Worlok Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Definitions; Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, yet not reliant on scientific fact of basic differences between various races/groups. (This only requires that you hold a belief and does not require any actions by you to occur. Actions are not racist, but actions may be based on racism) Bigotry: Intolerance of people who hold different/opposing opinions/views (Intolerance is internal until you come into contact with that which you do not tolerate; you must act intolerant, otherwise you are definitionally tolerant, thus not bigoted.) Prejudice: A preconceived idea or point of view about a person(s) that is not based in logic,reason, or direct experience. (This is internal and requires no actions to occur. You simply have to feel it. An act is not prejudiced, but may be based on prejudice.) You cannot definitively say or even logically argue that a person's actions are racist or prejudiced because these are internal. However, you can say that a person is bigoted if they act in a bigoted way. Whatever their actions, you can only guess that a person is racist or prejudiced UNLESS they specifically express that they are or express ideas that require prejudice or racism to be sincere expressions. For example, when Trump talks about building a wall, neither the action of building a wall nor the intent to keep out foreigners is racist/bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot legitimately argue that he is racist/bigoted/prejudiced based on those two things. He never said that hispanics are inferior or that they should be treated any different. Just that if they aren't Americans that they can go home. His words and actions could be based on racism/bigotry/prejudice, but he would pretty much have to tell you so. I recently saw a post on Facebook suggesting that there was communication breakdown. That BLM wasn't bad because blacks are oppressed and that white privilege wasn't about what you did, but that you don't acknowledge that you have it. The leftist position is that we're bad because we don't accept their truths. Now, after having been repeatedly torn into by a previously very close black friend about how I'm inherently bad and evil because I'm white, straight, and male, I believe all those people can go fuck themselves because I know first hand what the positions are. Here's why. White privilege or any privilege for that matter is based on the idea that things are easier for you because you are white. It's not that you did anything, it's just that society treats you better because you are white/heterosexual/cis/male/whatever. The problem with this is that it requires that other people treat you better because you are white. Society is people. Government is people. These are social constructs made up entirely of human beings. For you to have white privilege, other people have to treat you better for being white. Now, for it to be "privilege," over half of all people in all walks of life must treat you better because you are white. Over 70% of Americans are white Europeans. Half of all whites and 100% of all non-whites add up to about 60% of the total population. That would suffice for said privilege to occur. If half of all whites and all non-whites treat you better for being white, then I suppose you have privilege. It is not likely that anything close to 100% of a group would agree on much of anything, thus the argument requires that over half of all whites must treat other whites better. So, the argument is that the majority of whites treat other white people better. This argument is basically that the majority of whites are bigoted, prejudiced, and even racist. To say that you are privileged because most whites are bigoted, prejudiced, or racist is again, by definition "bigoted," "prejudiced," or "racist." Without polling all white Americans, you cannot tell to any reasonable degree how many if many at all are racist, prejudiced, or bigoted. There. Believing in "white privilege" is believing that the majority of white people are themselves racist, prejudiced, or bigoted without having any proof or self experience to suggest that it is true. BLM is based primarily on two ideas. A, that whites are racist (commonly that holding majority share of power is a requirement, otherwise it is simply prejudice and bigotry) especially that the government and all of its facets are racist and B, that blacks are directly targeted by said racists, especially police and judges. Not to sell short the premise that for "all lives matter" to be an offensive thing and for "black lives matter" to actually be spoken, one must be in the belief that others think that black lives don't matter. I've never heard anybody say that black lives don't matter, just some white supremacists that say they don't matter as much. Nobody listens to white supremacists though and we mostly all hate them. As previously explained, it cannot be legitimately argued that a majority or large amount of whites (or any other large group) are racist/prejudiced/bigoted. Again, the government is simply people representing a social construct. For the government to be racist, once more, it requires that a majority of people in the government to be racist, which you cannot argue because you cannot support with evidence. As previously explained, for the government to be racist, the majority of people must be racist. The majority of eligible candidates for government positions are overwhelmingly white, so it can logically and fairly be assumed that most public servants are white, likely around the 70 something % that they represent in the population. We say for sake of argument about 70% of the government is white, so again, the argument is that government is racist because whites are racist. Cops and judges target blacks