Paula Deen, one of the preeminent scholars on social justice has been saying this and it's time people showed some empathy for the people whos lives were wrecked by emancipation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Vox: Research says there are ways to reduce racism. Calling people racist isnt one.
- Thread starter Croatoan
- Start date
- Status
Paula Deen, one of the preeminent scholars on social justice has been saying this and it's time people showed some empathy for the people whos lives were wrecked by emancipation.
MDSVeritas
Member
I think that even with the advent of the Internet it's become apparent that's still incredibly easy to allow yourself to be closed in to a select environment of information and values. Those people who grow up in such areas closed off from much diversity and thus likely more prone to developing at least mildly prejudiced viewpoints may be on facebook and browsing google, but they are likely to be getting news articles and frequenting sites they get from people in their town, people of the same race, same heritage, likely same moral code, making even the expanse of exploring alternative perspectives through the Internet more limited for those entrenched in those physical locations.
While I wouldn't say it is nessecarily the responsibility of any one person or group to take responsibility for trying to bring new viewpoints to those kinds of communities I think a potentially strong way to make an impact would be for those already within those relatively closed social or familial circles to raise awareness of the outside world. In this way I, at least from my experience, agree with the concept that in scenarios like that; a daughter talking to her father, a nephew talking to an aunt, or two old friends from a small homogenous town, using incendiary language is likely to create a barrier and push the one with a more outside perspective out of the range of social contact whereas approaching that opportunity less aggressively (while still being firm in beliefs and not compromising their moral ideals just for the point of trying to find common ground) gives a greater chance to build an empathetic bridge outward from which members of that community might begin to further see and consider alternative perspectives.
I feel like people still aren't getting it, surprisingly (not really). Telling any minority, a Black person especially to be kinder to racist is akin to telling MLK Jr. that he didn't do enough during the civil rights era. We've had conversations since forever, and if a person won't recognize our humanity, then we owe them nothing.
The other thing about MLK is, white people didn't like him. Many white people today would not have supported MLK's message if they were born back then. They'd be making the excuse of he's divisive and he's doing too much and Black people have it good enough already. White people already had a victim complex when Black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus.
The other thing about MLK is, white people didn't like him. Many white people today would not have supported MLK's message if they were born back then. They'd be making the excuse of he's divisive and he's doing too much and Black people have it good enough already. White people already had a victim complex when Black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus.
IrishNinja
Member
completely agreed on all points
people act like 2016 will be remembered for celebrity/gorilla deaths, but it's the year of showing assess
yeah, this has (rightfully) been brought up in every apologist thread so far, but it doesn't fit the narrative i guess
...you know poe's law is a motherfucker when you do a double take on these posts ,haha
Meicyn
Gold Member
You're right, it's thankless work alright. The black transgender student who currently gets to use whatever bathroom they identify with at the military base I'm stationed at certainly didn't thank me (nor do I expect one) for being on the LGBT council that negotiated and explained to the principal and administration on the best (and potentially unpopular) position to take on the matter, before President Obama weighed in on the bathroom "problem". It didn't solve all of that students' problems as I have no doubt that as a transgender student and being a PoC at the same time, she is going through daily bullying to a degree that most would never experience. But it was a step in the right direction, and I got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction of moving her life one step further than where she had been. It's not enough, but it's something.
Having been a minority student myself, I got to experience the wide range of insults from chink, gook, ching chong, faggot, and anything else folks could come up with. Usually that bullying escalated to physical violence. I absolutely hated my childhood, and I know many experience far worse, well beyond childhood.
If the insinuation is that I can't empathize, well, I disagree. And it annoys me when folks who share my opinion that we probably should tone it down a touch, are referred to as "allies" in quotes with a whole slew of assumptions tacked on at the end. If you are pushing away the folks who want to help, what do you think is going to happen? We're on the same side!
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I don't think one person here was pushing you back.
soul creator
Member
long post incoming!
Well, the bolded is part of the problem I think. If we're already prima facie ruling out certain positions as "far too left", and restricting your political imagination solely to what mainstream Democratic candidates (the same mainstream candidates that have been largely losing elections since 2010) how can we hope to ever address anything?
