on words is ineffectual, if not even counter productive. To recap, the "rules" about using or not using certain words tend to be obeyed by those already on your side. Racist people may mute what they say in certain company, but what they say among themselves is a different matter. Racist mind sets are not changed by words (I know this is argued differently). Berating those that are trying to help over word usage will make some less willing to help or abandon the attempt to help altogether.

I also wonder how black people actually feel about this, as opposed to how those that are offended on their behalf say they feel. That is an actual question, I don't know the answer. Let's say there was an option of (say) making all policing totally fair but at the same time allowing the "n" word to be freely used. Would black people in general reject it? Yes, a silly example, hopefully you see where I am going with it.

I suppose I should offer my own solution. Get to know people in the group you dislike. Socially, not as some kind of "savior". It happened to me with gay men. I didn't hate them exactly, but thought they were, well, odd. I then made a gay friend and met a lot of his friends. I attended parties with them, and even watched gay porn with them (yes, really!). Nobody hit on me. I didn't have to kick my wallet to the door to avoid bending over (an old joke). In the end, a light went on. These are just people, with one difference from me. Good, bad, serious, funny, intelligent, not so intelligent, just like straight people. On balance I liked them.

Somewhat similarly- I grew up hating
Japanese for what they did to my family
In WW2. A British accent provoked instant hostility.

At uni in NYC, I walked unto a class and the closest good seat was next to a Japanese girl.

We were soon talking, and she is just the nicest person! We've been friends ever since.

 

[Kfox]

Correct.


And why do you think blacks "choose" to adopt that culture? Again, culture is not genetic.

The street gang culture and the hip hop culture looks attractive to the youth of the community

Then can you provide a single example of them saying it? There's nothing saying that from any official BLM source that I have found.

And I’ve not found any official KKK source saying they are racist against black people! Look; I’ve heard people that I know who are sympathetic or even a part of the movement make such claims. There is no official claim on behalf of BLM claiming numbers of black victims vs white victims to police brutality.

I didn't say the problem was the jury system. I said the problem is systemic racism, which takes the form of black being perceived as a marker of criminality - including by black people themselves.

Because you mentioned Jurors I used the jury system as an example. I could have used any system; schools, police department, hospitals etc. and the same thing would apply.

I just explained that even black juries tend to be more likely to convict black defendants.

Well maybe it’s not racism, maybe it’s black defendants have worse lawyers, maybe they commit crimes in a way that is easier to prosecute; there could be a host of reasons; you can’t just look at numbers and claim any discrepancy is due to racism.

False. Systemic racism isn't just when specifically racist laws are in effect - it's policies, practices or procedures that RESULT in unfair advantages/disadvantages for certain racial groups.

Policies and procedures are the same as rules and laws. Practices is about what the individual does. If an individual racist practices discrimination against the company/systems policies and procedures, that is not systemic racism, that is individual racism.
So you’ve got 2 out of 3 correct.

For example, due to hundreds of years of black people living as second-class citizens, black families have significantly less hereditary wealth and social status; due to this, poorer communities tend to have higher proportions of black citizens; living in poorer areas means less access to healthcare and education, meaning black people disproportionately are negatively impacted by circumstances that make them less likely to succeed or break the cycle of poverty.

I agree. This is how systemic racism of the past still has an effect today! This is not an example of systemic racism today

It's not necessarily DESIGNED to harm black people, but the RESULT is an unfair system - even if, on paper, black and white people have the same rights.

Not quite. The unfair system of the past still has effects today, but that doesn’t mean today’s system is unfair. Recognizing this, there are things put in place within the system that helps black people financially, in ways whites are not helped due to the injustices of the past.

That's not what institutional racism means.

When Stokley Carmichael coined the term back in the 1960’s that is exactly what it meant.

Yes, the Jim Crow laws were systemic racism. But that doesn't mean the ONLY form systemic racism takes is explicitly racist laws. It can also includes laws and processes that are designed "race neutral" but nevertheless - either due to pre-existing social/power structures or uneven/unfair operation of those processes - RESULT IN either deepening racial inequality or preventing an advancement toward racial equality.

