I think that it could be possible for a white person to use the word in formal conversation without intending offense. But I think that given the history of white people using the word, that erring on the side of caution is the best policy.
I can't agree with you on that last part. Once again, to say that it is never acceptable for someone to do or say something on the basis of their race, is racist. I'm all for exercising discretion when deciding when and how to use the word if at all, knowing its history and its power, but saying that a white person can never use this word no matter what is ridiculous. A grown man talking objectively (okay, maybe not objectively) about the history of a word while refusing to actually speak the word because the color of his skin makes that "improper" is ridiculous.
It feels like a lot of the institutionalized repression are such mild, simple rules no one has bothered to change.
If someone changed, not even removed, but just changed the punishment for drug possession - at least to something more practical and intelligent, many of these prejudices wouldn't even have an opportunity to manifest.
Yeah it would be really interesting to see how the numbers would change if possession of a small quantity of illegal drugs were a minor offense and only amounts that are considered to demonstrate 'intent to sell' were criminalized.
First step is to make drug use not a crime and only target dealers.
So do you believe that stuff like Civil Rights Legislation would have worked better if instead people just told everyone to be less racist or prejudice?
That's... really not the same as this at all. Nullifying laws that explicitly disadvantage a group of people and enacting laws that explicitly advantage the same group are not even remotely the same.
I can't agree with you on that last part. Once again, to say that it is never acceptable for someone to do or say something on the basis of their race, is racist. I'm all for exercising discretion when deciding when and how to use the word if at all, knowing its history and its power, but saying that a white person can never use this word no matter what is ridiculous. A grown man talking objectively (okay, maybe not objectively) about the history of a word while refusing to actually speak the word because the color of his skin makes that "improper" is ridiculous.
You're arguing for colorblindness here, which is a farce. So long as you and I are white, we will be received differently.
I'm not even supposing you mean offense by using it; I just think that the feelings of your potential audience (supposing you had opportunity to have this same sort of conversation with a large audience) are more important than your kvetching about not being able to use it. And I think that "not being able to use the n-word" is a pretty weak example of reverse racism.
That's... really not the same as this at all. Nullifying laws that explicitly disadvantage a group of people and enacting laws that explicitly advantage the same group are not even remotely the same.
Your argument that affirmative action advantages minorities implicitly argues that the playing field is already level and that affirmative action is what tips it into unfairness. Surely you don't actually believe that white people and black people have the same access to "equal opportunity" absent something like affirmative action, do you?
The cocaine sentencing policy in this country is such a blatant act of racism.
Despite what the author in the OP said, it is statistically true that powder cocaine is used in higher rates by whites than blacks and that crack cocaine is used in higher rates with blacks than whites.
Crack cocaine, while being almost identical to powder cocaine carries a sentence 100 times higher than powder. eg. In order to receive the same sentence as someone charged with possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, one would have to be in possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. And that's not up for interpretation, the 100 to 1 policy is a congressional law.
It disproportionately affects blacks and is one of the many reasons there are more blacks in prison than whites despite the fact blacks are a much smaller segment of society than whites.
The law should be colorblind. This I believe absolutely.
Mumei said:
I'm not even supposing you mean offense by using it; I just think that the feelings of your potential audience (supposing you had opportunity to have this same sort of conversation with a large audience) are more important than your kvetching about not being able to use it.
What audience? I mean, that really matters. If I am in a classroom and I am quoting Huckleberry Finn, and people are offended by that, that is honest-to-god their problem. If I am at an academic conference or having a formal debate and I am talking about the etymology and usage of the word "nigger", and someone is offended by that in that context, that too is their problem. If I am an author or actor and I include the word in a line of dialogue for a story set in a time and/or place where it would be realistic for it to be spoken - even by a character who is racist - how can that be considered offensive? If I am having a personal conversation with someone who knows that I have no hateful intent and I am quoting a line from a song or a movie, who is there to even be offended? If I am using the term in its colloquial usage, devoid of any racial context, to refer to friends or acquaintances - it's highly politically incorrect, and I should be aware of who is listening to avoid hurting anyone's feelings unjustly, but I don't see any moral problem with it (in fact, one could make the argument that using it in this context helps further separate its associations with hatred and discrimination). (Incidentally I almost never use the word unless it is specifically relevant to the topic of conversation, because it makes me uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean anyone who does do it is automatically racist or being racist.)
It's context. Context is everything.
Mumei said:
And I think that "not being able to use the n-word" is a pretty weak example of reverse racism.
I mean in terms of characterizing Wise it's a mild and perhaps even petty example, but it is an example nonetheless. I could try and subject myself to some of his screeds to grab more substantial ones, but honestly I have a lot of other stuff I'm supposed to be doing right now.
Mumei said:
Your argument that affirmative action advantages minorities implicitly argues that the playing field is already level and that affirmative action is what tips it into unfairness. Surely you don't actually believe that white people and black people have the same access to "equal opportunity" absent something like affirmative action, do you?
Depends. Do you mean to suggest that every place of employment in America is discriminatory in its hiring policies? Because that seems unlikely. And would it not be more democratic to go after the root causes of the problem than to enact a very undemocratic policy to inelegantly combat just one of its manifestations?
It shouldn't be. That's not an antiracist position to take (insofar as I'm defining being antiracist as opposing any practice which "creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race" (Omi and Winant in Racial Formation in the United States), since it is an appeal to this sort of abstract liberalism frame you're using which necessitates ignoring the real world and the severe lack of representation of black people in good jobs, schools, universities, etc.
You can't simultaneously claim to be concerned with the plight of black people in the United States and then in the next breath argue against any practical measures for dealing with it on the basis of some fantasy - equal opportunity - that doesn't actually exist.
