Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=harvey]
Who is “we” and “us” and “they” in your text above?
[/quote]
“They” are the people who need help changing their culture (if they want to change it). “We” are the people who can help them. Mostly the government, but also anyone else willing to help.
Saying, “you need to change your culture if you want to improve your financial situation” is obviously a highly-charged situation. And I don’t think the political will to say such a think will exist in the foreseeable future.
Participant[quote=njtosd] As anyone who has read The Crucible can attest, uncertain times bring out the conservative tendencies in a population . . .[/quote]
Which is part of the reason (along with the desire to discredit Obama) that the right-wing noise machine has been peddling gloom and doom for so long.
It’s working for them. People are buying it. And because they’ve been buying the right-wing noise machine’s doom and gloom and racism and xenophobia, they are ripe for Trump. I was surprised at Trump’s appeal, too. But I shouldn’t have been surprised. We shouldn’t have been surprised. The leaders of the republican party sure as hell shouldn’t have been surprised.
In retrospect, it seems kind of obvious that a bunch of people who have been told (and emotionally manipulated to believe) for years that things are bad and will get worse, things are dangerous, foreigners are bad, Islam is bad and will hurt you, that the establishment is bad, nobody in Washington is listening to you, etc. would gravitate to someone like Trump. Someone who says all of the above, but not in code, who can (or can pretend to) relate to their fears, and who says he will fight and kill whoever it takes to protect the poor schlubs who would be the victims of all those things.
I should probably be tired of saying this by now, but I’m not: They brought it on themselves, they shouldn’t be surprised, and they are getting what they deserve.
Participant.
Participant[quote=harvey]
I claimed that systemic racism doesn’t exist today. There are no more Jim Crow laws today. You had to go back in history, generations back, to come up with an example of of systemic racism.
[/quote]
Actually, that’s not what you claimed. You claimed that:
[quote=harvey]
There is no such thing as systemic racism.
A group distinguished simply by its physical characteristics cannot be collectively guilty of racism or any other ethical transgression.
All acts of racism are committed by individuals – by people, not groups.[/quote]
In that quote, you claim that there is no such thing as systemic racism. Your claim was not that there’s none today. You claim that all racism is committed by individuals.
More to the point, I didn’t bring up Jim Crow laws to rebut your supposed claim that systemic racism does not exist today. I brought them up as part of my rebuttal to this:
[quote=harvey]The flaw in claims of “systemic” racism and “white privilege” is that they imply that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members should therefore be held accountable for those decisions.
[/quote]As I said, it is not true that the claim that systemic racism implies that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members therefore should be held accountable for those actions. And I thoroughly explained why in my previous post, the Jim Crow example being just a part of that explanation.
[quote=harvey]
However the message from the American left has never been that government is responsible – it has always been that white people are responsible. This is why we have terms like “white privilege ” and the entire gamut of politically correct speech in all of its absurdities. [/quote]
“White privilege,” as I understand it, doesn’t mean that all white people are racist nor that all white people are responsible for the travails of minorities. It means that minorities suffer from racism while whites don’t (or at least that whites don’t nearly to the extent that minorities do), and that that racism has impeded the success of those minorities, to at least some degree. You might have a different understanding of “white privilege” than I do, but surely you don’t argue that whites have suffered from racism as much as minorities.In my opinion, it’s of little consequence what’s happened to minorities in the past and who’s responsible for it. It is of great consequence what happens to them henceforth. If minorities were, on average, as financially successful as whites, the whole country would be better off (financially). So it’s valuable for us to do what we can to help them get there. If they want to. In my opinion, the main impediment to the success of many subcultures in America (both minority and white) is their culture. If they prefer to keep the culture that they have and be relatively unsuccessful, that’s fine with me. But if they want to be more financially successful, I think they need to change their culture. And I think we should help them with that, if we can.
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Ideally she’d want a non-white male from a swing state. The Republicans are unlikely to try to hit Hillary on inexperience (especially if they run Trump) so she’s probably going to either want someone who seems young and fresh and non-white, or maybe go with a Safe White Male.
Unfortunately, the Democratic bench is actually rather thin these days. Not a lot of Blue governors outside of places like California (and she’s not going to pick Moonbeam, even if he wanted the job).
Julian Castro and Tim Kaine seem like reasonable picks.[/quote]
Interesting points, but why would she want a non-white male? I guess maybe to energize voters of whatever race her running mate was and to appeal to progressives in general. But it seems to me she needs to appeal to purple voters more than she needs to energize the base. I could be wrong about that, but it seems the election will be won or lost in states like Ohio and Florida. Some purple voters might be averse to an all non-white-male ticket. Not out loud, of course. But averse nonetheless.
Participant[quote=livinincali]One of the problems with racism is it can often be used as an excuse for failing to win some opportunity. For example three people interview for the same job and one person gets the job. Two others lose out but they aren’t told why in any particular detail. Just that they chose to hire someone else. It could be because they had a better resume, it could be they were a better fit for the company, it could be communication skill, it could nearly be anything but those that lose out on that job always have the convenient excuse of discrimination. It was because I was Asian/Black/Hispanic. It was because I was too old. This Asian landlord wouldn’t rent to me because I have crap credit, but I think it’s because he hates white people.