I think people often just throw out the "too far left" as a reflex, and not actually pointing to evidence that a certain policy is actually unpopular (or so unpopular that it'd prevent someone voting for them). We just saw an election where plenty of people voted for someone like Trump in spite of all the terrible shit he supported, so why should be worried about scaring people off due to being "too far left"? We routinely go through elections where 40%-50% of people didn't vote, so isn't it certainly possible that a lot of those people might actually agree (or can be convinced to agree) with some "too far left" positions?
What's even weirder is that sometimes people will argue that Sanders is "too far left" while simultaneously arguing that "Clinton/Sanders are basically 93% the same!"
And as I've mentioned in the past, Clinton/Sanders in this context is just shorthand for the ideological and political differences between two wings of the party. Replace this with Cory Booker/Nina Turner, and it's the same issue. And this is an ideological conflict that goes back years, so as far as "when" it failed, I think this article points to some indicators of how this started, and this book also goes into some of the history.
3rd party candidates seem to have had little to no effect on the election (and most 3rd party votes were for the libertarian, so in theory, they wouldn't have supported Hillary anyway), and there's evidence that she largely didn't campaign in certain states that could have tipped the scales in her favor. And of course, it's much more difficult to paint yourself as a hero of the working class if you're known for expensive speeches to wall street and are under FBI investigation, so there's a credibility gap as well, whether someone personally thinks that's fair to the candidate or not.
Well yeah, her and her husband vocally supported/pushed through a lot of well known policies that ultimately harmed working class people (in the name of "pragmatism"), so that also makes it difficult to turn around and say "I'm on your side". These were all known factors going into the primary and the general election, so this shouldn't be shocking news to anyone.
Yeah, I agree the EC is always a problem, but it was also a known problem, so it's not like that should have caught them off guard. Though I'm all about dumping the EC, and 100% support changing to a popular vote system.
And though losing the swing states were definitely the more direct cause of her loss, I don't think that solely explains the general weakness Democrats have had nationwide when it comes to congressional candidates, statewide candidates, etc. Voter suppression definitely plays a role in this as well, but the losses are large enough that it can't solely be placed on that. Voter apathy was also a part of it.
Yeah, I think the most successful examples of a way forward are with grassroots movements and protests like the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, and Standing Rock that exist outside of the party system. Don't "co-opt" them necessarily and try to force them into being Democrats, but learn how to ride that wave, understand why people are passionate about an issue and tie that enthusiasm into a larger political message within one's own party/campaign. Obama in 2008 took all the antiwar activist energy and people's general hunger for "change" and channeled that into his campaign, even if he didn't actually govern in the same way.
And if we're specifically talking about white people, there are still ways to communicate these left messages in a way that they can understand. You don't need to deny that police violence disproportionately affects people of color, but you can also say that police violence affects white people too. You don't have to deny that a $15 minimum wage would largely benefit people of color while also recognizing it would benefit poor whites as well. But you'd have to constantly tie that together and mean it, and routinely campaign on it, and build credibility and trust, and not just link people to your website and hope they find it. And white people should constantly be reminded that they have far more in common with their fellow laborer than they do with their boss.
But that would mean recognizing and embracing an activist message that is often "too far left", which, for various reasons, a lot of people that hold power in the Democratic Party are often shy about.
Of course, it's always possible that my preferred approach might not work either, and we're all fucked, but what we do know is that the current approach obviously doesn't work.
I agree. That's why I mentioned that some of the arguments get mixed together in threads like this. What I think Democrats as a party should do going forward is different from what I think individual people should do in 1 on 1 interactions. I'm speaking in terms of political coalitions, not whether I want to be friends with someone or not or cure their racism.
There are some Democratic voters who are anti-abortion
There are some Democratic voters who are homophobic
There are some Democratic voters who are racist
There are some Democratic voters who are sexist
Voting D doesn't absolve them of these qualities on a personal level, but it doesmean that they can be in a political coalition with others who have the completely opposite views on various issues. And for some Trump voters (and of course, people who just sat out the election completely), I think this can be possible as well. I don't need to like these people, but it's certainly better for me and others if they don't vote for people like Trump.
Well, the bolded is part of the problem I think. If we're already prima facie ruling out certain positions as "far too left", and restricting your political imagination solely to what mainstream Democratic candidates (the same mainstream candidates that have been largely losing elections since 2010) how can we hope to ever address anything?