Consider a literal race in which white competitors are allowed to run, but black competitors have to crawl. Imagine if, after the first five minutes of the race, the black competitors complain that being made to crawl is unfair. So, halfway through the race, the officials allow the black competitors to run. Is the race now fair? On paper, it is. Both black and white people are allowed to run. Except the white people were allowed to run for half the race and black people had to crawl. Allowing both to run still doesn't give them an equal advantage to the white competitors, because the black competitors still started at a disadvantage. The rule change wasn't racist - but without an actual effort to address the disadvantage, it still results in white people having a significant advantage.

Do you understand the analogy?

Is it your view that systemic racism is strictly about economics? Or is it also about citizenship rights and everything else? Because your analogy seems to be limited to economics.
I will respond to the rest later

 

[Kfox]

So you're explanation for the vast disparity in racial differences in crime rates is a vague slogan used predominantly in movies?

Are black people genetically predisposed to "give snitches stitches"?

I’ve never heard of that in a movie; that’s more of a street gang slogan. BTW gang members are predisposed to give snitches stitches.

And your point is...?

There are lots of murders every day. Some grab the zeitgeist, some don't. There's a multitude of reasons why Floyd's death got the media attention it did. For one: it was very public, filmed directly as it happened with members of the public - and George himself - screaming for the police to stop,

They were all filmed! As a matter of fact, when Timothy was being killed, he was crying for them to stop and the cops were making jokes with each other about the amount of drugs he was on.

and happened during a global protest movement pushing against the disproportionate violence committed by police against black people.

Crowing about how it's unfair that he got all the attention "because he's black" is just virtue signalling. It's not a competition.

No virtue signaling, YOU made the claim that when black people are wrongly killed at the hands of the police, there would be less likely repercussions for the officers. I made this point to show that you were wrong.

As a movement, BLM has done more to affect actual changes in policing - changes that benefits ALL PEOPLE OF ALL RACES - and enact police reform than any other movement in modern memory. I don't really care if you think the focus is disproportionately on George Floyd or that race plays a factor in that. What I care about is that there are LESS George Floyds, Tony Tempas and Timothy Coffmans. BLM have taken steps toward that. Whining about identity politics just gives more ammunition to the people who oppose reform.

The problem with BLM is they are really good at getting people to expend 99% of their effort on 1% of the problems, and 1% of their efforts on 99% of the problem. Black people are killed at an alarming rate in this country, and though sometimes bad cops are a problem, the number of blacks killed by cops are microscopic compared to the number killed by violence within the community. It’s like having a fire in the kitchen and a leak faucet in the bathroom, and BLM gets everybody to run to the bathroom with pipe wrenches to fix the faucet; while the house burns down! As black people, our house is on fire and none of the movements like BLM wants to look at the real problems because real solutions to those problems require effort on our part, and it’s much easier to point the finger at something else while we continue business as usual. So they continue to point to 1% of the problem while none of the major problems gets fixed.

 

[Curious George]

I was having a conversation with a white person who referred to me and people like me as people/persons of color. I responded by referring to him and people like him as people/persons of color. He responded that people of color consist of only black or brown people, and I retorted white is just as much of a color as black, brown, or anything else and if he wanted to refer to black or brown people, he should use those words rather than something vague and incorrect. Upon further investigation I found out the term was originally coined by 17th century racists who wanted to distinguish white people from non whites, but fell out of favor shortly afterwords only to be brought back in the 1970’s by black and brown racists who wanted to separate white people from all the other races. Most of the people I know who use the term are not bigots or racists yet use the term coined by bigots and racists. Are these people just parroting something they’ve heard someone else use without thinking what these words actually mean? Or something else? Your thoughts?

With your anecdote, I would suggest that you consider both impact and intent. The persons phrasing seems to have bothered you based upon your passive aggressive response. While the impact of words are important, so too are the intent of words. What do you believe the intent of of this person’s words were?

Still, words matter, and far too often do we put too little thought in the words we choose. The term “person of color,” is meant to include all people who are not white. The flip side of this coin is that the term is meant to exclude people who are white (and possibly “white passing”). The reason for this is to focus on a commonality of experience that is shared by individuals whose appearance differs from those who have, historically held more power in the US and places like the US (ie white people).