People don’t know the rational or thought process of another person’s decisions, but they can always blame it on racism or discrimination. A lot of people get ahead by their social relationships to people that are already ahead. They get selected over somebody else for a favorable opportunity because they know somebody rather than their qualification. People consciously or subconsciously will favor their friends/family/acquaintances or even people that look and act like them versus people that don’t. I don’t know that you can really change that dynamic, even if you had a computer algorithm that was objective based purely on ability, you could end up with a team of employees that doesn’t work well together.[/quote]
True. And the flip side of that is that people can point to a person who actually lost a job or a rental due to racism, and say that it was something else.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I find it laughable the statement that “your culture is fucked up,” only refers to “minorities” and also the idea that “some minorities would benefit financially by adjusting their culture.” Obviously, this idea came from persons who have lived a “sheltered life.”I know this might be a stretch for a lot of folks, but could it possibly be that, in many regions of the country, “whites” and “white-appearing” people might benefit financially by “adjusting their culture?”
The “thug culture” as well as the “entitlement culture” in this country isn’t limited to just “minorities,” you know :=0[/quote]
As usual, your logic is lacking. And, as usual, your assumptions are pathetically off-base.When I say that some minorities would benefit financially from adjusting their cultures, that does not automatically mean that I think no white people would benefit from same. I agree that there are white subcultures that would benefit financially from adjusting their culture. Just as there are subcultures in all minorities that are well-adapted to optimize financial success.
Participant[quote=harvey]
The flaw in claims of “systemic” racism and “white privilege” is that they imply that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members should therefore be held accountable for those decisions.
[/quote]
No, claims of “systemic” racism do not imply that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members should therefore be held accountable for those decisions. Instead, those claims say that the government (or whoever is instituting systemic racism) is a group that collectively makes decisions and that that group as a whole should therefore be held accountable for those decisions.
There are two distinctions there from what you said. The second, less important one, is that not all members of a group that collectively makes decisions should be accountable for the decisions the group makes. If a senator speaks loudly against the Iraq war and votes against it and tries to talk his fellow senators out of voting for it, he should not be held accountable for the Iraq war.
More importantly, the perpetrators of systemic racism do not have to all be of a particular race (or races) for racism to be systemic. And certainly a whole race doesn’t need to be involved (on the hating side). It doesn’t even matter what the hater’s race is. Their race is irrelevant. Racism doesn’t require a particular race to hate another race. It only requires a particular race to be hated. Only the victims need to be of a particular race (or races). If a group of people makes a set of laws that demand that, for instance, blacks can’t eat at particular establishments, then that’s racism against black people (and it’s systemic). What difference does it make what the race is of the people making the laws?
[quote=harvey]
A race cannot collectively be held accountable for anything.
Any attempt to do so is the very definition of racism.
[/quote]
Saying that Jim Crow laws were systemic racism is not holding a race accountable for anything. It’s holding a government responsible.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=zk]
I agree with you on this.The problem is that they’ll need help. And who’s going to help them? I think the government should, but they won’t. The government would have to say, “your culture is fucked up.” And the government won’t say that.[/quote]
Only problem with saying that is you get labeled a racist. If Trump said something like that, the main stream media and people on this board would be saying, see that proves he’s a racist.[/quote]
Whether you’re viewed as a racist for espousing the idea that some minorities would benefit financially by adjusting their culture depends on 1)how you say it and 2)(more importantly) what your other views and your other statements and your other policies say about whether you’re racist or not.
If you have a history of being consistently (even if subtly, in code, or covertly) racist or against minorities, then you’ll come off as racist. If you’ve consistently been on the side of minorities, and have always tried to help them, then the people might see that you’re genuine, and that you truly want to help.
ParticipantMy prediction is still:
I’m thinking it will be the safest possible person. A white man, for sure. Someone experienced. Someone who doesn’t make a lot of gaffes. Sort of a democrat version of Mitt Romney.
Maybe an Evan Bayh type. He’s “president-shaped,” as Stephen Colbert hilariously called Mitt Romney.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
The minority community needs to do some really hard work to modify it’s culture and it’s priorities because “Thug Life” is never going to mesh business culture.[/quote]
I agree with you on this.
The problem is that they’ll need help. And who’s going to help them? I think the government should, but they won’t. The government would have to say, “your culture is fucked up.” And the government won’t say that.
Participantdup
Participant[quote=AN]
Success of a race on average and discrimination against a race are two separate thing. Just because Asian found ways to work around the discrimination, persevere through the discrimination, and achieve financial success does not mean they’re not being discriminated against. It just mean as a group, Asian don’t spend as much energy bitching about it as working with the landscape that’s in front of them, even when there’s discrimination.[/quote]+1
Participant[quote=paramount]
Thoughtful = white -> huh? Is that leftist code? Just keep throwing anything against the wall and see if it sticks?
[/quote]
[random non-sequitur] right back at ya.
-
AuthorPosts