You do realize that in any context about any subject or any word anyone could name, it is always "their problem"?
That wasn't really what it was about. I was making a point about whether you should be concerned about their feelings. I think you should; you think their feelings are unimportant. Right?
And yes, context is everything. Historical context is a part of context, not just the social context in which it is being used. And the one example I found persuasive was the actor playing a part.
I mean in terms of characterizing Wise it's a mild and perhaps even petty example, but it is an example nonetheless. I could try and subject myself to some of his screeds to grab more substantial ones, but honestly I have a lot of other stuff I'm supposed to be doing right now.
I wasn't really ever interested in your opinion about Wise in particular; he's just one man. I was interested in real world examples of reverse racism (of which affirmative action is not an example).
Depends. Do you mean to suggest that every place of employment in America is discriminatory in its hiring policies? Because that seems unlikely. And would it not be more democratic to go after the root causes of the problem than to enact a very undemocratic policy to inelegantly combat just one of its manifestations?
... How often, honestly, have we seen improvements in the position of a minority group without the majority being dragged along kicking and screaming? If it were as simple as instituting the policies at companies as you were suggesting, it would have been done a long, long time ago. Absent companies taking it upon themselves to deal with racism in their hiring practices - and I do think it is endemic - I think that government policy is the place to go.
It shouldn't be. That's not an antiracist position to take (insofar as I'm defining being antiracist as opposing any practice which "creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race" (Omi and Winant in Racial Formation in the United States), since it is an appeal to this sort of abstract liberalism frame you're using which necessitates ignoring the real world and the severe lack of representation of black people in good jobs, schools, universities, etc.
You can't simultaneously claim to be concerned with the plight of black people in the United States and then in the next breath argue against any practical measures for dealing with it on the basis of some fantasy - equal opportunity - that doesn't actually exist.
Well then, I guess we have irreconcilably different definitions of "racism". If believing in equal opportunity as a principle of society makes me a racist (???), I'm okay with that. Frankly, if you think equal opportunity is a fantasy then maybe you should be encouraging people to leave the USA itself, because it's kind of the founding principle of our entire system of government. Trying to change the basic ideals on which this country operates will inevitably prove about as fruitful as all socialists have found it to be for the last century or so.
Mumei said:
You do realize that in any context about any subject or any word anyone could name, it is always "their problem"?
That wasn't really what it was about. I was making a point about whether you should be concerned about their feelings. I think you should; you think their feelings are unimportant. Right?
If they are so sensitive that they are offended by the use of the word in one of the contexts I specified, completely divorced from any actual hatred or discrimination, solely because of the color of my skin, then yeah; I don't care about their feelings. I mean, okay, that's a bad way to put it; I do care about their feelings, I don't enjoy hurting people's feelings, but I don't think it's right to do some awkward self-censoring dance to avoid saying what I'm really trying to say because my skin color supposedly makes me accountable for actions committed by other people to whom I have literally no relation. When we talk about Voldemort, let's call him "Voldemort"; to insistently call him "He Who Must Not Be Named" only grants him power over us. (Again, I'm not saying it's appropriate for a white guy to just go around saying "nigger" in public contexts; yes, it carries a certain baggage when a white person uses it that it does not when a black person uses it, and yes, even in some cases where it may technically be appropriate there's no reason to offend people when it isn't necessary. But that does not mean that it is never acceptable in any context for a white person to use the word.)
Mumei said:
And yes, context is everything. Historical context is a part of context, not just the social context in which it is being used. And the one example I found persuasive was the actor playing a part.
When in the process of judging the appropriateness and morality of an individual's action you cease to take into account individual discretion, circumstance, culpability and intent in light of their "identity" in a "historical" or broader social perspective, you are arguing for a view of human nature, morality and personal responsibility that I can no longer get behind.
Mumei said:
I wasn't really ever interested in your opinion about Wise in particular; he's just one man. I was interested in real world examples of reverse racism (of which affirmative action is not an example).
Well, since we've now established that you are using a completely different definition of "racism" than I am, I guess I'll have to think about that! Would something only qualify as "racism" going by your school of thought if it were demonstrable in the form of massive social consequences?
Mumei said:
... How often, honestly, have we seen improvements in the position of a minority group without the majority being dragged along kicking and screaming? If it were as simple as instituting the policies at companies as you were suggesting, it would have been done a long, long time ago. Absent companies taking it upon themselves to deal with racism in their hiring practices - and I do think it is endemic - I think that government policy is the place to go.
I think government policy should encourage colorblind hiring, not compensatory hiring. Unless you're suggesting that minorities are not just as qualified for white-collar jobs as whites?
Well then, I guess we have irreconcilably different definitions of "racism". If believing in equal opportunity as a principle of society makes me a racist (???), I'm okay with that. Frankly, if you think equal opportunity is a fantasy then maybe you should be encouraging people to leave the USA itself, because it's kind of the founding principle of our entire system of government. Trying to change the basic ideals on which this country operates will inevitably prove about as fruitful as all socialists have found it to be for the last century or so.
I'm going to attempt to be blunt here, because for some reason this is hard to understand.
White people have an inherent advantage over minorities in the United States. This is an undeniable fact of our society, history, and culture.
Given equal levels of education and exertion, in 2012, a white person in America will always have an advantage over a black person in America. In how they're treated by employers, by law enforcement, by society at large. This is felt in different ways and different degrees of magnitude in different places and situations, but this too is fact.
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand the idea that hundreds of years of oppression, discrimination, and prejudice had socioeconomic effects that didn't magically disappear after a piece of legislation was signed, or a Supreme Court ruling came down. The entire purpose of affirmative action programs, aside from any issues with individual implementations, is to level the playing field - not to give minorities an advantage, but to attempt to match the advantage that whites already have by virtue of being born white in America.