because those cops and judges are white, and whites are blah blah blah. It comes entirely down to white people treating black people worse than white people and doing so because they are racist/bigoted/prejudiced. I assert that believing a race is generally or inherently racist because of their race is racist Because racism as an inherent trait is what I would call a defining factor in racial inferiority/superiority. Believing that whites are prejudiced/bigoted is a prejudice or bigotry, because again, it is a thoroughly a negative trait. Therefore the BLM argument is racist/bigoted/prejudiced. If whites are bigoted/racist/prejudiced because they are taught to be, then the teachers and parents must then be one/more of those things themselves and again, this argument and the person making the argument are bigoted/prejudiced/racist. You can apply this to any sort of "privilege" or assertion that some other group holds any sort of belief that one does not have very strong evidence to support. Not to mention that for "male privilege" or a "patriarchy" to occur and you have a population that is majority female... http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-gender/ well, majority men and women must be a bunch of mysoginists. I doubt anybody on my side of the debate believes that there is any sort of miscommunication other than the "newspeak" that the other side is using. BLM is functionally a violent hate group, the idea and holders of the belief of "white privilege" are intolerant and hold excessive amounts of preconceived notions. Nobody (okay, not enough people to matter) ever said that racism doesn't exist or that there aren't thousands or possibly millions or racists in America. It's just that we understand the definitions and we know that we and our friends are not racists so it doesn't apply to us. If everybody and everybody's friends aren't racist, then racism isn't a problem and you need to stop suggesting that we are. You couldn't argue which individual people are racist, let alone that there is "institutional racism." If you did, it would be all about how affirmative action, gun control, the drug war, and welfare are racist, probably because the people that put them into effect did so to oppress people, specifically blacks. Then again, you aren't talking about that, so you have no argument for "institutional racism." I hold firm that no race is generally or inherently inferior or superior to another, but that they are different based on evidence, that all people are different and that I can't say much of anything about a person that I haven't actually met, that neither me nor anybody I keep company with has any intention of treating non-whites any better or worse than whites, and that we don't and haven't treated non-whites any differently. To make the argument that "white privilege" exists or for some reason to make the argument that black lives matter (nobody said they don't) without expressing to me that you believe that I treat all races equally, then you are directly attacking me and you should drink lead acetate. If you do point out how I'm not a racist, you're still arguing that basically everybody else is and you should drink lead acetate. As you can tell, I cannot express all the crap going through my head very well for others to understand. Forgive me if this crap is all over the place. Also, I didn't intend for anything to be based on definitive facts aside for roughly how many Americans are white. Roughly.
EclecticIdealist Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, and consequently, individuals of such races should be treated differently. Bigotry: Intolerance of people who are different. Racism is a form of bigotry, as is colorism (prejudice based on the shade of one’s skin), sexism, agism, anti-semitism, etc. Prejudice: A preconceived idea or point of view about a person(s), typically a result of stereotyping or pigeonholing the individual or group based on superficial observation and classification into a larger group of people one is biased toward or against. This term is sometimes mistakenly used in place of bigotry which is a persistent idea about a group or a member or members of a group, often despite empirical contra-indicatory data which is discounted or otherwise dismissed or ignored. Whether a person is acting in a prejudiced manner cannot be determined through observation of a single event. Further information must be obtained to determine whether any perceived bias is incidental, categorical, or entirely misperceived. Example: A shop keeper, new to a neighborhood, opens his store for the first time. may closely scrutinize the behavior of Black people who enter his store. One might assume he is prejudiced against these visitors based on his behavior, but one cannot be confident of such an assessment yet. One observes other Black people enter his store and one becomes increasingly confident that the shop keeper is behaving in a prejudiced manner towards these visitors and is indeed bigoted against Black people. Then one observes people of other races enter the store and the shop keeper equally scrutinizes the behavior of each person entering his store. One discerns that the previous assessment of prejudice was entirely misperceived. Many accuse others of racism for issues that have nothing to do with race, and which may or may not involve other forms of prejudice, simply as a means of poisoning the well against what they might say. In the case you cited, I believe Trump’s desire to build a wall likely has nothing to do with racism on his part, and has everything to do with pandering to his potential constituents on the Right who believe that building a wall on our Southern border will significantly curtail or stop a societal and cultural threat and a financial burden on our education and medical