I think people often just throw out the "too far left" as a reflex, and not actually pointing to evidence that a certain policy is actually unpopular (or so unpopular that it'd prevent someone voting for them). We just saw an election where plenty of people voted for someone like Trump in spite of all the terrible shit he supported, so why should be worried about scaring people off due to being "too far left"? We routinely go through elections where 40%-50% of people didn't vote, so isn't it certainly possible that a lot of those people might actually agree (or can be convinced to agree) with some "too far left" positions?
What's even weirder is that sometimes people will argue that Sanders is "too far left" while simultaneously arguing that "Clinton/Sanders are basically 93% the same!"
And as I've mentioned in the past, Clinton/Sanders in this context is just shorthand for the ideological and political differences between two wings of the party. Replace this with Cory Booker/Nina Turner, and it's the same issue. And this is an ideological conflict that goes back years, so as far as "when" it failed, I think this article points to some indicators of how this started, and this book also goes into some of the history.
3rd party candidates seem to have had little to no effect on the election (and most 3rd party votes were for the libertarian, so in theory, they wouldn't have supported Hillary anyway), and there's evidence that she largely didn't campaign in certain states that could have tipped the scales in her favor. And of course, it's much more difficult to paint yourself as a hero of the working class if you're known for expensive speeches to wall street and are under FBI investigation, so there's a credibility gap as well, whether someone personally thinks that's fair to the candidate or not.
Well yeah, her and her husband vocally supported/pushed through a lot of well known policies that ultimately harmed working class people (in the name of "pragmatism"), so that also makes it difficult to turn around and say "I'm on your side". These were all known factors going into the primary and the general election, so this shouldn't be shocking news to anyone.
Yeah, I agree the EC is always a problem, but it was also a known problem, so it's not like that should have caught them off guard. Though I'm all about dumping the EC, and 100% support changing to a popular vote system.
And though losing the swing states were definitely the more direct cause of her loss, I don't think that solely explains the general weakness Democrats have had nationwide when it comes to congressional candidates, statewide candidates, etc. Voter suppression definitely plays a role in this as well, but the losses are large enough that it can't solely be placed on that. Voter apathy was also a part of it.
Yeah, I think the most successful examples of a way forward are with grassroots movements and protests like the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, and Standing Rock that exist outside of the party system. Don't "co-opt" them necessarily and try to force them into being Democrats, but learn how to ride that wave, understand why people are passionate about an issue and tie that enthusiasm into a larger political message within one's own party/campaign. Obama in 2008 took all the antiwar activist energy and people's general hunger for "change" and channeled that into his campaign, even if he didn't actually govern in the same way.
And if we're specifically talking about white people, there are still ways to communicate these left messages in a way that they can understand. You don't need to deny that police violence disproportionately affects people of color, but you can also say that police violence affects white people too. You don't have to deny that a $15 minimum wage would largely benefit people of color while also recognizing it would benefit poor whites as well. But you'd have to constantly tie that together and mean it, and routinely campaign on it, and build credibility and trust, and not just link people to your website and hope they find it. And white people should constantly be reminded that they have far more in common with their fellow laborer than they do with their boss.
But that would mean recognizing and embracing an activist message that is often "too far left", which, for various reasons, a lot of people that hold power in the Democratic Party are often shy about.
Of course, it's always possible that my preferred approach might not work either, and we're all fucked, but what we do know is that the current approach obviously doesn't work.
I agree. That's why I mentioned that some of the arguments get mixed together in threads like this. What I think Democrats as a party should do going forward is different from what I think individual people should do in 1 on 1 interactions. I'm speaking in terms of political coalitions, not whether I want to be friends with someone or not or cure their racism.
There are some Democratic voters who are anti-abortion
There are some Democratic voters who are homophobic
There are some Democratic voters who are racist
There are some Democratic voters who are sexist
Voting D doesn't absolve them of these qualities on a personal level, but it doesmean that they can be in a political coalition with others who have the completely opposite views on various issues. And for some Trump voters (and of course, people who just sat out the election completely), I think this can be possible as well. I don't need to like these people, but it's certainly better for me and others if they don't vote for people like Trump.
The internet is a destination resource. You don't hop on Safari and it magically takes you to a Kaiser analysis about how Republican action threw a kink in the risk corridors for political gain and severely jeopardized the ability of the ACA marketplaces to establish themselves in harder to establish rural markets. Thus informing you that it wasnt the black man that drove your premiums up, but in part your own parties fuckery.
Heck most liberals on this forum were trying to blame Obama for stuff like that. So even the left is not living what they preach on the greatness of the internet to inform.