I've used a similar analogy before, but it's like a relay race in which, for the first three laps, one team got to run unimpeded and the other was forced to carry 50 pounds of weight on their backs. Then after lap three, you take the weights away and say "you're free to run now!", as if that's going to give anyone on team 2 a fighting chance, and react to any suggestion of a handicap to the first team by shouting "that's unfair, you have to treat everyone equally!"
If they are so sensitive that they are offended by the use of the word in one of the contexts I specified, completely divorced from any actual hatred or discrimination, solely because of the color of my skin, then yeah; I don't care about their feelings. I mean, okay, that's a bad way to put it; I do care about their feelings, I don't enjoy hurting people's feelings, but I don't think it's right to do some awkward self-censoring dance to avoid saying what I'm really trying to say because my skin color supposedly makes me accountable for actions committed by other people to whom I have literally no relation. When we talk about Voldemort, let's call him "Voldemort"; to insistently call him "He Who Must Not Be Named" only grants him power over us. (Again, I'm not saying it's appropriate for a white guy to just go around saying "nigger" in public contexts; yes, it carries a certain baggage when a white person uses it that it does not when a black person uses it, and yes, even in some cases where it may technically be appropriate there's no reason to offend people when it isn't necessary. But that does not mean that it is never acceptable in any context for a white person to use the word.)
Let's say for the sake of argument that it is never acceptable for you to use the word.
there are exceptions, but let's drop that line for now
How is your life diminished, by the lack of ability to use a racial slur? There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language. Are you telling me that the inability to use one of them without being criticized for it, is a huge problem? Especially when you're talking about a word used for so long for the express purpose of putting down and verbally abusing an entire race of oppressed people? Is a little understanding really too much to ask?
When in the process of judging the appropriateness and morality of an individual's action you cease to take into account individual discretion, circumstance, culpability and intent in light of their "identity" in a "historical" or broader social perspective, you are arguing for a view of human nature, morality and personal responsibility that I can no longer get behind
If you cannot handle the moral idea that personal responsibility means that sometimes you cannot say the things that you want to say, because what you want to say causes pain to someone else, then honestly I think your morality is flawed.
I think government policy should encourage colorblind hiring, not compensatory hiring. Unless you're suggesting that minorities are not just as qualified for white-collar jobs as whites?
There is no such thing as colorblind hiring, unless you want to hire people without ever doing job interviews and keeping all names and personal information sealed from those doing the hiring.
Well then, I guess we have irreconcilably different definitions of "racism". If believing in equal opportunity as a principle of society makes me a racist (???), I'm okay with that. Frankly, if you think equal opportunity is a fantasy then maybe you should be encouraging people to leave the USA itself, because it's kind of the founding principle of our entire system of government. Trying to change the basic ideals on which this country operates will inevitably prove about as fruitful as all socialists have found it to be for the last century or so.
Your non sequiturs about "America! Love it or leave!" and "lol socialists" aside, I was taking about "equal opportunity" - outside of the abstract - as being a fantasy, the reasons for which Htown was so kind as to explain. I was arguing against a position - your position, though you didn't name it - of abstract liberalism that makes appeals to liberal ideals in the abstract (for instance, equal opportunity) while turning a blind eye to realities in the world which prevent equal opportunity from taking place (such as the effects of racism past and present).
Affirmative action is a tool for coming closer to equal opportunity, not advantaging one race over another. That is the entire point of it.
And for what it's worth, I didn't say anything made you a racist, and I don't particularly care if you are or not.
Well, since we've now established that you are using a completely different definition of "racism" than I am, I guess I'll have to think about that! Would something only qualify as "racism" going by your school of thought if it were demonstrable in the form of massive social consequences?
I would prefer that you come up with something meaningful, yes. These picayune complaints about not being able to use a certain word or affirmative action (which again is not an example; taking us from advantage-white to advantage-white-but-not-as-bad is not anti-white) shouldn't sway anyone.
I'm going to attempt to be blunt here, because for some reason this is hard to understand.
White people have an inherent advantage over minorities in the United States. This is an undeniable fact of our society, history, and culture.
Given equal levels of education and exertion, in 2012, a white person in America will always have an advantage over a black person in America. In how they're treated by employers, by law enforcement, by society at large. This is felt in different ways and different degrees of magnitude in different places and situations, but this too is fact.
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand the idea that hundreds of years of oppression, discrimination, and prejudice had socioeconomic effects that didn't magically disappear after a piece of legislation was signed, or a Supreme Court ruling came down. The entire purpose of affirmative action programs, aside from any issues with individual implementations, is to level the playing field - not to give minorities an advantage, but to attempt to match the advantage that whites already have by virtue of being born white in America.
I've used a similar analogy before, but it's like a relay race in which, for the first three laps, one team got to run unimpeded and the other was forced to carry 50 pounds of weight on their backs. Then after lap three, you take the weights away and say "you're free to run now!", as if that's going to give anyone on team 2 a fighting chance, and react to any suggestion of a handicap to the first team by shouting "that's unfair, you have to treat everyone equally!"
There is no such thing as colorblind hiring, unless you want to hire people without ever doing job interviews and keeping all names and personal information sealed from those doing the hiring.
All those studies showing how white names get the most calls for interviews despite the same experience and education as resumes with minority names show that even if you couldn't see the person you're interviewing, something as simple as their name will already trigger subtle discrimination that the HR people might not even realize they are doing.
"Inherent"? No. There is nothing inherent about racism in our society and especially our system of government. Just because it was there from the beginning does not make it inherent.
Htown said:
Given equal levels of education and exertion, in 2012, a white person in America will always have an advantage over a black person in America. In how they're treated by employers, by law enforcement, by society at large. This is felt in different ways and different degrees of magnitude in different places and situations, but this too is fact.