systems believed to be caused or exacerbated largely by Illegal immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics. I am sorry that your friendship has been challenged by your differences in social and political issues. One thing I believe is important to realize is that there are many groups of people involved in BLM. Some of those groups are violent, radical, anti-American, Anti-White, Nation of Islam types responsible for the recent police shootings in Dallas. Others, however, are rightfully appalled by and vehemently opposed to these murders and merely want the triple-standard of justice ended when it comes to police and the criminal justice system’s treatment of Blacks and other minorities vs Whites, and the all too frequent refusal on the part of governments to hold police to the same standard as civilians when it comes to the unjustified escalation of the use of force resulting in the injury or death of others especially Blacks; and also the larger society’s refusal to hold the Police and State Prosecutors accountable because of the perception (justified or not) that as far as the rest of society is concerned, Black lives simply don’t matter, or at least not as much. Apparently for the majority of society, it seems, if the person is Black and has a criminal record, their lives simply don’t matter, or they matter so little as to not warrant any regard whatsoever. You definitely have a different and in my opinion misguided view of how privilege works than I and many others. Privilege does not require a majority of society to treat you better than those who are not privileged. In fact, in requires only a small number of individuals in key positions of power to treat you better than they treat the rest of society for you to enjoy privilege over the rest of society. One can easily see this in the manner that celebrities are treated with privilege by some, but certainly not by most of society. Few will dispute that celebrities enjoy a privileged status in our society. Many celebrities are given free clothes, free lodging, free meals, and extra gratuities not afforded the average person. Such celebrities often incur special treatment with regard to their professional career as well when it comes to trials and sentencing for misdemeanors and certain felony convictions on the part of prosecutors and judges. When given by merchants, such treatment is often given in an attempt to curry the favor of such celebrities in exchange for public notoriety, but this does not change the fact that such celebrities are treated better than the rest of society. Nevertheless, not all of society treats celebrities as privileged, nor do all prosecutors or judges, nor does most of society need to for these celebrities to lead a privileged life. Nevertheless, privilege is not the same as negative discrimination. Discriminating in favor of one person or group above all others is privilege. Discriminating against one person or group above all others is the opposite of privilege. When there are only two groups involved, the result of both positive and negative discrimination will be identical and privilege will be indiscernible from negative discrimination. When more than one group is involved, only then one is able to distinguish between privilege and negative discrimination. This can be seen in the case of hiring practices which screen out applicants of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds for interviews unless one or two are needed to meet a hiring quota. Black Lives Matter is based on the premise that for the majority of society, the lives of Black people simply don’t seem to matter, or are significantly less important than the lives of White people and cops. This conclusion is based on the perceived difference in treatment in the news and by government of White and Black victims of crime, especially by agents of the state; and the perceived difference in treatment in the media, but most especially by agents of the government, of White and Black perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of crime. Whether such perception is substantially nothing more than the result of a very effective race-baiting campaign on the part of the left in capitalizing on a few exceptional cases that have gained nationwide notoriety, as some have suggested, or simply the result of greater awareness and dissemination of information about how the justice system actually works to systematically oppress people of lower socio-economic status and means, for whom a significant portion of the Black population are members is a matter of debate. Add to this the very real, but usually denied, dismissed, or minimized reality of covert and unconscious racism that persists in the American workplace against Blacks and minorities, and you’ll begin to understand why many Black people feel (even if unjustifiably so) just as persecuted today as their parents or grandparents were during the Jim Crow era and after the success of the Civil Rights movement in ending Jim Crow. It is suggested that it cannot be shown that government is racist against Blacks and other minorities, and yet time and again, when evidence is put forth, it is simply dismissed or excused as being caused by other factors. Evidence showing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped and interrogated than Whites and other minorities in a manner disproportionate to their presence in the population is routinely dismissed as simply being effective policing where the problem is. Statistics which show a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions of Blacks and Hispanics for minor drug infractions skew the results of criminality by race not because they inherently commit more crimes, but because they poor and cannot afford bail, to spend time in jail, or a lawyer to make an adequate