There are issues with the term. As you have pointed out the term can have negative connotations due to the terms historical usage. Additionally, the term can overlook or create a blind spot for some experiences shared by individuals because those individuals are placed in a larger category. Finally, the term can be overly broad and include individuals who have no experience that is relatable to the shared experience that is supposedly the unifying focus.

Alternatively words like “non-white” or “minority” can be used. Both of these words have issues as well.

As time passes our choice of words can change, how words are used can change, and the popularity of words can change. Terms that describe race are going to continue to be problematic because race is not an internally consistent concept. We have an array of skin tones and diverse populations that cannot fit so nicely into categories as some might like. Nevertheless, skin tone has mattered and continues to matter in our society as our conceptions and misconceptions are ingrained in our society.

Moving forward, we can, however, keep mindful of both intent and impact. For these, ultimately, matter so much more than words alone.

 

[Ella S.]

That's interesting and thanks for the time taken to reply, but ...

If you wish, I'd like you to address something that I perhaps didn't clearly express. It seems to me that this focus on words is ineffectual, if not even counter productive. To recap, the "rules" about using or not using certain words tend to be obeyed by those already on your side. Racist people may mute what they say in certain company, but what they say among themselves is a different matter. Racist mind sets are not changed by words (I know this is argued differently). Berating those that are trying to help over word usage will make some less willing to help or abandon the attempt to help altogether.

I also wonder how black people actually feel about this, as opposed to how those that are offended on their behalf say they feel. That is an actual question, I don't know the answer. Let's say there was an option of (say) making all policing totally fair but at the same time allowing the "n" word to be freely used. Would black people in general reject it? Yes, a silly example, hopefully you see where I am going with it.

I suppose I should offer my own solution. Get to know people in the group you dislike. Socially, not as some kind of "savior". It happened to me with gay men. I didn't hate them exactly, but thought they were, well, odd. I then made a gay friend and met a lot of his friends. I attended parties with them, and even watched gay porn with them (yes, really!). Nobody hit on me. I didn't have to kick my wallet to the door to avoid bending over (an old joke). In the end, a light went on. These are just people, with one difference from me. Good, bad, serious, funny, intelligent, not so intelligent, just like straight people. On balance I liked them.

I agree that the word-policing often ends up harming people who are well-intentioned, for what it's worth. I also agree that not everyone within a group finds the same words offensive or to the same degree.

You make an interesting point about how our minds aren't changed by our word usage, but I think the point is usually made in reverse. Sometimes the words we use unintentionally carry harmful connotations. Figuring out the proper words to use is indeed an intellectual exercise, but it's bundled up with figuring out the proper way to conceptualize and approach these issues. The same thing is done in almost all academic fields of study.

On top of this, I think you make a good point when you mention that often the people that are the most vicious about using particular language are those that are not within the affected group, even to the point of speaking for the affected group, which is a genuine problem. These are the kinds of people who, instead of platforming those who are actually affected by the language, seek to control the discourse for themselves and shout over marginalized people. That's not okay, and I don't think they're in the right to do this, and I think a lot of equal rights activists would agree with you that they're often harmful to these movements.

At the same time, I think we should try to be understanding when people from the affected group insist on specific terminology. Sometimes, there is a lot of pain behind alternative terms. Other times, this terminology gives them some sense of political control when they otherwise feel alienated. Due to how emotionally charged the topic is, I think we should give them some leeway when they can be a little aggressive about their advocacy and try to understand where they're coming from before we react to them lashing out by adding on to their pain or dismissing them. I say this with full awareness that this sort of balancing act can be very difficult to do gracefully in practice; give too much leeway and you open yourself up to unfair abuse, don't give enough and you further damage people who are already suffering.

(ETA: I mean, look at how I handled this thread. Did I give too much leeway to someone who is obviously a white supremacist pretending to be black in an effort to lend legitimacy to their hate? Or was I not compassionate enough with someone affected by negative language and too dismissive of a minority viewpoint? I think I found a nice balance, but maybe not everyone will agree)

It's certainly not as clear cut of a problem as some people want to make it out to be, where everyone who uses terminology A is good and everyone who uses terminology B is evil. At the same time, if you have unintentionally hurt someone with your words, it's polite to apologize and try to rectify the situation, even if you think their pain is unreasonable. Maintain healthy boundaries, of course, but try not to be too judgmental about whether other people are allowed to be offended or to what degree they should be, because I don't think too much good can come from trying to police people's feelings like that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The street gang culture and the hip hop culture looks attractive to the youth of the community

The question I asked was WHY.