Really? Always? I'd be willing to concede "often", maybe even "most of the time", but "always"?
Htown said:
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand the idea that hundreds of years of oppression, discrimination, and prejudice had socioeconomic effects that didn't magically disappear after a piece of legislation was signed, or a Supreme Court ruling came down. The entire purpose of affirmative action programs, aside from any issues with individual implementations, is to level the playing field - not to give minorities an advantage, but to attempt to match the advantage that whites already have by virtue of being born white in America.
You seem to be misrepresenting my argument here, as several people I've had this debate with have done. I'm not arguing that racism no longer exists in America - though surely you wouldn't deny that it has, as a social malady, improved significantly and continuously over the last 150 years. I'm just dubious about what the appropriate measures to take as an "equalizer" really are. You seem to think I don't understand the arguments behind affirmative action, which isn't the case - just because I don't understand them doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
Htown said:
I've used a similar analogy before, but it's like a relay race in which, for the first three laps, one team got to run unimpeded and the other was forced to carry 50 pounds of weight on their backs. Then after lap three, you take the weights away and say "you're free to run now!", as if that's going to give anyone on team 2 a fighting chance, and react to any suggestion of a handicap to the first team by shouting "that's unfair, you have to treat everyone equally!"
There is a shred of truth to this analogy but unfortunately it does not sufficiently capture the complexities and scale of the real-life situation. Also, like many of these arguments, it seems to see people as races rather than individuals, which I thought was a mode of thinking we were trying to get rid of.
Htown said:
Let's say for the sake of argument that it is never acceptable for you to use the word.
there are exceptions, but let's drop that line for now
How is your life diminished, by the lack of ability to use a racial slur? There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language. Are you telling me that the inability to use one of them without being criticized for it, is a huge problem? Especially when you're talking about a word used for so long for the express purpose of putting down and verbally abusing an entire race of oppressed people? Is a little understanding really too much to ask?
But... you just confirmed my entire argument in the first two sentences. There's nothing else to say. It is, in some contexts, not inappropriate for a white person to use the word. In others (most, as a matter of fact), it is tasteless at best and hateful at worst. Speaker discretion advised.
And yeah, saying someone cannot say something, at all, ever, is wrong, plain and simple. (Well, except maybe for direct threats of violence, but that's another issue.) That's not a question of privilege, pleasure, convenience or even taste, it's a question of rights. People have the right to exercise free speech in private venues, even if what they have to say is disgusting and offensive. What you're offering are reasons why someone shouldn't say this particular word, or abuse it, all of which are sensible and valid in the majority of everyday contexts.
Htown said:
If you cannot handle the moral idea that personal responsibility means that sometimes you cannot say the things that you want to say, because what you want to say causes pain to someone else, then honestly I think your morality is flawed.
Where do you end this line of reasoning? "Pain" in the form of "offended sensibilities" is unquantifiable and subjective. There are black people who are offended when black people use the word. There are white people who are offended when black people use the word. There are white and black people who are offended by the insinuation that they are "forbidden" from using the word. No matter what you do or say, there's always someone who will be offended. Better to say what you think and hope your good intentions speak for themselves than constantly worry about whether someone might be offended.
There's some really good quote somewhere about how one should want people to speak their mind so that they know who their enemies are; I wish I could remember it.
Htown said:
There is no such thing as colorblind hiring, unless you want to hire people without ever doing job interviews and keeping all names and personal information sealed from those doing the hiring.
What I'm trying to think of is a hiring system that would bypass this. Maybe have the applicant conduct a job interview with someone other than the person or people making the hiring decision, who then pass on the information to said people in a form that excludes information about factors irrelevant to employment such as sex, race or physical appearance. Maybe it's a naive idea, but as far as I can tell it doesn't seem like much more of a stretch than affirmative action, and vastly more fair.
I guess dismissing my arguments about this irreducibly complex social issue entirely on the basis of a sarcastic crack made in a Youtube comments section is a lot easier than responding to them at this point. Don't worry about it too much though, I've already found people more capable of defending your position than you are and the big boys are having a discussion now.
I guess dismissing my arguments about this irreducibly complex social issue entirely on the basis of a sarcastic crack made in a Youtube comments section is a lot easier than responding to them at this point. Don't worry about it too much though, I've already found people more capable of defending your position than you are and the big boys are having a discussion now.
Your non sequiturs about "America! Love it or leave!" and "lol socialists" aside, I was taking about "equal opportunity" - outside of the abstract - as being a fantasy, the reasons for which Htown was so kind as to explain. I was arguing against a position - your position, though you didn't name it - of abstract liberalism that makes appeals to liberal ideals in the abstract (for instance, equal opportunity) while turning a blind eye to realities in the world which prevent equal opportunity from taking place (such as the effects of racism past and present).
Well I mean, you're arguing that America should adopt a system of government based on principles diametrically opposed to the ones it was founded on and the ones it holds now. What do you want me to say? I don't believe that the "abstract" ideals of liberal democracy are incompatible with reality. That they are not always carried through as they should be does not mean that they are unfeasible goals.
Mumei said:
Affirmative action is a tool for coming closer to equal opportunity, not advantaging one race over another. That is the entire point of it.
And I'm pretty sure I have already explained why it is a troubling and unjust tool that creates as many problems as it solves. Maybe I didn't explain it thoroughly enough.
Mumei said:
And for what it's worth, I didn't say anything made you a racist, and I don't particularly care if you are or not.
But that is what Tim Wise said, and that was what opened up this particular line of argument in the first place.
Mumei said:
I would prefer that you come up with something meaningful, yes. These picayune complaints about not being able to use a certain word or affirmative action (which again is not an example; taking us from advantage-white to advantage-white-but-not-as-bad is not anti-white) shouldn't sway anyone.