defense. It is often easier for such persons, including those who are innocent, to plead out to a lesser charge and go home, than to make bail and/or stand trial with an attorney that will effectively represent them and get their case dismissed. This has the effect of inflating crime statistics against Blacks and other minorities not due to racism, but due to poverty and a corrupt policing and criminal justice system. Are these policies intentionally racist? Probably not. They simply are most impactful against poor minorities who can ill afford the time or money necessary to defend themselves, making them suitable targets for meeting stop and arrest quotas by officers. It’s not personally or deliberately racist, it’s simply socio-economic classist and merely happens to oppress Blacks and Hispanics more because of the high percentage of their community being members of this class. The net result is effectively racist, even if the cause is not. If an array of factors not specifically targeting Whites, but having the statistically verifiable net effect of disproportionately adversely affecting Whites existed in government policy, would you consider the policies to be racist? Probably not individually; but collectively, what other conclusion can you draw if Whites are disproportionately adversely affected above others? This is not to suggest that each policy, or all the policies as a whole are intentionally racist; only that they have the same net outcome and are therefore perceived to be racist. As previously mentioned, it does not take a majority of people to be intentionally, overtly, or even covertly racist. It can be completely unconscious, and completely unintentional or both. Furthermore, even if only a small minority of cops and judges are racist, if they consistently engage in racist behavior which goes unchecked (which is demonstrable in some cases), then it WILL have a net negative effect despite the lack of racist attitudes and behaviors of the majority of officers and judges. When good officers and judges do nothing about the bad officers and judges, can you still consider them to be good? Are some members or believers in the BLM movement racist? Unquestionably so. These are the aforementioned anti-white radicals which the Right-wing Conservative media is attempting to paint as the heart and soul of the BLM movement. Are some members of or believers in the BLM movement misguided by lies and misrepresentation, or blinded by in-group preferences to their own short-comings? Undoubtedly, but not any more so than opponents to the BLM movement are. Does White privilege exist? You’re naively ignorant of the facts if you think that it doesn’t. Is its prevalence and impact over-reported by the left? Again, you’re naively ignorant if you think that it’s not; it clearly is—problems exist on both sides. Furthermore, much of what is considered to be White privilege isn’t, it’s the privilege of the wealthy and socio-politically connected, or negative discrimination against minorities, usually socio-economic minorities (i.e. the poor and socially unconnected). Additionally, must of what is considered White privilege is in fact not privilege at all, but discrimination against minorities. While it’s true that most people are not overtly racist, harbor strong racial biases against particular races, or engage in strong racially prejudiced or motivated behaviors; there are nevertheless unconscious racial biases and in-group preferences on all sides which serve to perpetuate unconscious and covertly racist or racially biased behavior. To think you are immune to such biases and behaviors or that everyone you know and are friends with are is unwarranted unless you are consciously aware that you do not have any unconscious in-group preferences or biases against others and neither do any of your friends. In truth, most Whites tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, and most Blacks tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, with a few exceptions. The things you cited about affirmative action (more specifically, racial quotas in educational and hiring policies), gun control, the drug war, the criminal justice system’s statistical bias against minorities and welfare (all possibly explicable by socio-economic factors alone) are definitely a part of institutional racism. Another part is economic policies intended to increase home ownership by minorities (seen as a stepping stone to generational wealth and a means of transitioning to higher socio-economic classes) which have the opposite effect. Add to that, however, the unconscious or covert racism among many American corporations which pass up minorities for interviews to hire, merit/performance increases in pay commensurate with their equally or lesser performing peers, and promotions within companies and organizations, as well as the areas and roles in fashion and entertainment that have only recently begun to change in any significant way (e.g.., the very gradual increase of leading men and women played by Black actors, the more proportionate representation of fashion models and advertising depicting Blacks, etc.) If you suppose by my arguments that I believe a strong majority of people are overtly racist because you believe it must be so in order to rationally believe any of the claims made by BLM to have any merit, then perhaps you’re the one who has been drinking lead acetate; but a more likely scenario is that just as many have been deluded by many of the more absurd claims, and blinded to many of the faults in the BLM movement due to their own in-group preferences and personal experiences, you’ve been misled or misguided by some of the counter-claims and in-group biases against such claims. I believe the problems are much less “Black and White” than either side makes them out to be.
Worlok Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, and consequently, individuals of such races should be treated differently. Bigotry: Intolerance of people who are different. Racism is a form of bigotry, as is colorism (prejudice based on the shade of one’s skin), sexism, agism, anti-semitism, etc. Prejudice: A preconceived idea or point of view about a person(s), typically a result of stereotyping or pigeonholing the individual or group based on superficial observation and classification into a larger group of people one is biased toward or against. This term is sometimes mistakenly used in place of bigotry which is a persistent idea about a group or a member or members of a group, often despite empirical contra-indicatory data which is discounted or otherwise dismissed or ignored. Whether a person is acting in a prejudiced manner cannot be determined through observation of a single event. Further information must be obtained to determine whether any perceived bias is incidental, categorical, or entirely misperceived. Example: A shop keeper, new to a neighborhood, opens his store for the first time. may closely scrutinize the behavior of Black people who enter his store. One might assume he is prejudiced against these visitors based on his behavior, but one cannot be confident of such an assessment yet. One observes other Black people enter his store and one becomes increasingly confident that the shop keeper is behaving in a prejudiced manner towards these visitors and is indeed bigoted against Black people. Then one observes people of other races enter the store and the shop keeper equally scrutinizes the behavior of each person entering his store. One discerns that the previous assessment of prejudice was entirely misperceived. Many accuse others of racism for issues that have nothing to do with race, and which may or may not involve other forms of prejudice, simply as a means of poisoning the well against what they might say. In the case you cited, I believe Trump’s desire to build a wall likely has nothing to do with racism on his part, and has everything to do with pandering to his potential constituents on the Right who believe that building a wall on our Southern border will significantly curtail or stop a societal and cultural threat and a financial burden on our education and medical systems believed to be caused or exacerbated largely by Illegal immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics. I am sorry that your friendship has been challenged by your differences in social and political issues. One thing I believe is important to realize is that there are many groups of people involved in BLM. Some of those groups are violent, radical, anti-American, Anti-White, Nation of Islam types responsible for the recent police shootings in Dallas. Others, however, are rightfully appalled by and vehemently opposed to these murders and merely want the triple-standard of justice ended when it comes to police and the criminal justice system’s treatment of Blacks and other minorities vs Whites, and the all too frequent refusal on the part of governments to hold police to the same standard as civilians when it comes to the unjustified escalation of the use of force resulting in the injury or death of others especially Blacks; and also the larger society’s refusal to hold the Police and State Prosecutors accountable because of the perception (justified or not) that as far as the rest of society is concerned, Black lives simply don’t matter, or at least not as much. Apparently for the majority of society, it seems, if the person is Black and has a criminal record, their lives simply don’t matter, or they matter so little as to not warrant any regard whatsoever. You definitely have a different and in my opinion misguided view of how privilege works than I and many others. Privilege does not require a majority of society to treat you better than those who are not privileged. In fact, in requires only a small number of individuals in key positions of power to treat you better than they treat the rest of society for you to enjoy privilege over the rest of society. One can easily see this in the manner that celebrities are treated with privilege by some, but certainly not by most of society. Few will dispute that celebrities enjoy a privileged status in our society. Many celebrities are given free clothes, free lodging, free meals, and extra gratuities not afforded the average person. Such celebrities often incur special treatment with regard to their professional career as well when it comes to trials and sentencing for misdemeanors and certain felony convictions on the part of prosecutors and judges. When given by merchants, such treatment is often given in an attempt to curry the favor of such celebrities in exchange for public notoriety, but this does not change the fact that such celebrities are treated better than the rest of society. Nevertheless, not all of society treats celebrities as privileged, nor do all prosecutors or judges, nor does most of society need to for these celebrities to lead a privileged life. Nevertheless, privilege is not the same as negative discrimination. Discriminating in favor of one person or group above all others is privilege. Discriminating against one person or group above all others is the opposite of privilege. When there are only two groups involved, the result of both positive and negative discrimination will be identical and privilege will be indiscernible from negative discrimination. When more than one group is involved, only then one is able to distinguish between privilege and negative discrimination. This can be seen in the case of hiring practices which screen out applicants of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds for interviews unless one or two are needed to meet a hiring quota. Black Lives Matter is based on the premise that for the majority of society, the lives of Black people simply don’t seem to matter, or are significantly less important than the lives of White people and cops. This conclusion is based on the perceived difference in treatment in the news and by government of White and Black victims of crime, especially by agents of the state; and the perceived difference in treatment in the media, but most especially by agents of the government, of White and Black perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of crime. Whether such perception is substantially nothing more than the result of a very effective race-baiting campaign on the part of the left in capitalizing on a few exceptional cases that have gained nationwide notoriety, as some have suggested, or simply the result of greater awareness and dissemination of information about how the justice system actually works to systematically oppress people of lower socio-economic status and means, for whom a significant portion of the Black population are members is a matter of debate. Add to this the very real, but usually denied, dismissed, or minimized reality of covert and unconscious racism that persists in the American workplace against Blacks and minorities, and you’ll begin to understand why many Black people feel (even if unjustifiably so) just as persecuted today as their parents or grandparents were during the Jim Crow era and after the success of the Civil Rights movement in ending Jim Crow. It is suggested that it cannot be shown that government is racist against Blacks and other minorities, and yet time and again, when evidence is put forth, it is simply dismissed or excused as being caused by other factors. Evidence showing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped and interrogated than Whites and other minorities in a manner disproportionate to their presence in the population is routinely dismissed as simply being effective policing where the problem is. Statistics which show a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions of Blacks and Hispanics for minor drug infractions skew the results of criminality by race not because they inherently commit more crimes, but because they poor and cannot afford bail, to spend time in jail, or a lawyer to make an adequate defense. It is often easier for such persons, including those who are innocent, to plead out to a lesser charge and go home, than to make bail and/or stand trial with an attorney that will effectively represent them and get their case dismissed. This has the effect of inflating crime statistics against Blacks and other minorities not due to racism, but due to poverty and a corrupt policing and criminal justice system. Are these policies intentionally racist? Probably not. They simply are most impactful against poor minorities who can ill afford the time or money necessary to defend themselves, making them suitable targets for meeting stop and arrest quotas by officers. It’s not personally or deliberately racist, it’s simply socio-economic classist and merely happens to oppress Blacks and Hispanics more because of the high percentage of their community being members of this class. The net result is effectively racist, even if the cause is not. If an array of factors not specifically targeting Whites, but having the statistically verifiable net effect of disproportionately adversely affecting Whites existed in government policy, would you consider the policies to be racist? Probably not individually; but collectively, what other conclusion can you draw if Whites are disproportionately adversely affected above others? This is not to suggest that each policy, or all the policies as a whole are intentionally racist; only that they have the same net outcome and are therefore perceived to be racist. As previously mentioned, it does not take a majority of people to be intentionally, overtly, or even covertly racist. It can be completely unconscious, and completely unintentional or both. Furthermore, even if only a small minority of cops and judges are racist, if they consistently engage in racist behavior which goes unchecked (which is demonstrable in some cases), then it WILL have a net negative effect despite the lack of racist attitudes and behaviors of the majority of officers and judges. When good officers and judges do nothing about the bad officers and judges, can you still consider them to be good? Are some members or believers in the BLM movement racist? Unquestionably so. These are the aforementioned anti-white radicals which the Right-wing Conservative media is attempting to paint as the heart and soul of the BLM movement. Are some members of or believers in the BLM movement misguided by lies and misrepresentation, or blinded by in-group preferences to their own short-comings? Undoubtedly, but not any more so than opponents to the BLM movement are. Does White privilege exist? You’re naively ignorant of the facts if you think that it doesn’t. Is its prevalence and impact over-reported by the left? Again, you’re naively ignorant if you think that it’s not; it clearly is—problems exist on both sides. Furthermore, much of what is considered to be White privilege isn’t, it’s the privilege of the wealthy and socio-politically connected, or negative discrimination against minorities, usually socio-economic minorities (i.e. the poor and socially unconnected). Additionally, must of what is considered White privilege is in fact not privilege at all, but discrimination against minorities. While it’s true that most people are not overtly racist, harbor strong racial biases against particular races, or engage in strong racially prejudiced or motivated behaviors; there are nevertheless unconscious racial biases and in-group preferences on all sides which serve to perpetuate unconscious and covertly racist or racially biased behavior. To think you are immune to such biases and behaviors or that everyone you know and are friends with are is unwarranted unless you are consciously aware that you do not have any unconscious in-group preferences or biases against others and neither do any of your friends. In truth, most Whites tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, and most Blacks tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, with a few exceptions. The things you cited about affirmative action (more specifically, racial quotas in educational and hiring policies), gun control, the drug war, the criminal justice system’s statistical bias against minorities and welfare (all possibly explicable by socio-economic factors alone) are definitely a part of institutional racism. Another part is economic policies intended to increase home ownership by minorities (seen as a stepping stone to generational wealth and a means of transitioning to higher socio-economic classes) which have the opposite effect. Add to that, however, the unconscious or covert racism among many American corporations which pass up minorities for interviews to hire, merit/performance increases in pay commensurate with their equally or lesser performing peers, and promotions within companies and organizations, as well as the areas and roles in fashion and entertainment that have only recently begun to change in any significant way (e.g.., the very gradual increase of leading men and women played by Black actors, the more proportionate representation of fashion models and advertising depicting Blacks, etc.) If you suppose by my arguments that I believe a strong majority of people are overtly racist because you believe it must be so in order to rationally believe any of the claims made by BLM to have any merit, then perhaps you’re the one who has been drinking lead acetate; but a more likely scenario is that just as many have been deluded by many of the more absurd claims, and blinded to many of the faults in the BLM movement due to their own in-group preferences and personal experiences, you’ve been misled or misguided by some of the counter-claims and in-group biases against such claims. I believe the problems are much less “Black and White” than either side makes them out to be. Whole lot of non-arguments. If you want to say that I'm ignorant, you have to explain how. You say that I have absurd assertions, but you must explain why. If only a few people have to treat me different for whatever reason for it to be "privilege," then everybody has privilege for every reason anybody has ever treated them better. This would negate any semblance of relevance from the idea of "white privilege" because it would be no different than any other kind. Believing that white privilege would be worse or that white people need to man up to it or something would be a prejudiced, bigoted, and even racist belief. If some members of a racist group not being racist makes it not a racist group, then Nazis are not bad because not every member was a racist or believed in the messed up stuff that the Nazi party did. Conversely, if a few members of a group being good make the group not bad, then treating members of ISIL any different than than the pope is bad unless you have proof that that member committed overtly illegal actions. Blacks and hispanics commit crimes vastly disproportionate to their population ratio to whites and thus will inevitably be stopped in a disproportionate amount. If society doesn't care about blacks and most of society are whites, then you are saying that whites, overall don't care about blacks, so at least you admit that. If a government policy or law overwhelmingly helps one group, unless the policy or law directly targets that group or was created with the intent to target that group (war on drugs, abortion, affirmative action) then the policy/law is not racist/prejudiced/bigoted. Suppose we have the 2nd amendment and all blacks decide to kill each other with guns. It doesn't mean them having the right is racist. It simply means that what free people did themselves was not particularly beneficial to themselves. If a group sucks at free trade and has bad work ethic for whatever reason, it doesn't make free trade racist. It just means that they are probably stupid and/or lazy. Many racist government policies cannot quite be argued to be institutional racism. If a person writes a law with racist intent and the law has racist effect, if all the other people that signed it believed it was a good law for other reasons and had no knowing the the racist intent, then it is not institutional. It is 1 legislator being a racist. However, If a majority of legislators find that it is a racist law made by a racist with overtly racist effects, yet choose not to remove the law because they agree with the racist intent, that would be institutional racism, but it would only be racism of the institution of that specific chamber of legislature, not racism through the entire government. people can be unconsciously prejudiced. However, if you ask them if they are racist or intolerant of people for whatever reason and they get to thinking about it, if they can honestly come to the conclusion that they are not racist or intolerant, then they aren't racist or bigoted. That would be self evident and would be unable to be those things unconscious. However, just an unconscious prejudice is simply ignorant, but can also be based in statistics. If you avoid a black person you haven't met because they might be a criminal because 1 in 4 black men spend time in the slammer, then it is a prejudice that is based on the fact that there is an overwhelming chance of being true. I only slept for 4 hours, but you have like 30 down votes, so I think you get the idea. 1 1