So it is always baffling to me when people say "the internet exists, no excuse for ignorance." The internet is a very powerful tool to both enlighten but also reinforce ignorance.
Meicyn
Gold Member
Being told about the minority experience as though I don't understand what they're going through suggests otherwise.
The Shadow
Member
I disagree. There seems to be a lot of hateful defensive rhetoric in this thread in that minorities can't rely on their "allies" anymore, or that white people are asking minorities to "coddle" racists.
It's like I said before, people can be angry and stay angry if they want. Racist are angry. PoC are angry, LBGT are angry. I think it's pretty unfair to just dismiss "allies" because they want to go about rehabilitating and working for change in a different way. Being pissed at each other isn't going to solve anything. It's easy to do, being pissed, but no one came to an understanding of someone else by being shouted at.
Not if you're willing to ignore racism, we're not.
There is no "hateful rhetoric" coming from us Poc. You can stop with that nonsense.
White people aren't making us do anything. They are however, expecting us to ignore racism and tacit support of racism so white racists' feelings aren't hurt.
They're expecting PoC to empathize or understand why people voted for Trump and to try and change their minds.
You are most certainly not an ally if you expect any of this from us.
If you're an actual ally, you go out and try and change white racist' minds yourself and not expect a damn thing from us. We don't owe them or you a damn thing.
To be perfectly though, we don't need Trump supporters. We need the people who didn't vote, there are a lot more of them and they didn't vote for a fucking racist.
Meicyn
Gold Member
So you're willing to ignore racism?
Good to know.
What are you expecting PoC to do here?
Do you expect us to compromise with racists and people who voted for racism?
Wow, utterly pathetic.
This thread really is all about protecting the feelings of white people.
First is was about the hurt feelings of white racists.
Then it was about the hurt feelings about white people who voted for a racist but maybe aren't racists.
Now it's about white allies and their hurt feelings.
White feelings trump everything it seems... even the humanity of PoC.
No, its really not and hasn't been.
And that is a really unfair mischaracterization of that poster's position. Why are you getting so hostile because he has a different approach and outlook in trying to achieve the same mutual endgame we all desire?
Have you read the thread? It has absolutely been about how racists, Trump voters, and white "allies" feel. Everyone of those groups has to be treated with kid gloves for fear of alienating them.
Because I'm not being a good docile PoC I'm hostile?
Different approach? I posted: "Not if you're willing to ignore racism, we're not."
To that, the poster responded with: "So we're enemies. Cool. Have a good one."
I am not wiling to ignore racism so no, we don't have the same goal.
Why do people keep using the term negative re-enforcement as if it means punishment.
Negative re-enforcement is taking something way (negative), to increase an action (enforcement).
It's not about ignoring racism. If I see someone spew actual racist shit I'm definitely calling them out on it, and telling them why that's completely backwards. I've done so multiple times. It's not about sparing the feelings of some racist idiot, because if you're a KKK member I don't give a shit. But my ideal is to have less racists in the world. And that only happens if you talk to them. And not saying: fuck off, racist.
But this part: yes. Definitely. Not just PoC, but everyone. You, me, Hillary, Bernie (who seems to get this part).
There was a guy here on GAF who lost someone close to him to a heroin overdose, so he voted for Trump in the hopes the wall would keep out even a smidge of heroin. Would the wall help with that? No. But how hard is it to show some empathy for someone who is in despair because someone he knew overdosed? And get that no, he's not a racist, but he bought into Trump's rhetoric. Probably mistakenly, but still understandibly. So what do you think happens if you tell him he's a racist piece of shit who should fuck off? Do you think he'll go. "Oh, this guy thinks I'm a racist piece of shit. Well, perhaps I am, let me do some soul searching?" Or will he think: "This guy doesn't give a shit about me losing someone to an overdose, and calling me racist for voting for someone who IS actually willing to listen to me. He can go and fuck right off."
I don't expect anyone to do anything. Noone has an obligation. And as a Dutch white guy, I can't begin to understand what PoC have to deal with every day in the states. But I can easily see how it's infuriating and peope are completely fucking sick off it.
However; that doesn't change the fact that less racists is a good thing, not all Trump supporters are racist, but voted for him for other reasons. And calling them racist and deplorable pushes them away. When showing empathy, and sharing your own stories and creating awareness might have the opposite effect. It worked for me and Zwarte Piet.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Wait a second these white people you talk about don't have people of color in them? That's why they need to be enlightened? Well how did they manage that on accident¿
I have done more then read, I have participated and tried to have a constructive discussion. Despite some peoples best effort to prevent that.