And I’ve not found any official KKK source saying they are racist against black people!

So, your claim that that's what they say is false.

Look; I’ve heard people that I know who are sympathetic or even a part of the movement make such claims.

And I've also heard people say the opposite. Taking individual voices and applying them to a movement as a whole is foolish.

There is no official claim on behalf of BLM claiming numbers of black victims vs white victims to police brutality.

So? You claimed that they say that there are more black victims than white victims. They don't. There is no such claim on their website, their mission statement, any of their literature that I'm aware of. It's a false claim.

Because you mentioned Jurors I used the jury system as an example. I could have used any system; schools, police department, hospitals etc. and the same thing would apply.

These things are also subject to institutional/systemic racism, yes.

Well maybe it’s not racism, maybe it’s black defendants have worse lawyers, maybe they commit crimes in a way that is easier to prosecute; there could be a host of reasons; you can’t just look at numbers and claim any discrepancy is due to racism.

Once again, all you've done here is kick the can down the road.

Maybe black defendants have worse lawyers.
Then WHY do black defendants have worse lawyers?

Maybe black people are easier to prosecute.
Then WHY are black people easier to prosecute?

Unless you believe that there is some genetic quality to being black that makes them less likely to have "good lawyers" or to be "easier to prosecute", you must acknowledge that there is a social issue at play here.

Policies and procedures are the same as rules and laws.

No, they are not. Policies are political systems put in place that are not necessarily laws, and procedures are the means by which certain ends are achieved.

For example, the POLICY of redlining lead to inequality against black people in the housing market. Whereas police PROCEDURE to focus cops in low-income areas disproportionately impacts black arrest statistics.

Practices is about what the individual does.

No, it can also be standarized. For example, it is standard practice for more police to be sent to poorer areas, leading to poorer people being more likely, on a street level, to be arrested, searched or monitored by police.

If an individual racist practices discrimination against the company/systems policies and procedures, that is not systemic racism, that is individual racism.

This is true.

I agree. This is how systemic racism of the past still has an effect today! This is not an example of systemic racism today

No, that's precisely what systemic racism is. That's literally the definition of it.

Not quite. The unfair system of the past still has effects today, but that doesn’t mean today’s system is unfair.

I didn't say today's system is unfair per se. As explained by my analogy it's possible that a system can be completely fair on paper but still result in unfair outcomes due to a prior situation. I said there is still systemic racism, which is plainly true when you look at the OUTCOMES of current policies and processes.

Recognizing this, there are things put in place within the system that helps black people financially, in ways whites are not helped due to the injustices of the past.

While this is true, again, you only need to look at the figures to see that black people are still statistically worse off in a multitude of regards compared to white people. You yourself have acknowledged the violent crime stats. Things like these can only really be a direct result of historical discrimination still resulting in an unfair society today.

When Stokley Carmichael coined the term back in the 1960’s that is exactly what it meant.

Can you provide a direct quote to that effect?

Nowadays it is understood, as per Wikipedia, as follows (emphasis mine):

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is defined as policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization, and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, education, and political representation.[1]
SOURCE: Institutional racism - Wikipedia

Is it your view that systemic racism is strictly about economics? Or is it also about citizenship rights and everything else?
Because your analogy seems to be limited to economics.
I will respond to the rest later

Not necessarily citizenship rights, no. It's about outcomes in a variety of fields such as those outlined in the definition above. Criminal justice, employment, housing, healthcare, education and political representation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I’ve never heard of that in a movie; that’s more of a street gang slogan. BTW gang members are predisposed to give snitches stitches.

Okay. I'm pretty sure you can't use gang slogans to explain away social problems, though.

They were all filmed! As a matter of fact, when Timothy was being killed, he was crying for them to stop and the cops were making jokes with each other about the amount of drugs he was on.