I mean, I guess if you want to act like an entire social philosophy is inherently illegitimate and indefensible just because it does not align with your personal beliefs, you can do that, sure.
So - just so we're clear here - what you're suggesting with this comment is that the fact that I have been arguing against the notion that someone should not ever be able to speak a particular word because they were born with skin of a certain color means I am encouraging all white people to say it all the time just because they can? If so, A+ slippery slope argument.
Mumei said:
And that attempt at trying to prove that I'm the real racist (!!11!) was a particularly classless touch, gatotsu.
I wasn't so much attempting to "prove" anything as to mock the notion that "anyone who opposes my point of view is the 'real racist'". Perhaps that part was a little out of line, but I'm a bit sick of being called a racist because I don't agree with radical-left theories on race and society, and I'm beginning to wonder whether you guys don't have any better means of ending a debate short of finger-pointing and condescension.
Well I mean, you're arguing that America should adopt a system of government based on principles diametrically opposed to the ones it was founded on and the ones it holds now. What do you want me to say? I don't believe that the "abstract" ideals of liberal democracy are incompatible with reality. That they are not always carried through as they should be does not mean that they are unfeasible goals.
... You know I started to respond, and then I realized that essentially every sentence was either wrong, or it was a non sequitur, or it was a logical fallacy, or it was based on an untrue premise. And I realized that you had already been presented with the explanations to all of these things you just said.
And then I read Dev's post and realized I was wasting my time with you. Have fun with Htown, if he'll have you.
They quoted that post a page ago and I already wrote up my opinions on Tim Wise in this thread, so I don't think you're actually proving much of anything. Lol. Care to explain why I'm wrong instead of just taking it as a given?
They quoted that post a page ago and I already wrote up my opinions on Tim Wise in this thread, so I don't think you're actually proving much of anything. Lol. Care to explain why I'm wrong instead of just taking it as a given?
... You know I started to respond, and then I realized that essentially every sentence was either wrong, or it was a non sequitur, or it was a logical fallacy, or it was based on an untrue premise. And I realized that you had already been presented with the explanations to all of these things you just said.
Well, I guess one of us had to give at this point. It's okay, our views are irreconcilable at the most fundamental level. I don't think you're a stupid, horrible, hateful or ignorant person for having them, I just think you're misguided; I would ask that same basic respect in return. History will decide who's right, and whatever the case may be hopefully the end result will be a better country and a better life for all people regardless of race, sex, etc. If that can be attained then I don't care whose theories are right or wrong, and I hope none of you do either.
EDIT: Looking back and Jesus tap-dancing Christ how did this discussion turn so ugly so fast? As recently as the top of this page it was still completely civilized. What the fuck happened? I apologize for any way in which I directly contributed to this thread going completely to shit.
Well, I guess one of us had to give at this point. It's okay, our views are irreconcilable at the most fundamental level. I don't think you're a stupid, horrible, hateful or ignorant person for having them, I just think you're misguided; I would ask that same basic respect in return. History will decide who's right, and whatever the case may be hopefully the end result will be a better country and a better life for all people regardless of race, sex, etc. If that can be attained then I don't care whose theories are right or wrong, and I hope none of you do either.
EDIT: Looking back and Jesus tap-dancing Christ how did this discussion turn so ugly so fast? As recently as the top of this page it was still completely civilized. What the fuck happened?
@Domcorleone: I understand the theory, I just don't agree with it. Maybe I don't have the rhetorical ability or on-hand statistics at this time to properly support my position. Maybe the hostile response here is due to a failure in my own attempts to communicate my own theories and why I am skeptical of some of the theories presented here. Fine. I'll go and do some research, talk to some people on all sides of the political spectrum who are able to have a calm, polite discourse. I'll either be persuaded to change my position, or end up with a stronger argument for my current one. Fine. I just want what's best for everyone. I regret that my first comment in this thread was in mockery of a popular activist, I regret continuing to engage in this debate after it started visibly going sour, and I regret actively contributing to making it worse. If any mods reading this would be charitable enough to erase all signs of my participation in this thread, that'd be great. If attempting to express my views in this thread causes me to be vilified then I'd rather have kept them to myself. Do not want this shitstorm to be associated with my GAF profile.
@Domcorleone: I understand the theory, I just don't agree with it. Maybe I don't have the rhetorical ability or on-hand statistics at this time to properly support my position. Maybe the hostile response here is due to a failure in my own attempts to communicate my own theories and why I am skeptical of some of the theories presented here. Fine. I'll go and do some research, talk to some people on all sides of the political spectrum who are able to have a calm, polite discourse. I'll either be persuaded to change my position, or end up with a stronger argument for my current one. Fine. I just want what's best for everyone. I regret that my first comment in this thread was in mockery of a popular activist, I regret continuing to engage in this debate after it started visibly going sour, and I regret actively contributing to making it worse. If any mods reading this would be charitable enough to erase all signs of my participation in this thread, that'd be great. If attempting to express my views in this thread causes me to be vilified then I'd rather have kept them to myself.
How can you say on one hand that you agree with the notion that whites OFTEN have an advantage over blacks in America, and on the other hand say you dont agree with the very theory that supports said notion?
By being born white you automatically have an advantage in America, that doesnt mean you chose to be white, doesnt mean that you are racist, nor does it make you responsible for every act of prejudice or inequality that occurs. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that people that are not white do not have the same privilege as you do (assuming you are white) and understanding that you have power in your words and actions, and that power that you were born with by virtue of your skin color can be used to harm, offend, or stymie the progression of minorities whether wittingly or unwittingly.
As a black male I see the world as "less than" however by virtue of being a man, I am aware that I am seen as "greater than" when compared to woman just because of the status that men hold. So although women can call each other a "bitch" playfully or maliciously, I am aware that that very same word is taken differently by MOST women due to the fact that they have been subjected to that word for many many many years.
I could go on but I have a thesis to write on how ethnic minorities are under represented in psychological research pertaining to treatment interventions...
How can you say on one hand that you agree with the notion that whites OFTEN have an advantage over blacks in America, and on the other hand say you dont agree with the very theory that supports said notion?
Because they're not mutually exclusive! I agree that there is racism in American society, but I do not agree with the notion of how a society itself is constructed and functions that is required in order to believe in the theory of white privilege.
Domcorleone said:
By being born white you automatically have an advantage in America, that doesnt mean you chose to be white, doesnt mean that you are racist, nor does it make you responsible for every act of prejudice or inequality that occurs. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that people that are not white do not have the same privilege as you do (assuming you are white) and understanding that you have power in your words and actions, and that power that you were born with by virtue of your skin color can be used to harm, offend, or stymie the progression of minorities whether wittingly or unwittingly.
Look, I've never once in my life called a black person a nigger, I've never even used it as a fucking colloquial term, I don't think anyone anywhere deserves to be judged on account of their race and I want to work toward social change that will alleviate the impact of racism - that is, discrimination by and against individuals on the basis of race - as much as anyone here. I just want to ask, is there any way that I can disagree with these particular theories of race and society without the people who hold them seeing me as a racist, or an ignoramus, or a horrible person? I honestly want to know. They seem constructed in such a way as not to even tolerate opposing viewpoints. I've tried to express an opposing viewpoint in this thread while making it clear that I share the same end goal of fighting racism, and clearly I've failed. So is there any way to do it? Or is this a "with us or against us" scenario?
Because they're not mutually exclusive! I agree that there is racism in American society, but I do not agree with the notion of how a society itself is constructed and functions that is required in order to believe in the theory of white privilege.
Look, I've never once in my life called a black person a nigger, I've never even used it as a fucking colloquial term, I don't think anyone anywhere deserves to be judged on account of their race and I want to work toward social change that will alleviate the impact of racism - that is, discrimination by and against individuals on the basis of race - as much as anyone here. I just want to ask, is there any way that I can disagree with these particular theories of race and society without the people who hold them seeing me as a racist, or an ignoramus, or a horrible person? I honestly want to know. They seem constructed in such a way as not to even tolerate opposing viewpoints. I've tried to express an opposing viewpoint in this thread while making it clear that I share the same end goal of fighting racism, and clearly I've failed. So is there any way to do it? Or is this a "with us or against us" scenario?
you will never be able to help us move beyond race if you refuse to acknowledge your privilege. You say you want an even playing field and equality, but you have to know it is not how it is now. Understanding your inherent position over others that dont resemble you is how you start to aid in helping others less privileged than you get to the point where race does not matter. I dont think you are a racist, I do however find you are very ignorant of the world that we live in. You do not seem capable of empathizing with others from a different race than you it seems.
I want to work toward social change that will alleviate the impact of racism - that is, discrimination by and against individuals on the basis of race - as much as anyone here.
"One reason why, in general terms, whites and people of color cannot agree on racial matters is because they conceive of terms such as "racism" very differently. Whereas for most whites racism is prejudice, for most people of color racism is systemic or institutionalized.
Suggestion, if you're serious about research. It should be an enlightening look at your own rhetoric.
i´ve yet to see a fair, just, uncorrupted justice system in any country.
Just the other day i was reading the newspaper on how an accountant stole almost a million euros from his clients and was only sentenced to a 2 year suspended sentence and a 40 thousand euro fine to be paid to the people he stole from, the judge said that she couldnt fine him for the full amount because he needs to have money to make a living.
Concerning the topic, in Europe it´s pretty much the same, the minorities get the short end of the stick, blacks from the former colonies, gypsies from eastern europe, arabs from the med, they all get fucked over when it comes to jail time.
"One reason why, in general terms, whites and people of color cannot agree on racial matters is because they conceive of terms such as "racism" very differently. Whereas for most white racism is prejudice, for most people of color racism is systemic or institutionalized.
Suggestion, if you're serious about research. It should be an enlightening look at your own rhetoric.
I apologize for bumping this thread after three months or so of inactivity, but I just wanted to say that reading through it has inspired me to start reading Michelle Alexander's book. I've only read about 70 pages so far, but I have to say that it's really having an impact on me.
Similar to her older beliefs that she described in the introduction, I considered myself to be aware of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, but I assumed that it could be largely explained away by some other factor (like poverty). This book confronted my assumption with shocking numbers about just how quickly the prison system is expanding. The direct links between the proponents of segregation and the early proponents of being "tough on crime" are also depressing, with even the KKK apparently having hopped on the bandwagon.
I might do a follow up post once I've finished the book, but it already feels like essential reading.
... You know I started to respond, and then I realized that essentially every sentence was either wrong, or it was a non sequitur, or it was a logical fallacy, or it was based on an untrue premise. And I realized that you had already been presented with the explanations to all of these things you just said.
And then I read Dev's post and realized I was wasting my time with you. Have fun with Htown, if he'll have you.
Ya know. I read this thread going "What's new?". And then I saw Mumei's .gif response. In order to make Mumei, one of the most level headed and sane people answer you back with a gif response...I...I don't even know what to say.
I apologize for bumping this thread after three months or so of inactivity, but I just wanted to say that reading through it has inspired me to start reading Michelle Alexander's book. I've only read about 70 pages so far, but I have to say that it's really having an impact on me.
Similar to her older beliefs that she described in the introduction, I considered myself to be aware of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, but I assumed that it could be largely explained away by some other factor (like poverty). This book confronted my assumption with shocking numbers about just how quickly the prison system is expanding. The direct links between the proponents of segregation and the early proponents of being "tough on crime" are also depressing, with even the KKK apparently having hopped on the bandwagon.
I might do a follow up post once I've finished the book, but it already feels like essential reading.
Awesome to hear. I haven't read the book yet (I intend to), but I know first-hand how fucked up the criminal justice system is and it's great that this book is powerful enough to convey that to others.
It's a great book. It has plenty of references to check out all of her claims.
It's also scary and sad when you consider just how big of a problem this is in the US. Combine the racial disparity with the actual rates of incarceration in this country and it might as well be institutional apartheid given the repercussions of a felony conviction.
I actually appreciate the bump. I had thought about it myself because I thought the topic deserved more attention than it got, but it also felt sort of narcissistic in a way. I am especially glad that it got at least one person to try the book and that it is having an impact. On a more personal note, it couldn't have come at a better time for me, as I was feeling pretty stupid and embarrassed (don't ask) when I was clicking on my Subscriptions and saw this had been responded to.
And CrushDance, gatotsu911 is not myfirst, nor my favorite. Ol' vandalvideo will always have a special place in my heart for GAF Crazies. But at some point you just realize that they are fundamentally irrational and impervious to facts, and out come the gifs.
I actually appreciate the bump. I had thought about it myself because I thought the topic deserved more attention than it got, but it also felt sort of narcissistic in a way. I am especially glad that it got at least one person to try the book and that it is having an impact. On a more personal note, it couldn't have come at a better time for me, as I was feeling pretty stupid and embarrassed (don't ask) when I was clicking on my Subscriptions and saw this had been responded to.
And CrushDance, gatotsu911 is not myfirst, nor my favorite. Ol' vandalvideo will always have a special place in my heart for GAF Crazies. But at some point you just realize that they are fundamentally irrational and impervious to facts, and out come the gifs.
I actually appreciate the bump. I had thought about it myself because I thought the topic deserved more attention than it got, but it also felt sort of narcissistic in a way. I am especially glad that it got at least one person to try the book and that it is having an impact. On a more personal note, it couldn't have come at a better time for me, as I was feeling pretty stupid and embarrassed (don't ask) when I was clicking on my Subscriptions and saw this had been responded to.
And CrushDance, gatotsu911 is not myfirst, nor my favorite. Ol' vandalvideo will always have a special place in my heart for GAF Crazies. But at some point you just realize that they are fundamentally irrational and impervious to facts, and out come the gifs.
I just read both of those links, my jaw dropped, and I said out loud in my empty condo "what?"
On the topic, it's really a shame how many people don't seem to get that systematic racism makes this worse for lower/middle class white people. I really cannot wait for the day where ignorance is much less prevalent than it is now.
I just read both of those links, my jaw dropped, and I said out loud in my empty condo "what?"
On the topic, it's really a shame how many people don't seem to get that systematic racism makes this worse for lower/middle class white people. I really cannot wait for the day where ignorance is much less prevalent than it is now.
How can we ever have such a day when all things must be learnt? It's up to the parents and each generation to foster goodwill and peace for the next. The world we're born into, and all it's shackles and burdens; makes us who we are.
I am going to assume you actually said, "Que?" And yes. Rereading that topic, I actually notice I've mellowed out a lot over the last three years. I was, ahem, a bit bitchy back then.
On the topic, it's really a shame how many people don't seem to get that systematic racism makes this worse for lower/middle class white people. I really cannot wait for the day where ignorance is much less prevalent than it is now.
I think what's even worse is that there are people out there for whom knowing that systematic racism makes things worse for people who are not white is not enough; they need to know what is in it for them.
And to reiterate a recommendation I made earlier in this topic, I think for anyone who has read (or is thinking about reading) Michelle Alexander's book, this book by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is a good companion piece:
The subtitle of The New Jim Crow is, after all, "Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness", and this book does a good job of describing the ideology and rhetoric of colorblindness, which I think goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the continued support for manifestly racist drug policies that are essentially a collective form of racism that treats half of black men as essentially unnecessary. It's a pretty damning indictment, but for me I think that having read Racism Without Racists helped with reading Alexander's book.
And to reiterate a recommendation I made earlier in this topic, I think for anyone who has read (or is thinking about reading) Michelle Alexander's book, this book by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is a good companion piece:
The subtitle of The New Jim Crow is, after all, "Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness", and this book does a good job of describing the ideology and rhetoric of colorblindness, which I think goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the continued support for manifestly racist drug policies that are essentially a collective form of racism that treats half of black men as essentially unnecessary. It's a pretty damning indictment, but for me I think that having read Racism Without Racists helped with reading Alexander's book.
It's probably discussed in the book (haven't read this one either), but McClesky v. Kemp is really where the Supreme Court (and hence all the federal courts) turned their back on the plight of blacks and a blind eye to the use of the criminal justice system as the new Jim Crow. In that case, it held that persons could not rely upon statistics to show discrimination, but instead had to prove that identifiable actors in their cases were acting with discriminatory intent. The Court fretted that allowing such claims to succeed would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing. In other words, there was too much demonstrable racism in the system when looked at in aggregate! Justice Brennan famously dissented, writing that the majority's decision was based on "a fear of too much justice." Justice Powell--in the McClesky majority--told a reporter after retirement that if he could change his vote in any case it would have been McClesky. McClesky was a 5-4 decision.
It's probably discussed in the book (haven't read this one either), but McClesky v. Kemp is really where the Supreme Court (and hence all the federal courts) turned their back on the plight of blacks and a blind eye to the use of the criminal justice system as the new Jim Crow. In that case, it held that persons could not rely upon statistics to show discrimination, but instead had to prove that identifiable actors in their cases were acting with discriminatory intent. The Court fretted that allowing such claims to succeed would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing. In other words, there was too much demonstrable racism in the system when looked at in aggregate! Justice Brennan famously dissented, writing that the majority's decision was based on "a fear of too much justice." Justice Powell--in the McClesky majority--told a reporter after retirement that if he could change his vote in any case it would have been McClesky. McClesky was a 5-4 decision.
Oh, definitely. It has an entire section dedicated to it:
In erecting this high standard, the Court knew full well that the standard could not be met absent an admission that a prosecutor or judge acted because of racial bias. The majority opinion openly acknowledged that long-standing rules generally bar litigants from obtaining discovery from the prosecution regarding charging patterns and motives, and that similar rules forbid introduction of evidence of evidence of jury deliberations even when a juror has chosen to make deliberations public. The very evidence that the Court demanded in McCleskey - evidence of deliberate bias in his individual case - would almost always be unavailable and/or inadmissible due to procedural rules that shield jurors and prosecutors from scrutiny. This dilemma was of little concern to the Court. It closed the courthouse doors to claims of racial bias in sentencing.
There is good reason to believe that, despite appearances, the McClesky decision was not really about the death penalty at all; rather, the Court's opinion was driven by a desire to immunize the entire criminal justice system from claims of racial bias. The best evidence in support of this vew can be found at the end of the majority opinion where the Court states that discretion plays a necessary role in the implementation of the criminal justice system, and that discrimination is an inevitable byproduct of discretion. Racial discrimination, the Court seemed to suggest, was something that simply must be tolerated in the criminal justice system, provided no one admits to racial bias.
It was patently absurd. There was also the case mentioned in the OP where they could not use statistics, Armstrong v United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled that despite 1991 out of 2000 crack cases being sent to federal court in a three year period were black - and none were white - refused to allow Armstrong's lawyers access to data that would allow them to demonstrate racial bias in the way cases were sent either to federal or state court. The Court said because he hadn't shown any white defendants who should have been sent to federal court, but were instead sent to state court, Armstrong's lawyers had no argument for discovery for the records of the prosecutor's office. In other words, as the blogger in the OP said, "the Court demands that the defendants prove the very thing they are requesting data to help them prove."
And this is the quote from the majority decision you were probably thinking of:
Taken to its logical conclusion, throws into serious question the principles that underlie our criminal justice system [...] If we accepted McCleskey's claim that racial bias has impermissibly tainted the capital sentencing decision, we could soon be faced with similar claims as to other types of penalty.
It was pretty surprising reading how the Court over the last fifty years had so thoroughly gutted the Fourth Amendment by interpretations that remove most of its practical power to protect citizens from search and seizure, and even moreso how the Court has gone about immunizing the entire criminal justice system from claims of racial bias.
Its really depressing because the only solution* really seems to be white america realizing that the system is discriminating and deciding to fix it
It seems incapable of even admitting that this stuff is racist and feel that everything is post racial if they don't think of Black people as automatically inferior, that and the fact there still is overt racism which is disguised as stereotypes (angry black man, illegal job stealing latinos).
Oh, definitely. It has an entire section dedicated to it:
In erecting this high standard, the Court knew full well that the standard could not be met absent an admission that a prosecutor or judge acted because of racial bias. The majority opinion openly acknowledged that long-standing rules generally bar litigants from obtaining discovery from the prosecution regarding charging patterns and motives, and that similar rules forbid introduction of evidence of evidence of jury deliberations even when a juror has chosen to make deliberations public. The very evidence that the Court demanded in McCleskey - evidence of deliberate bias in his individual case - would almost always be unavailable and/or inadmissible due to procedural rules that shield jurors and prosecutors from scrutiny. This dilemma was of little concern to the Court. It closed the courthouse doors to claims of racial bias in sentencing.
There is good reason to believe that, despite appearances, the McClesky decision was not really about the death penalty at all; rather, the Court's opinion was driven by a desire to immunize the entire criminal justice system from claims of racial bias. The best evidence in support of this vew can be found at the end of the majority opinion where the Court states that discretion plays a necessary role in the implementation of the criminal justice system, and that discrimination is an inevitable byproduct of discretion. Racial discrimination, the Court seemed to suggest, was something that simply must be tolerated in the criminal justice system, provided no one admits to racial bias.
It was patently absurd. There was also the case mentioned in the OP where they could not use statistics, Armstrong v United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled that despite 1991 out of 2000 crack cases being sent to federal court in a three year period were black - and none were white - refused to allow Armstrong's lawyers access to data that would allow them to demonstrate racial bias in the way cases were sent either to federal or state court. The Court said because he hadn't shown any white defendants who should have been sent to federal court, but were instead sent to state court, Armstrong's lawyers had no argument for discovery for the records of the prosecutor's office. In other words, as the blogger in the OP said, "the Court demands that the defendants prove the very thing they are requesting data to help them prove."
And this is the quote from the majority decision you were probably thinking of:
Taken to its logical conclusion, throws into serious question the principles that underlie our criminal justice system [...] If we accepted McCleskey's claim that racial bias has impermissibly tainted the capital sentencing decision, we could soon be faced with similar claims as to other types of penalty.
It was pretty surprising reading how the Court over the last fifty years had so thoroughly gutted the Fourth Amendment by interpretations that remove most of its practical power to protect citizens from search and seizure, and even moreso how the Court has gone about immunizing the entire criminal justice system from claims of racial bias.
Never knew about this case. Again its just really depressing.
I really think thinking like this is really what racism hides behind in America. I'm not saying black people suck so I'm not racist. You actually have to state "I hate black/latino/asian people" to be racist which is BS.
You feel so helpless in situation like this. I can only hope to educate those around me.