The poster you quoted is making the case for an alternative approach he prefers toward a shared end goal as a minority. Upset with those that are trying to vilify and mischaracterize others who are in agreement with his approach. For whatever reason you are taking issue with posters embracing that. Why that is I will leave for you to explain.
Wtf is going on in this thread , you're presented with evidence that one way of dealing with bigotry and racism doesn't work but no well ignore science too since it doesn't suit your views ? Seriously ?
Edit : also white man supremacy is recent . Renaissance at best Industrial Age at worst . China and India ruled the riches before that Greeks before Egyptians before again indian Iranians before etc etc . Dude . Get some perspective . Respect an opinion .
White ppl for a long time were the savages . It flipped it can flip again just keep the long view and progress of humanity in mind .
And this is not even getting into how the cradle of humanity is Africa .
Edit : also white man supremacy is recent . Renaissance at best Industrial Age at worst . China and India ruled the riches before that Greeks before Egyptians before again indian Iranians before etc etc . Dude . Get some perspective . Respect an opinion .
White ppl for a long time were the savages . It flipped it can flip again just keep the long view and progress of humanity in mind .
And this is not even getting into how the cradle of humanity is Africa .
Audioboxer
Member
Just ignore it. There is a lot of shaming going on in here for any alternative opinion. Even ones which have the main roots in common (racism/bigotry/discrimination are bad), but differ on the approaches to trying to tackle said issues. Notice how your whole post was ignored and the only line quoted was what you said at the very end. Which was clearly a plea after the post you had laid out to finalize by saying you're on the same side. At least that is how I read it after actually reading the main meat of your post (and others you have made). It wasn't some one liner drive-by "we're on the same side guys!".
A large part of what this topic shows is some are going to be hostile to you no matter what. It's as I said earlier an authoritarian approach that involves tarring absolutely anyone who doesn't fall in line to think and speak 1:1 with the opinion of one, or a few. The tactic used is often "if you're not with us you're with them". It's a false equivalency setup to try and back you into a corner where you dare not disagree with them at that point or else yes, you'll be dog-piled and told you're not an ally and are with "them". Usually to the tone of "fuck off", or as above told you're utterly pathetic for your emotional response to being baited. Ideally you shouldn't have taken the bait, but it's hard not to respond emotionally when your heartfelt post is marginalized to a "you're ignoring racism bro". I can quite honestly say none of your posts were about ignoring racism, just anecdotal evidence of how you deal with it, especially as a minority who has been on the receiving end of it. How anyone can sum up everything you said as "you're demanding we ignore it!" is nonsense. The only demands flying as usual are from those telling you you're thinking wrongly, and if you want to be an ally you better change.
Emotional responses due to the situation are understandable, and you can navigate them with empathy, but insistence to double down and continue tearing you a new one even after you post a heartfelt plea as a minority member yourself is tiring. It still getting met in the same way (you're an x/you're with them, not us!) is the signal for you to leave the discussion with said posters (and leave respectfully I will say, there isn't any point in being bitter). Many on GAF are incredibly vocal, but remember GAF isn't a hivemind, and I'll always defend against stupid remarks like that. Even in PoliGAF we have seen since Hillary lost many feeling more comfortable to come out and share criticism. It's not that GAF is a hivemind, it's just sometimes many retreat as the vocal make it quite tough to share. They have every right to make it tough, it's arguments and debates over complex emotional topics, but you as a poster just need to know when it's best to back off from engaging with some. That's just advice for life in general, there's 6 billion of us and we all have very different agency, biological makeup and life experiences. It is sad though when we reach a point where people who are genuine allies, and just aim to meet similar goals in different ways, are effectively told to "fuck off". It's my main issue with the left right now, as it is a complete embarrassment in the face of liberalism.
What do you expect? As a gay man of color I can tell you the gay community is ripe with racism. So it's no surprise the gay community turns a blind eye to it.
Nope, not me. Once again, I am a black man, who like most PoC has been dealing with racists his entire fucking life and I am done and I am not going have white people tell me that is my responsibility to change how they think and feel.