Nathan Metric Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 The problem is we can't even agree on what "Racism", "bigotry" or "prejudice" mean in the first place. Worklok's definition of racism "Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, yet not reliant on scientific fact of basic differences between various races/groups." EclectricIdealist's definition "Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, and consequently, individuals of such races should be treated differently." Those are two completely different concepts of what racism is. So which is correct? Well, racism is supposed to be used in a derogatory way. Which means it better damn well have a derogatory meaning lest it reduced to a manipulative curse word. Now is possessing beliefs about race based on evidence evil? No, so why should that be considered racism? Isn't the truth a virtue? Why would holding beliefs that are based on the truth be evil? That seems like an utter absurdity!!!! So clearly Worklok's definition is better because it adds the qualification that the beliefs have to not be based on evidence which is an obvious vice. Without that qualification there is no moral significance in calling someone a racist. 1
Drew. Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 I have wanted to add to this conversation, but at the same time, I haven't wanted to catch up on all of the content that has already been posted and discussed. I would like to share a different version of bigotry, which is the belief in something without evidence. It would be bigoted to say that all homosexuals are rampaging sexaholics. It would be bigoted to say that all asians are really intelligent. It would be bigoted to say that people who like chocolate ice cream are compensating for sexual deficits. In which case, BLM and notions of white privilege are inherently bigoted.
aviet Posted August 13, 2016 Posted August 13, 2016 In which case, BLM and notions of white privilege are inherently bigoted. I subscribe to your definition and reasoning. What are your and other's thought on statements like: "Somalians are 340% over-represented in felony crimes in Norway, while Western Europeans and Chinese are under-represented." Source: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/kriminalitet-og-straff-blant-innvandrere-og-ovrig-befolkning I think such data is very important and needs to be discussed. As a male I a quite happy for people to bring up statistics on the over-representation of males in crimes, violence, rape etc. I just don't like the incessant tarring of men by feminists, i.e. female supremacists. 1
Drew. Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 I subscribe to your definition and reasoning. What are your and other's thought on statements like: "Somalians are 340% over-represented in felony crimes in Norway, while Western Europeans and Chinese are under-represented." Source: https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/kriminalitet-og-straff-blant-innvandrere-og-ovrig-befolkning I think such data is very important and needs to be discussed. As a male I a quite happy for people to bring up statistics on the over-representation of males in crimes, violence, rape etc. I just don't like the incessant tarring of men by feminists, i.e. female supremacists. Allow me to correct my definition a bit: bigotry is the belief that something is true without evidence. If I understand what the statement means, it is that Somalians are involved in more recorded felonious crimes in Norway than two other racial/cultural groups. I cannot read the study, so I fundamentally don't know if it is true or not. Assuming that it is: It is very possible that the laws are biased, e.g. it could be a felony to wear a crucifix or to shave one's face, or the reverse could apply where it is not a felony to murder a heretic or rape a woman who is not a virgin. If the laws are not biased against one non-violent group in particular, it could be that the enforcement of such laws is biased, that the Chinese commit the same amount or more felonies but they may be more willing to bribe law enforcement officers and skirt the full force of the law or W. Europeans who commit felonies are less likely to be sentenced for them. Finally, it could be that Somalians have a greater record of felonies compared to other groups because are genuinely are committing more felonies than other groups. There might be something wrong with the people, in that case. I certainly do not know, but I do think that Norway is likely relatively fair with laws and enforcement. Given the state of Somalia and Africa in general, I think that there is probably something wrong with the people, and my first instinct is that it is a toxic culture. If the application of the law and enforcement of it is not biased, then the question to be raised is, why is this group over-represented? Why is this group more associated with this than other groups?
Recommended Posts