Then maybe it was just a result of one video going viral and the other not. There is a multitude of ways things get noticed while other things do not. Over here children go missing all the time, but some missing children cases are so stuck in the public consciousness that you can literally say a name of a missing child to anyone in the country and they will know the case, while others are simply not known about at all. This is just a fact of life. Crowing about how unfair it is that one case or another isn't getting as much attention as another isn't achieving anything, and to chock it all up to race is simplistic and reductive.

No virtue signaling, YOU made the claim that when black people are wrongly killed at the hands of the police, there would be less likely repercussions for the officers.

No, I did not. I said that's what happened historically, not what's happening now.

I made this point to show that you were wrong.

No, you made this point because you want to imply that black people get preferential treatment by the media. This is patently false.

The problem with BLM is they are really good at getting people to expend 99% of their effort on 1% of the problems, and 1% of their efforts on 99% of the problem. Black people are killed at an alarming rate in this country, and though sometimes bad cops are a problem, the number of blacks killed by cops are microscopic compared to the number killed by violence within the community.

This is like arguing that Breast Cancer Awareness month is bad because more people die of other forms of cancer than breast cancer. That doesn't mean it isn't worth investing the time in reforming a system which not only disproportionately negatively affects black communities, but to advocate for reforms that literally help everybody negatively impacted by over-policing. Part of the reason why black on black violence is such an issue is exacerbated by the threat of police and high black arrest and conviction rates, making poorer black communities more likely to rely on gangs, leading to greater gang violence. All of these problems are complex and inter-related, and outrage at policing is a perfectly legitimate thing to be outraged about. It has also lead to some of the most significant police reforms in our lifetimes - reforms that benefit a hell of a lot of people.

It’s like having a fire in the kitchen and a leak faucet in the bathroom, and BLM gets everybody to run to the bathroom with pipe wrenches to fix the faucet;

You can literally use this argument about any protest movement arranged around any subject, since almost all protests are centred around resolving a specific issue rather than resolving all issues. It's not a legitimate or valid criticism.

while the house burns down! As black people, our house is on fire and none of the movements like BLM wants to look at the real problems because real solutions to those problems require effort on our part, and it’s much easier to point the finger at something else while we continue business as usual. So they continue to point to 1% of the problem while none of the major problems gets fixed.

And, in your opinion, what are the major problems and how do we fix them?

 

[Audie]

Okay. I'm pretty sure you can't use gang slogans to explain away social problems, though.


Then maybe it was just a result of one video going viral and the other not. There is a multitude of ways things get noticed while other things do not. Over here children go missing all the time, but some missing children cases are so stuck in the public consciousness that you can literally say a name of a missing child to anyone in the country and they will know the case, while others are simply not known about at all. This is just a fact of life. Crowing about how unfair it is that one case or another isn't getting as much attention as another isn't achieving anything, and to chock it all up to race is simplistic and reductive.


No, I did not. I said that's what happened historically, not what's happening now.


No, you made this point because you want to imply that black people get preferential treatment by the media. This is patently false.


This is like arguing that Breast Cancer Awareness month is bad because more people die of other forms of cancer than breast cancer. That doesn't mean it isn't worth investing the time in reforming a system which not only disproportionately negatively affects black communities, but to advocate for reforms that literally help everybody negatively impacted by over-policing. Part of the reason why black on black violence is such an issue is exacerbated by the threat of police and high black arrest and conviction rates, making poorer black communities more likely to rely on gangs, leading to greater gang violence. All of these problems are complex and inter-related, and outrage at policing is a perfectly legitimate thing to be outraged about. It has also lead to some of the most significant police reforms in our lifetimes - reforms that benefit a hell of a lot of people.


You can literally use this argument about any protest movement arranged around any subject, since almost all protests are centred around resolving a specific issue rather than resolving all issues. It's not a legitimate or valid criticism.


And, in your opinion, what are the major problems and how do we fix them?

To me, it,appears that too many
Black people are telling themselves the
wrong stories. " Hip hop", or victim,
those get you nowhere.

The Jewish people have the same number
of brain cells. But they use them to say,
" we are survivors, we have high standards,
we work hard, we succred."

Or as an American acquaintance told me of
his time at a reservation school-
A student told him he wanted to be a basketball
player* and a hunter when he grew up, adfing that
" Koreans like to make things. We are hunters"

* on the res of course

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To me, it,appears that too many
Black people are telling themselves the
wrong stories. " Hip hop", or victim,
those get you nowhere.

The Jewish people have the same number
of brain cells. But they use them to say,
" we are survivors, we have high standards,
we work hard, we succred."

Or as an American acquaintance told me of
his time at a reservation school-
A student told him he wanted to be a basketball
player* and a hunter when he grew up, adfing that
" Koreans like to make things. We are hunters"

* on the res of course

So, do you think that - if we study sociological phenomenon and find that systemic racism exists - we should just ignore it because black people should just knuckle down and get through it?

Or, do you think that maybe ensuring that society is better and fairer is actually worthwhile?

See, it's actually by analyzing and understanding the root causes of problems in society that we are able to "get somewhere". Conversely, "going nowhere" comes from refusing to even acknowledge the existence of these problems and pretending everything is fine.

 

[Audie]

So, do you think that - if we study sociological phenomenon and find that systemic racism exists - we should just ignore it because black people should just knuckle down and get through it?

Or, do you think that maybe ensuring that society is better and fairer is actually worthwhile?

See, it's actually by analyzing and understanding the root causes of problems in society that we are able to "get somewhere". Conversely, "going nowhere" comes from refusing to even acknowledge the existence of these problems and pretending everything is fine.

Nothing I said involves refusing or
pretending.
Going nowhere is what you get if you
only look backwards.

We Chinese are well aware of the history
of violence, discrimination, anti Chinese
laws, etc we encountered in America.

Apparently American blacks and,indigenous
people have heard about their history.

You seem to be focused backwards not
forward.
I pointed out that foreward requires a new
' story" and you respond with rhetorical questions
about me and the past

It's nothing to me personally if blacks or natives
never get out of the hole they are in.

I said what I see as the only way out.
Take it or leave it. It's not my country, not my people.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing I said involves refusing or
pretending.

Yes it does. You explicitly rejected social analysis and said that black people should just "tell themselves different stories", as if that has ever fixed any kind of systemic, sociological issue ever.

Going nowhere is what you get if you
only look backwards.

Nobody is suggesting we only look backwards. I'm just saying that ignoring facts about social inequality and pretending they don't exist isn't a solution to the problem. If you can't acknowledge the existence of injustice, how you can possibly make things better for the future?

We Chinese are well aware of the history
of violence, discrimination, anti Chinese
laws, etc we encountered in America.

Apparently American blacks and,indigenous
people have heard about their history.

You seem to be focused backwards not
forward.
I pointed out that foreward requires a new
' story" and you respond with rhetorical questions
about me and the past

They were not rhetorical, I was genuinely asking you. Your response to social and racial inequality is no better than saying we should basically stop talking about it. That's not an answer to the problems and just compounds them. Arguably, it makes them worse.

It's nothing to me personally if blacks or natives
never get out of the hole they are in.

I said what I see as the only way out.
Take it or leave it. It's not my country, not my people.

You never proposed a way out. You basically just said we should ignore the problem.

 

[Audie]

Nobody is suggesting we only look backwards. I'm just saying that ignoring facts about social inequality and pretending they don't exist isn't a solution to the problem. If you can't acknowledge the existence of injustice, how you can possibly make things better for the future?


They were not rhetorical, I was genuinely asking you. Your attitude in responding to social and racial inequality by saying we should basically stop talking about it. That's not an answer to the problems and just compounds them. Arguably, it makes them worse.


You never proposed a way out. You basically just said we should ignore the problem.

Whatevs. I will leave you to talk to
yourself about the things you make up..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Whatevs. I will leave you to talk to
yourself about the things you make up..

What have I made up?

 

[Audie]

What have I made up?

That is freaking pathetic, you cannot even tell when you are making things up.

We are done, as in, whatevs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is freaking pathetic, you cannot even tell when you are making things up.

Why are you overreacting? I just asked you a simple question.

We are done, as in, whatevs.

Is it always this easy to make you upset?

I'm sorry, I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatevs. I will leave you to talk to
yourself about the things you make up..

Ever notice that some posters deny what you actually
say, & attribute their own error laden inferences to you?
Such conversations are difficult indeed...until one exits.

Despite my sub 70 IQ, even I could grok what you posted.