I am not going to listen to how I should try to understand their point of view, their fears or about how we should get them on "our" side. Having dealt with them my entire fucking life, I know how they think and feel, what they're afraid of and I don't want them on my side. I have dealt with the entire spectrum of racists, from the "You're so well spoken" condescending racist all the way up to fucking Klan members.
Explain to me how I should have gotten the 35 year old dude who choked me and called me a nigger when I was 11 because I made a touchdown in a game of street football on my side?
How about the clerk at Kay Bee Toys who asked "Can't you read nigger?" when I asked a question about a toy when I was seven. Etc. etc.
They don't hate me because of anything I've done or because I called them racist, they hate me because I'm black.
I am not going to tolerate those types of people or the people who maybe, possibly aren't racists but had no issue voting for one. And damn sure not going to listen to other white people telling me I should.
Those people are on the other side of history and we don't need them on "our" side. Trump was not elected because we were mean to white people. Trump was elected because a shitload of white liberals, white moderates didn't fucking vote. You guys don't get to pass the buck this time. If you want to help, work on the people who didn't vote for a racist and let the folks who did become irrelevant.
This thread is very much about how white people feel. You are upset that people aren't discussing things how you think we should so you throw out things like: "hateful rhetoric" and "hostile" are we not being nice enough in a discussion about racists and maybe, possibly not racists who voted for a racist?
How should we be having this discussion, what would make you comfortable?
I know, I've seen your post about it in BCT. I guarantee that if this were about anti-LGBT people or people who supported anti-LGBT people, there wouldn't be this mad dash to try to understand those people like there is for this.
The LGBT community includes white people and any attack would not be tolerated.
Oh don't let that person who is anti-LGBT be black, then all hell breaks loose. Hell they don't even need to be anti-LGBT, just being black is enough.
Let's also not forget the black LGBT folks who were called niggers during the Prop 8 protests.
On a night when they lost just as much as everyone else, they were still just a bunch of niggers to our "allies".
So they can miss me with this ally nonsense.
Edit: Have any of you who want us to help change racists' minds posted in this thread? A thread filled with jokes, by the way.
Darryl M R
Member
ITT: People not being oppressed(1) arguing with people that are oppressed(2) over how to handle oppression of racism with faulty research(3) on people talking with others that agreed to talk and were not acting like bigot(4).
Minorities appreciate allies but you are not being an ally if all you have to offer is "Well talk to the racists and don't call them racists."
Visit http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1315797 to discuss what you believe is an effective method of tackling racism. This thread is a genuine attempt of non Minorities trying to tackle racism with the understanding that they have to do something, not just Minorities and not in the same way as Minorities.
- Non-minorities
- Minorities
- The research is anecdotal and is being extrapolated to all hell
- The people that were canvassed were open to having a conversation, not a random person that called someone a nigger and then was asked to discuss their feelings. Which is how people experience day to day racism
Minorities appreciate allies but you are not being an ally if all you have to offer is "Well talk to the racists and don't call them racists."
Visit http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1315797 to discuss what you believe is an effective method of tackling racism. This thread is a genuine attempt of non Minorities trying to tackle racism with the understanding that they have to do something, not just Minorities and not in the same way as Minorities.
guggnichso
Banned
I quote this because this statement is symtomatic for this thread.
No one tells minorities what to do or expects them to coddle racists.
The research only shows an effective way to combat racism. That's it. If people want to try this out on their Trump voting families, why not? If they don't want to, just carry on as before.
Once again, this has happened in this thread.
TheBlackMarvel
Member
We have to think of the real victims here guys.
Darryl M R
Member
This is happening in this thread. And when minorities call out people to clarify these same people just double down.
Damn if we do, damn if we don't.
This is why minorities need real white allies. Not moderates.
Via Purifico
Banned
Don't bother, it's like they are willfully ignoring everything that has been said on this topic.
There has been a lot of finger wagging and even some dog whistling racism with the coded language but "no one is telling you what to do!!1"
But who do you run to when young white kids take your job?
Aren't those people ignoring racism, though? Those people who saw Trump, saw he could win, and said - "eh, no big deal, won't effect me." People who don't care about the plight of any race, religion, or orientation that's not their own.
My question is - when we're talking about not bothering to engage with racists - are we talking about the Confederate flag waving, hood wearing, slur shouting backwoods idiots? Or are we also including the people who say, "eh, the blacks don't have it THAT bad" and "I care more about MY family than some Muslims from across the world" - are we talking about diet racists too? Don't pretend there's not a spectrum of bigotry.
Because we can do it without the first. We can't do it without the second.
4 is a cutie
Banned
The article says the obvious. People like being stubborn when being made to change in a aggressive way. Everyone here gets that
The problem is, when you live your whole life being told your people are garbage, you usually aren't eager to jump up and play peacemaker. The privileged can sit back and go "Why so angry? Not all ___ are bad!" as if folks don't have a right to be angry.
Should Americans be peaceful and loving and unified? Sure. Everyone agrees empathy is needed. However, the oppressors and those who benefit off of an oppressive system should be sympathetic to the victims, not the other way around
Oppo
Member
no?
as for this
you constantly declaring How It Is in no way negates the science and results of this study.
you're free to not engage. it's not on you to do anything here. some of us are gonna try the carrot before the stick, if the situation and yes, empathy seems to allow for it.
i'm still gonna tell a mouth breather from stormfront to eat several dicks. i will also, however, assure my nervous neighbour wondering about immigrants that the somali people down the street are cool people, because i've interacted with them. before i tell her to get fucked forever, of course. that's all that is being conveyed here, there are degrees, racism is not binary. it's all unacceptable, but you want an actual positive result in the end, i.e. less racism overall.
Darryl M R
Member
If the results of the study are being used to provide solutions to minorities that are not sensible then it only make sense if people call that out.
That's like a study showing that if you buy people gifts they treat you nicer and become your friend. It doesn't mean buying gifts for people to befriend me is a sensible solution for my lack of friends.
This study and article proclaim a solution to racism that is not sensible to those oppressed by it.
In this thread minorities and actual allies have spoken up and said that this is the responsibility of whites because they indirectly benefit from racism and are not harmed by racism.
Razorback
Member
This sums up my feelings. Many here are insisting that others want to protect racists feelings, and to ignore racism. No one has said that. That's not the objective at all.
If the study said that the best way to get results was to kick racists in the balls, then that's what we'd do. We just want to see results, it has nothing to do with what is fair or what they deserve.
Oppo
Member
it proclaims no such thing, and people of various origins participated. i don't think it's any sort of grand answer, but it's a clue.
Darryl M R
Member
Exactly. You just want to see the results. Regardless of what minorities (those oppressed by racism) will have to go through.
And when you cannot speak up and say "This isn't sensible for minorities but for everyone else it is" you choose to use minorities as a stepping stone for the results you want regardless of the means.
Darryl M R
Member
"THE PROCESS OF REDUCING PEOPLE’S RACISM WILL TAKE TIME AND, CRUCIALLY, EMPATHY" while they show no empathy for minorities. Yet this article does not distinguish if minorities will have to lead these efforts---which if you look at America's history, minorities are the ones that have always led change against racism.
"We need to develop a way to have this conversation that doesn’t make some people feel condemned" while they condemn others for things they can't change. Yet minorities have to be the "bigger person" right? Bend over backwards?
It is clear that they care more about how this is being discussed, then how a racists actions affect PoC.
I responded to someone who said it wasn't happening. Is that happening in this thread"?
Who is stopping you from doing anything about racism?
"Potential allies"
Razorback
Member
But I didn't say minorities had to adapt to what the study suggests. I agree that most of the burden of converting others should fall on white people.
Minorities have every right to be angry. The study is what it is,take it or leave it.
But that anger starts becoming unproductive when it's aimed at allies. Racism is a complicated fucking problem, it makes sense that not everyone agrees on solutions. Drawing lines in the sand like many have done in this thread helps no one.
So what level of racism should POC tolerate?
Blackface, but only on Halloween?
The occasional asking of an Asian person do they know karate?
Women only making 85 cent on the dollar instead of 75?
Silver Arrows
Banned
This is pretty much the thread by this point.
A bunch of white moderates simply tut-tutting and saying: "Well, we could help you buuuuttttt" and proceed to do the same thing Enzom and Darryl have said ad nauseum in this thread.
Razorback
Member
Who said anything about tolerating racism? Jesus christ everyone is talking past each other here.
Teacher.
Darryl M R
Member
The fact that you did not say anything regarding the specific audience of the solution of talking to racist is why minorities question white "allies."
You are agreeing now but do you see how I have to pull teeth to get you to acknowledge this? You came in this thread and just posted how the study should be followed.
How is racism complex? How is me being seen as sub-human complex?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked