Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Are accusations of raicsm/sexism/bigotry abused? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862238)

Damuri Ajashi 09-14-2018 07:26 AM

Are accusations of raicsm/sexism/bigotry abused?
 
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-racist-...t-down-debates

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?

Banquet Bear 09-14-2018 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-racist-...t-down-debates

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?

...what do you think?

Budget Player Cadet 09-14-2018 07:45 AM

Counterquestions - are accusations of frivolous accusations of bigotry used to silence people and stifle debate? And is this more common than the opposite problem? Call it a false positive/false negative problem.

Given the absolute inundation of right-wing discourse with talk of "sjws" and "snowflakes" and how few real examples they just keep bringing up over and over again, and given that those handful of examples are not representative of the norm on college campuses, and given that college campuses aren't even representative of the norm in the broader public... I'm gonna go with false negatives as the bigger problem currently, because you basically cannot bring up structural injustices (or even more specific examples of sexism/racism) online without getting at best "devil's advocates" and at worst Gamergate-style shithead trolls up to your eyeballs. There's a whole cottage industry of cunts like this on youtube like Sargon of Akkad; there is no equivalent mob of social justice scolds screaming racism at nothing.

A far bigger problem than people overusing these terms to water them down is people who amplify every example of overuse (or just invent them outright) in order to pretend that they're already watered down/meaningless.

not what you'd expect 09-14-2018 07:46 AM

I know people who have used the N word to my face and still deny they are racist.

IMO, If anything, it isn't called out enough.

Shodan 09-14-2018 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

Yes.
Quote:

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?
Yes - not necessarily from over-use, but accusations of racism are being made in ever-increasingly ridiculous cases. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21207377)
Counterquestions - are accusations of frivolous accusations of bigotry used to silence people and stifle debate?

Yes.
Quote:

And is this more common than the opposite problem?
Not in my experience.
Quote:

Given the absolute inundation of right-wing discourse with talk of "sjws" and "snowflakes" and how few real examples they just keep bringing up over and over again, and given that those handful of examples are not representative of the norm on college campuses, and given that college campuses aren't even representative of the norm in the broader public...
That's not a given - you would need some kind of hard data beyond anecdote.

Regards,
Shodan

BeepKillBeep 09-14-2018 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21207401)
Not in my experience.

Quote:

That's not a given - you would need some kind of hard data beyond anecdote.
Take a moment and compare and contrast these two statements you made. Can you spot the problem?

JB99 09-14-2018 08:26 AM

While I think racism and sexism should be called out MORE often, the problem is that (A) nobody wants to admit to being racist and (B) people have different definitions for how ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ is defined.

First, literally everyone holds some level of racist/sexist ideas, even if only implicitly. But the rhetoric is such that if a person says something impolite or ignorant, we immediately jump to saying “This person is a racist,” which is synonymous with “evil.” The assumption that ‘racist = evil’ causes people to shut down and avoid critically examining their behavior. Since no one wants to admit to being racist and the rhetoric against accused racists is so vitriolic, we have big obstacles that prevent understanding and actually improving people’s behavior.

The second half is that many people assume that you are only ‘racist’ if you are ‘a racist,’ in the sense that racists are people who wear white hoods. Explicit, overt racism/sexism is their threshold. Another definition I’ve heard is that “racism” is only when the powerful group exercises their power over the minority group. (This definition implies it is impossible for anyone to be racist against white people.)

At the same time, there is another extreme that girl’s accusations of racism over practically any trivial thing. If a white person wear dreadlocks, that’s racism. If a white girl wears a Chinese dress, that’s racism. I once had someone tell me I was “racist” because I didn’t like the depiction of sexualized underage girls in Asian pop culture. I once had someone tell me I was a “bigot” because I remarked that a fictional character’s sexual orientation was not relevant to the plot of a story.

I want to be sympathetic, but it’s really hard when people hurl accusations of racism over the most inconsequential chickenshit. I suspect the problem would be easier to solve if we could come to some common consensus on what “racism” and “sexism” actually means.

iiandyiiii 09-14-2018 08:42 AM

I started a thread a while back asking for any examples of false accusations of racism causing significant harm -- the only example that struck me as legitimate was something from the 70s or 80s, IIRC (quite a few offered examples of someone saying something that was actually racist and suffering consequences for it). I think the supposed threat of accusations of racism shutting down debates is massively overblown and largely fictional. It certainly doesn't shut down any debates on this board, and in my experience, in real life and even on social media. It can lead to contentiousness, and occasionally such accusations are made in bad faith, but no more than any other false accusations, in my experience.

Velocity 09-14-2018 08:44 AM

I think JB99 nailes it. Racism comes in varying degrees of severity. But some people treat DEFCON-5 racism as DEFCON-1 and some treat DEFCON-1 as DEFCON-5.

Doyle 09-14-2018 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21207495)
I think JB99 nailes it. Racism comes in varying degrees of severity. But some people treat DEFCON-5 racism as DEFCON-1 and some treat DEFCON-1 as DEFCON-5.

Well said.

senoy 09-14-2018 09:10 AM

I think that the big danger of racism/sexism accusations are not that they are false, but we are coming to a point where the low-hanging fruits are mostly agreed upon. For instance, there are very few people that would say "It's OK to burn a cross on someone's lawn." or "Segregation was a good thing." Where we're at now though is looking at systemic problems and they are much harder to deal with. For instance, economic segregation. We know that schools right now are still largely segregated. Wealthier people who are overwhelmingly white live in neighborhoods with other wealthy people who are overwhelmingly white and send their kids to overwhelmingly white schools that are extremely high performing. People of color end up in far worse schools and end up with far fewer opportunities because of this. We KNOW this. It's a complete fact. If though, you call this racist, you end up in a situation where you are telling people that in order to not be racist, they should live in poorer neighborhoods and send their children to schools that are lower performing. The response then becomes, "Why is wanting what is best for my child racist?" These are not people that intentionally want to oppress people of color. They probably have no problem associating with black people and might not even care if their children date black people. They may vote for black candidates and support black organizations. They still get painted with a brush of 'racist' though because they are perpetuating a class system largely based on race. That's a hard pill to make someone swallow. The danger behind making them swallow that pill though is that they no longer respond to the term even for more egregious things. If you say "Moving to a white neighborhood with nice schools makes you racist." it's easy for them to dismiss that accusation. When you come back and say 'Police targeting people of color is racist.' it makes it easier for them to dismiss that accusation as well. It's a very difficult line to tread.

manson1972 09-14-2018 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-racist-...t-down-debates

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?

I having trouble understand why you linked to that site. That article seems to be saying that "racism" is shutting down debate, not "accusations of racism"

Am I misunderstanding?

Also, I like this quote from that link:

Quote:

I am quite certain that the incidences of actual racism, large and small, overwhelmingly outnumber the incidences of people using an accusation of racism as a way to shut someone up

Czarcasm 09-14-2018 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-racist-...t-down-debates

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?

Did you link to that site because you think they do, or because you think they don't?

Budget Player Cadet 09-14-2018 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21207401)
That's not a given - you would need some kind of hard data beyond anecdote.

For what? That college campuses aren't indicative of America at large? That the specific events of very specifically cherry-picked cases (and we know they're not common events because we don't keep hearing about new ones regularly - imagine if, every time you heard about police misconduct, it was always the same three cases from several years ago, rather than enough new ones to populate a rather massive omnibus thread)? That right-wing discourse is about "pwning the libs" and complaining about social justice? I didn't imagine that would require a cite at this point, to be honest.

Mr. Nylock 09-14-2018 11:25 AM

I work alongside minorities; in fact as a white person I am in the minority where I work. There are endless debates about what is and isn't racist among my black coworkers. There is no consensus whatsoever, even over the use of the n word to a certain degree. In fact, there is a lot of pushback and derision against unfounded or very weak assertions of racism.

I think a major part of the problem is that people such as my coworkers, whom I have tremendous respect for, never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. Mostly what you end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

Mumberthax 09-14-2018 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-racist-...t-down-debates

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?

In many cases, yes. However, it's important to know the difference between someone knowingly and maliciously filing a false report of racism (Tawana Brawley) versus someone who reported a misunderstanding as a racist attack.

It's been said that the biggest obstacle to communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. I really do believe that we need to sit down and LISTEN to each other. I mean REALLY LISTEN. Put aside all preconceived notions about 'that other person' and just LISTEN.

We need to remember that POC in North America have been getting the schitt end of the stick for the past 400 years. So many of them will be defensive; many will see racism even in places where none is intended. Just because you don't mean to be racist doesn't mean that you weren't racist, and it doesn't mean that you don't benefit from racism.

Should POC be less touchy? That's easy for the racially privileged to say. However, we tell people to 'check their privilege' for a reason, yanno? Put yourself in the other person's shoes.

Mr. Nylock 09-14-2018 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumberthax (Post 21207903)
In many cases, yes. However, it's important to know the difference between someone knowingly and maliciously filing a false report of racism (Tawana Brawley) versus someone who reported a misunderstanding as a racist attack.

It's been said that the biggest obstacle to communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. I really do believe that we need to sit down and LISTEN to each other. I mean REALLY LISTEN. Put aside all preconceived notions about 'that other person' and just LISTEN.

We need to remember that POC in North America have been getting the schitt end of the stick for the past 400 years. So many of them will be defensive; many will see racism even in places where none is intended. Just because you don't mean to be racist doesn't mean that you weren't racist, and it doesn't mean that you don't benefit from racism.

Should POC be less touchy? That's easy for the racially privileged to say. However, we tell people to 'check their privilege' for a reason, yanno? Put yourself in the other person's shoes.

Many will be defensive, many will not. Many will be annoyed at the overly sensitive types. Many prefer the term black over POC.

You're assumption is that we should cater to the most reactionary and sensitive portion of a group of people, but it's almost as if you want to ignore the portion of the population that does not agree with that. That's what listening is, it's listenting to the concerns of the whole group, not the most reactionary and sensitive portions.

MrDibble 09-14-2018 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21207348)
Do people accuse other's of racism to shut them up or shut down debate?

No. Because when in the entire history of the internet has that ever worked? Especially in a racist safe space, like this board. Racists are determined, I'll give them that. It tends to have the exact opposite of a chilling effect on conversations.
Quote:

Are labels like racist being watered down by over-use?
No.

BigT 09-14-2018 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21207940)
You're assumption is that we should cater to the most reactionary and sensitive portion of a group of people, but it's almost as if you want to ignore the portion of the population that does not agree with that. That's what listening is, it's listenting to the concerns of the whole group, not the most reactionary and sensitive portions.

That assumption is because it's the only one that makes rational sense. The people who aren't sensitive by definition do not care way, so obviously the sensitive people are the ones you need to be most concerned about.

I would also point out that you listening to a small group of black people who you know is not better than the liberal concepts which involve listening to wide groups of everyone. You have no way of knowing if the people you listen to are representative of the whole.

And then you're acting like black people are the only other race that matters. POC means "people of color" and means all non-white people. Black people alone do not define what racism is, either.

If one of your black friends thinks POC and black mean the same thing, then, while they may have lived experiences, they clearly have a lack of knowledge on the subject.

I will freely admit that, due to where I live, I don't know very many black people in real life. And, while I talk to a lot of people online, the majority of people I know never reveal their race.

What I do do is go to the experts. I read about what black people are saying. I read about what people of other races are saying. I look at the studies. I look at the people who are highly regarded on these issues.

What I would never do is just talk to my black few friends and present their opinions as "what black people think."

One black friend I had in school loved it when the girls would touch his hair--but now I know that's a no-no in the wider community.

etasyde 09-14-2018 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21208262)
What I do do is go to the experts. I read about what black people are saying. I read about what people of other races are saying. I look at the studies. I look at the people who are highly regarded on these issues.

Experts? On what? On what minorities think? Who the heck are these "experts?" Highly regarded by whom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21208262)
What I would never do is just talk to my black few friends and present their opinions as "what black people think."

Instead it seems you pick some black people out of a hat, or perhaps whomever happens to be loudest on twitter, and do exactly that.

E-DUB 09-14-2018 03:02 PM

I'll make a deal. When the righties stop overusing "socialist", lefties will stop overusing "racist".

octopus 09-14-2018 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21207865)
I work alongside minorities; in fact as a white person I am in the minority where I work. There are endless debates about what is and isn't racist among my black coworkers. There is no consensus whatsoever, even over the use of the n word to a certain degree. In fact, there is a lot of pushback and derision against unfounded or very weak assertions of racism.

I think a major part of the problem is that people such as my coworkers, whom I have tremendous respect for, never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. Mostly what you end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

That sounds right.

Mr. Nylock 09-14-2018 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21208262)
What I do do is go to the experts. I read about what black people are saying. I read about what people of other races are saying. I look at the studies. I look at the people who are highly regarded on these issues.

What I would never do is just talk to my black few friends and present their opinions as "what black people think."

One black friend I had in school loved it when the girls would touch his hair--but now I know that's a no-no in the wider community.

Oh, so there is a consensus among "experts" on this issue? I never knew.

Mr. Nylock 09-14-2018 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21208408)
I'll make a deal. When the righties stop overusing "socialist", lefties will stop overusing "racist".

Again, no attention paid to the moderate opinions. Reducing all nuance and context surrounding this issue to a binary zero sum game seems to be the opposite of listening.

Statements such as this indicate to me that this lack of interest in listening extends even to those most effected by this issue.

Ambivalid 09-14-2018 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB99 (Post 21207439)
While I think racism and sexism should be called out MORE often, the problem is that (A) nobody wants to admit to being racist and (B) people have different definitions for how ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ is defined.

First, literally everyone holds some level of racist/sexist ideas, even if only implicitly. But the rhetoric is such that if a person says something impolite or ignorant, we immediately jump to saying “This person is a racist,” which is synonymous with “evil.” The assumption that ‘racist = evil’ causes people to shut down and avoid critically examining their behavior. Since no one wants to admit to being racist and the rhetoric against accused racists is so vitriolic, we have big obstacles that prevent understanding and actually improving people’s behavior.

Another definition I’ve heard is that “racism” is only when the powerful group exercises their power over the minority group. (This definition implies it is impossible for anyone to be racist against white people.)

Your first two paragraphs are totally 100% spot on. I could not agree more. I can't even add a thing to them.

This last sentence of your third paragraph, however, needs some attention. Anyone, of any race black, white or orange can
hold unchallenged racist beliefs that color their behavior. The reason you hear about only dominant groups being racist is because of the power of that dominant group to marginalize and disenfranchise the minority group(s) with those racist beliefs. The marginalized minority wields no power with their racism, not on a societal level. If the minority finds itself as the dominant majority, on however small a scale, the power of racism lies with them.

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-14-2018 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21207865)
I think a major part of the problem is that people such as my coworkers, whom I have tremendous respect for, never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. Mostly what you end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

This seems to be a pet theory of yours: earlier this year you made this same ridiculous claim about me. It was, of course, wrong as hell. Do you ever find that it's correct? Do you have any evidence to back it up at all? Or is it just too delicious for you (and octopus, apparently) to examine closely?

In case it's not clear, I think it's a very stupid theory, and I've seen very little evidence of its truth, and while I've not found a smoking bullet in the research, the gist of the articles I've skimmed suggests that white folks who live in non-diverse communities harbor greater, not fewer, white supremacist attitudes.

Mr. Nylock 09-14-2018 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21209076)
This seems to be a pet theory of yours: earlier this year you made this same ridiculous claim about me. It was, of course, wrong as hell. Do you ever find that it's correct? Do you have any evidence to back it up at all? Or is it just too delicious for you (and octopus, apparently) to examine closely?

In case it's not clear, I think it's a very stupid theory, and I've seen very little evidence of its truth, and while I've not found a smoking bullet in the research, the gist of the articles I've skimmed suggests that white folks who live in non-diverse communities harbor greater, not fewer, white supremacist attitudes.

Oh god, you're coming to a great debate discussion digging up old posts to paint a picture of me as a bad wrong thinking person instead of responding to the actual points I am making.

And, as to be expected, your response is focussed on labeling other white people as bad instead of even attempting to entertain the thought that there is a diversity of opinion on this subject in minority communities, or to consider the real world impact of these issues.

Sloe Moe 09-16-2018 09:47 PM

Yes, very. Not even up for debate, methinks.

Damuri Ajashi 09-17-2018 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloe Moe (Post 21211918)
Yes, very. Not even up for debate, methinks.

I agree that the answer is very clearly yes but apparently the question is in fact up for debate.

I believe that accusations of anti-semitism are used to shut down criticisms of Israel. I believe some criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-semitism.

I believe accusations of racism are used to shut down opposition to some kinds of Affirmative Action. I believe some of the objection to affirmative action is rooted in racism.

I believe that accusations of sexism are used to shut down opposition to abortion. I believe that some of the opposition to abortion is sexist, slutshaming/slutpunishing[?].

I believe that accusations of homophobia are used to shut down opposition to forcing bakers to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages. I believe that some people refuse to perform services for gays because they are homophobic.

But these days we no longer seem to try to distinguish between bigotry and when Israel, women, blacks, hispanics, or gays are simply losing the argument.

bump 09-17-2018 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by senoy (Post 21207547)
I think that the big danger of racism/sexism accusations are not that they are false, but we are coming to a point where the low-hanging fruits are mostly agreed upon. For instance, there are very few people that would say "It's OK to burn a cross on someone's lawn." or "Segregation was a good thing." Where we're at now though is looking at systemic problems and they are much harder to deal with. For instance, economic segregation. We know that schools right now are still largely segregated. Wealthier people who are overwhelmingly white live in neighborhoods with other wealthy people who are overwhelmingly white and send their kids to overwhelmingly white schools that are extremely high performing. People of color end up in far worse schools and end up with far fewer opportunities because of this. We KNOW this. It's a complete fact. If though, you call this racist, you end up in a situation where you are telling people that in order to not be racist, they should live in poorer neighborhoods and send their children to schools that are lower performing. The response then becomes, "Why is wanting what is best for my child racist?" These are not people that intentionally want to oppress people of color. They probably have no problem associating with black people and might not even care if their children date black people. They may vote for black candidates and support black organizations. They still get painted with a brush of 'racist' though because they are perpetuating a class system largely based on race. That's a hard pill to make someone swallow. The danger behind making them swallow that pill though is that they no longer respond to the term even for more egregious things. If you say "Moving to a white neighborhood with nice schools makes you racist." it's easy for them to dismiss that accusation. When you come back and say 'Police targeting people of color is racist.' it makes it easier for them to dismiss that accusation as well. It's a very difficult line to tread.

Good point; and I think maybe it's because the term is so catch-all, that it's not a one-size-fits-all way of describing all negative things dealing with race.

For example, my personal opinion is that racism has to have a certain intention to do something based on race. Without that intention, it's not racist, it's something else. So when someone moves to a white area with better schools for their children, it's not racist because there's no intent to screw anyone of any color- they're just using the means at their disposal to attempt to make things better for their children.

I also agree with Damuri Ajashiin that there are an awful lot of knee-jerk accusations of racism, sexism, etc... out there that aren't grounded in fact- they're just assumptions, but we just take them at face value and quit trying to determine if they're valid or not.

Case in point- here in Dallas, there's a huge amount of noise in the black community about the Botham Jean killing, despite any actual evidence so far that there was any sort of racial motivation whatsoever. It's just assumed that since he was black, and there was a cop involved, that there has to be a racist element involved. We don't know the full story yet- and I'm (full disclosure, middle-aged white male here) not going to jump to a conclusion that it was racially motivated yet. But that's the narrative that's being framed in the media, accurate or not.

Ludovic 09-17-2018 11:55 AM

The answer to the OP as asked is "yes". The term is being watered down and is occasionally used to try to avoid meaningful discussions. A lot of the rest of the posts in this thread are saying "but there's no real harm done", which is not mutually exclusive with the OP. Saying "check your privilege" in order to not have to meaningfully address points (and get in a not-so-subtle ad hominem dig at the person in the process,) is not as harmful as saying "well, some of the neo-Nazis are fine people".

Mr. Nylock 09-17-2018 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21212680)
But these days we no longer seem to try to distinguish between bigotry and when Israel, women, blacks, hispanics, or gays are simply losing the argument.

I see statements such as this as tinged with bigotry - and they come from all sides. Sure, someone more to the left of me would be saying that's a fine analysis because what I say is critical of someone expressing a more right wing position. However, I see the same type of thinking in about the same degree on both sides of the political spectrum. To me, the really awful thing that is occurring is that there is a lack of treating people as individuals with individual opinions that may differ depending on their individual experiences and circumstances.

Serious issues affecting the lives of everyday people are treated with the same level of intellectual heft as your standard soccer match with one side loving every controversial call as good if it favors them and bad if it does not and finding fault and ineptitude on even the most impartial umpire.

Budget Player Cadet 09-17-2018 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ludovic (Post 21212759)
The answer to the OP as asked is "yes". The term is being watered down and is occasionally used to try to avoid meaningful discussions. A lot of the rest of the posts in this thread are saying "but there's no real harm done", which is not mutually exclusive with the OP. Saying "check your privilege" in order to not have to meaningfully address points (and get in a not-so-subtle ad hominem dig at the person in the process,) is not as harmful as saying "well, some of the neo-Nazis are fine people".

Okay, so the question "has anyone ever used accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to dodge/win a debate?" is fucking trivial. Of course they have. It's a thing, just like saying "Well, you're a woman, so obviously I win this debate" is a thing. My problem is that people blow it way the fuck out of proportion. There is an entire cottage industry on the right acting like political correctness is strangling public discourse. As if the biggest concern for anyone who is worried about free speech absolutely must be the people who use accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to shut down speech they don't like.

And it works. It's the core of Trump's message. The list of right-wing shitheads who have made a career on youtube by complaining these people - often just one or two shitheads on twitter - is staggering. Most of the republican message these days, to the degree that it's effective, is either about guns, abortion, or "sticking it to the SJWs".

(Seriously, this is a really instructive case - one or two people on Twitter said they were a bit uncomfortable about the jokes in the Doom Eternal trailer, and there are dozens of videos taking the piss out of those handful of tweets. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of views. This sort of intentional exaggeration is, in my experience, far more common than actual cases of people shutting down debate by shouting "bigot".)

This shit works. It allows reactionary right-wing douchebags to effectively turn free speech into a wedge issue, acting as though anyone who supports social justice is anti-free-speech, or supports the actions of any given idiot who says something stupid on twitter. And in doing so, they amplify the voices who do inappropriately yell "sexist/racist/bigot" far beyond their normal reach. They nutpick, which leads to people believing this is a common problem, rather than a very rare one.

This is why I have a problem with the way this debate is framed.

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-17-2018 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21209115)
Oh god, you're coming to a great debate discussion digging up old posts to paint a picture of me as a bad wrong thinking person instead of responding to the actual points I am making.

Well, no. You offered a theory with zero evidence. I pointed out that in at least one case in which you'd applied your theory, it was wrong, and that in general research seems to point out that it'd be likelier to be wrong than right, and I asked you if you had any evidence that it was ever correct.

Shall I take your attempt at diversion as sufficient answer to that question?
Quote:

And, as to be expected, your response is focussed on labeling other white people as bad instead of even attempting to entertain the thought that there is a diversity of opinion on this subject in minority communities, or to consider the real world impact of these issues.
Of course there's diversity of opinion in minority communities. Who the hell doubts that? (Spoiler alert: not me) But that's not what this is about. I'm talking about your theory, and how dumb it is.

(Also, of course some other white people are bad. Who the hell doubts that some white people are bad? Again spoiler alert: not me, so not sure why you think that's something to take note of)

Damuri Ajashi 09-17-2018 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21212827)
Okay, so the question "has anyone ever used accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to dodge/win a debate?" is fucking trivial. Of course they have. It's a thing, just like saying "Well, you're a woman, so obviously I win this debate" is a thing. My problem is that people blow it way the fuck out of proportion. There is an entire cottage industry on the right acting like political correctness is strangling public discourse. As if the biggest concern for anyone who is worried about free speech absolutely must be the people who use accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to shut down speech they don't like.

And it works. It's the core of Trump's message. The list of right-wing shitheads who have made a career on youtube by complaining these people - often just one or two shitheads on twitter - is staggering. Most of the republican message these days, to the degree that it's effective, is either about guns, abortion, or "sticking it to the SJWs".

(Seriously, this is a really instructive case - one or two people on Twitter said they were a bit uncomfortable about the jokes in the Doom Eternal trailer, and there are dozens of videos taking the piss out of those handful of tweets. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of views. This sort of intentional exaggeration is, in my experience, far more common than actual cases of people shutting down debate by shouting "bigot".)

This shit works. It allows reactionary right-wing douchebags to effectively turn free speech into a wedge issue, acting as though anyone who supports social justice is anti-free-speech, or supports the actions of any given idiot who says something stupid on twitter. And in doing so, they amplify the voices who do inappropriately yell "sexist/racist/bigot" far beyond their normal reach. They nutpick, which leads to people believing this is a common problem, rather than a very rare one.

This is why I have a problem with the way this debate is framed.

Its not rare.

I would say that the majority of Israel threads I have been involved in have included some accusations of anti-semitic bigotry. Its often phrased "And these critics of Israel never criticize X, Y and Z country, now what is it about Israel that would make them single it out for criticism. Hmmm. What could it be?"

I don't think it was rare for critics of Hillary to be accused of misogyny.

These things are not that rare. And it doesn't win hearts and minds. It might shut them up for a while but it doesn't win the debate. Not in a democracy. You don't win just by shutting someone down.

Mr. Nylock 09-17-2018 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21213630)
Well, no. You offered a theory with zero evidence. I pointed out that in at least one case in which you'd applied your theory, it was wrong, and that in general research seems to point out that it'd be likelier to be wrong than right, and I asked you if you had any evidence that it was ever correct.

Shall I take your attempt at diversion as sufficient answer to that question?

Of course there's diversity of opinion in minority communities. Who the hell doubts that? (Spoiler alert: not me) But that's not what this is about. I'm talking about your theory, and how dumb it is.

(Also, of course some other white people are bad. Who the hell doubts that some white people are bad? Again spoiler alert: not me, so not sure why you think that's something to take note of)

You are using cheap tactics to debate what I consider to be a serious and debate worthy subject.

However, if you would like (and are capable of having) a more serious discussion I certainly am game.

State, if you will, what you believe my theory to be. I have presented anecdotal evidence for the beliefs I have stated. Let us, however start with an agreed upon premise that accurately describes my beliefs.

octopus 09-17-2018 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21212827)
Okay, so the question "has anyone ever used accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to dodge/win a debate?" is fucking trivial. Of course they have. It's a thing, just like saying "Well, you're a woman, so obviously I win this debate" is a thing. My problem is that people blow it way the fuck out of proportion. There is an entire cottage industry on the right acting like political correctness is strangling public discourse. As if the biggest concern for anyone who is worried about free speech absolutely must be the people who use accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to shut down speech they don't like.

And it works. It's the core of Trump's message. The list of right-wing shitheads who have made a career on youtube by complaining these people - often just one or two shitheads on twitter - is staggering. Most of the republican message these days, to the degree that it's effective, is either about guns, abortion, or "sticking it to the SJWs".

(Seriously, this is a really instructive case - one or two people on Twitter said they were a bit uncomfortable about the jokes in the Doom Eternal trailer, and there are dozens of videos taking the piss out of those handful of tweets. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of views. This sort of intentional exaggeration is, in my experience, far more common than actual cases of people shutting down debate by shouting "bigot".)

This shit works. It allows reactionary right-wing douchebags to effectively turn free speech into a wedge issue, acting as though anyone who supports social justice is anti-free-speech, or supports the actions of any given idiot who says something stupid on twitter. And in doing so, they amplify the voices who do inappropriately yell "sexist/racist/bigot" far beyond their normal reach. They nutpick, which leads to people believing this is a common problem, rather than a very rare one.

This is why I have a problem with the way this debate is framed.

You see this nuttery on this very board all the time. It’s far from rare.

MrDibble 09-18-2018 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21213661)
I would say that the majority of Israel threads I have been involved in have included some accusations of anti-semitic bigotry. Its often phrased "And these critics of Israel never criticize X, Y and Z country, now what is it about Israel that would make them single it out for criticism. Hmmm. What could it be?"

You're not wrong.

Alessan 09-18-2018 01:23 AM

In my experience, Israel threads tend to have more people accusing people of calling them antisemites, than they have people calling people antisemites. I have not done any rigorous sampling to support this claim, though.

AK84 09-18-2018 01:54 AM

The asnwer to that the OP is "yes".

Ambivalid 09-18-2018 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 21214055)
In my experience, Israel threads tend to have more people accusing people of calling them antisemites

That seems to be a hallmark of most all "-isms". "Just because you see _____-ism in everything, doesn't mean _____-ism is everywhere". I have to admit I've been guilty of this myself at times.

MrDibble 09-18-2018 02:19 AM

I should qualify my first answer here - when I answered "No" to "do people accuse others of racism to shut them up or shut down debate", I was speaking for myself and the general case, I have no doubt there are others who do do that, but I consider them the exception, rather than the rule.

I name racists because I think that makes for more honest debate, not to shut it down. Which is why I think GD is flawed in that regard.

It's true that I do believe the debate about the supposed genetic inferiority of Black people is already resolved by science showing that the common genetic race conception is not a valid scientific concept, like phlogiston and Lysenkoism, so doesn't need endless rehashing. A sticky would do.

But that's one particular small subset of the debate on racism, and I'm quite happy to have all the other debates, based on the social construct of race. But honestly.

Budget Player Cadet 09-18-2018 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21213909)
You see this nuttery on this very board all the time. It’s far from rare.

Okay. Does it ever work? Has there ever been a thread where accusations of bigotry actually shut up the person being called a bigot? Or are people so thoroughly inured to it that even in cases where the accusation is entirely justified, the thread just keeps on chugging? Often for hundreds of posts, even when the racism is super fucking clear? I've never seen it actually work.

This is another thing. There's a huge fucking difference between "someone called me a bigot without reason (and I ignored it and kept talking about how the real problem is anti-white racism for 20+ pages or kept talking about how black people are dumber than white people for 35+ pages)" and "someone called me a bigot without reason, and this led to me being assaulted/deplatformed/etc.".

The former just does not matter. Like, at all. It has literally no effect. I've had a former partner accuse me of racism when I criticized Islam; this was annoying but I pointed out how silly it was and it didn't stop the discussion. It's akin to any stupid rhetorical fallacy - you're going to run into it from time to time, best to just ignore it and move on, and not do what fuckwits like Sargon do and turn a tweet with two notes into something that represents the entire left.

The latter matters, but remains vanishingly rare. I can think of a small handful of examples, which the right brings up without fail every time the issue is mentioned (if this were a common thing, you'd think we'd hear about different, more recent events, rather than the same few cases every single time), but, again, this is not a common thing.

I feel like the OP is conflating the two things. "Shutting down debate" does sound pretty awful, and yeah, what happened to Milo, Murray, and that one Oberlin professor was shitty. But it's exceedingly rare. Meanwhile, someone in a debate calling the other person "racist" and being ignored by everyone else? That's pretty common. It just really doesn't matter.

And that's the typical right-wing gambit - act like the common, inconsequential occurrence of someone calling someone else "racist" and it having no actual fucking impact is the same as someone being assaulted by protesters for being a bigot, and waxing poetic about how scary it is that our free speech is under attack by those evil leftists. And it works. This is a horrifyingly huge part of modern right-wing discourse.

AK84 09-18-2018 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21214087)
I should qualify my first answer here - when I answered "No" to "do people accuse others of racism to shut them up or shut down debate", I was speaking for myself and the general case, I have no doubt there are others who do do that, but I consider them the exception, rather than the rule.

I name racists because I think that makes for more honest debate, not to shut it down. Which is why I think GD is flawed in that regard.

It's true that I do believe the debate about the supposed genetic inferiority of Black people is already resolved by science showing that the common genetic race conception is not a valid scientific concept, like phlogiston and Lysenkoism, so doesn't need endless rehashing. A sticky would do.

But that's one particular small subset of the debate on racism, and I'm quite happy to have all the other debates, based on the social construct of race. But honestly.

There is ex facie racism then there is what can be construed as racist. Its the latter where most of the arguments are.

On the genetic inferiorty, or superiority I agree. To take an example from sports, lots of "common sense" streotypes have been shown over the years to be false.

On the other hand, some might have some validity, might. (See the later half of this video).

MrDibble 09-18-2018 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 21214097)
There is ex facie racism then there is what can be construed as racist. Its the latter where most of the arguments are.

Sorry, could you please rephrase this, I don't understand what you're saying?

It seems like you're saying there's more non-racism that seems racist, than there is actual racism? I'd call busllhit on that if that's what you're saying. Or are you saying people are just more inclined to argue about the former? Which seems like a circular answer to the OP.

Nava 09-18-2018 05:09 AM

IIUIC, he's saying there is evident racism (racism "on its face") and stuff that may or may not be racist, and that most arguments are about the stuff that may or may not be racist. Which frankly falls into "no shit Sherlock", but with some Latin.

Budget Player Cadet 09-18-2018 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 21214176)
IIUIC, he's saying there is evident racism (racism "on its face") and stuff that may or may not be racist, and that most arguments are about the stuff that may or may not be racist. Which frankly falls into "no shit Sherlock", but with some Latin.

Man, I wish that were the case. Instead, finding something which is racist with perfect consensus is virtually impossible - even cases where someone was called "nigger" to their face get downplayed. Or, to put it more bluntly, there are people who would deny that the president - who started his run by accusing Mexico of sending us drug dealers and rapists and, well into his presidency, both-sidesed (yes, I'm verbing that noun, and you can't stop me) neo-nazis and anti-fascist protesters, then called a later speech where he condemned the neo-nazis the biggest mistake of his career - is racist.

How do you make literally any statement, up to and including lynching a black man while shouting "nigger nigger nigger" at him, "controversial" on the question of whether it's racist or not? Simple - have President Trump do it.

AK84 09-18-2018 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21214136)
Sorry, could you please rephrase this, I don't understand what you're saying?

It seems like you're saying there's more non-racism that seems racist, than there is actual racism? I'd call busllhit on that if that's what you're saying. Or are you saying people are just more inclined to argue about the former? Which seems like a circular answer to the OP.

You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I don’t think it’s the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.
I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-18-2018 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21213708)
You are using cheap tactics to debate what I consider to be a serious and debate worthy subject.

Cheap tactics? Like what, asking you to cite your claims? That's the main thing I'm doing.

Or there's my pointing out that you've incorrectly leveled this charge against me in the past, and your deliciously ironic interpretation of that as some sort of personal attack on you.
Quote:

State, if you will, what you believe my theory to be. I have presented anecdotal evidence for the beliefs I have stated. Let us, however start with an agreed upon premise that accurately describes my beliefs.
Seriously? Okay, I'll jump through this hoop, with the understanding that it's the one hoop I'll jump through on your orders.

You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

Gyrate 09-18-2018 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21213909)
You see this nuttery on this very board all the time. It’s far from rare.

Some people "see" more of it than others, because of course individuals differ on what are valid and invalid claims of racism. If one approaches it from a perspective of "[Other person] said [X] is racist but I don't find [X] to be racist, therefore [Other person] is either hysterically oversensitive or a member of the uber-PC thought police trying to shut me down", then one will perceive a higher percentage of claims of racism to be invalid. That doesn't mean that [X] isn't racist (nor that it is); it merely demonstrates a rather narrow and self-centered approach to assessing these claims.

octopus 09-18-2018 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 21214183)
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I don’t think it’s the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.
I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.

Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist? That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.

Bone 09-18-2018 08:29 AM

Moderating
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 21214183)
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I don’t think it’s the later.

This is a warning for personal insults. Your points can be well made without this type of rhetoric. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.

[/moderating]

andros 09-18-2018 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21214428)
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist? That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.

"The Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best [subgroup] in the world at endurance running," if indeed correct, is not a racist statement.

Extrapolated to "blacks are better runners" it becomes so.

We needn't go back over why this is, right?

etasyde 09-18-2018 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21214428)
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist?

It's true that a fact can't be racist, but it's entirely possible that a claim is, especially if the criterion used to accept that claim as fact is predicated on racist stereotypes. The basic "I already want to believe this, so I accept it as true without any justification" mindset.

People just accept that Kenyans are the best runners. When people just accept it without any evidence, study or reason, I'd say that's stereotyping, even though it may actually be true.

Quote:

That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.
Well this is interesting. I don't recall agreeing with anything you've said 110% like this. You're spot on the money with this one, though. I can't agree more.

Ambivalid 09-18-2018 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21214428)
why would a fact be racist?

This sounds like the tactics of our very own in-house racialist Chief Pedant.

MrDibble 09-18-2018 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 21214176)
IIUIC, he's saying there is evident racism (racism "on its face") and stuff that may or may not be racist, and that most arguments are about the stuff that may or may not be racist. Which frankly falls into "no shit Sherlock", but with some Latin.

Agreed, that's what I meant by that "circular argument" part. I wasn't sure because a quick google only turned up that phrase as legalese about documents you could reject out of hand, which seemed counter-intuitive.

octopus 09-18-2018 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21214476)
It's true that a fact can't be racist, but it's entirely possible that a claim is, especially if the criterion used to accept that claim as fact is predicated on racist stereotypes. The basic "I already want to believe this, so I accept it as true without any justification" mindset.

People just accept that Kenyans are the best runners. When people just accept it without any evidence, study or reason, I'd say that's stereotyping, even though it may actually be true.


Well this is interesting. I don't recall agreeing with anything you've said 110% like this. You're spot on the money with this one, though. I can't agree more.

That sort of stereotype doesn’t just pop up. The so-called stereotype of Kenyan marathon runners being better than average is evidence based.

MrDibble 09-18-2018 03:55 PM

Like the so-called stereotype of Jews being good at basketball...

etasyde 09-18-2018 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21215074)
That sort of stereotype doesn’t just pop up. The so-called stereotype of Kenyan marathon runners being better than average is evidence based.

No, some people have evidence of the claim and therefore conclude the stereotype is true.

Others believe the stereotype is true and therefore conclude there is evidence somewhere out there for it.

I'm not accusing you of either, so please don't feel attacked, but even if I grant that you have done your due diligence and arrived logically at that conclusion, I know a lot of ignoramuses who fall in the later category.

In short, the racism (or lack there of) behind a claim cannot be ascertained by the objective truth of the claim, rather it can only be surmised through an understanding of how the individual came to believe the claim was true.

I don't think that's possible to do in Watchmaker fashion, though, so simply observing a possible belief in a stereotype is insufficient to establish how that belief was arrived upon.

octopus 09-18-2018 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21215657)
Like the so-called stereotype of Jews being good at basketball...

You know that’s an apple to cabbage comparison. Tsk!

Ambivalid 09-18-2018 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21215862)
In short, the racism (or lack there of) behind a claim cannot be ascertained by the objective truth of the claim, rather it can only be surmised through an understanding of how the individual came to believe the claim was true.

What if the knowledge comes by a deference to authority and thru no true critical understanding on the part of the individual who comes to the same knowledge as that authority figure who did his/her due diligence? Sort of similar to laypeople's knowledge that there is an inverse relationship between space and time?

Mr. Nylock 09-18-2018 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21214193)

You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

I think the word major is an overreach, I would replace it with significant.

I wouldn't say real discussion so much as immersion in african american culture. (I'm fine using African American in this context, but I prefer to use the term black when describing people). I think many people interact, get along with, and have minority friends and neighbors - but that is different than having a high level of daily interaction with a minority group on an equal footing.

I think many people have good intentions, yet these intentions lead them to demonize others too quickly over unsettled, vague, and rapidly changing social mores than are not agreed upon by even the offended demographic and often rely more on an individual's perspective than any agreed upon societal norms. A Tower of Babel if you will.

And there is all kinds of racism, that is something I believe. There is racism that is hateful, there is racism that is unconscious, there is racism born out of simple ignorance due to things such a geographic isolation. There is also racial bias which is different than racism. To get more specific, I think that not all these should be treated the same.

I have some other points, I'll get to them tomorrow and also include the cites, graphs, circumstantial political data etc. that you requested - if I have time.

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-18-2018 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21214193)
You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21216312)
I think the word major is an overreach, I would replace it with significant.

I wouldn't say real discussion so much as immersion in african american culture. (I'm fine using African American in this context, but I prefer to use the term black when describing people). I think many people interact, get along with, and have minority friends and neighbors - but that is different than having a high level of daily interaction with a minority group on an equal footing.

Are you serious?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21207865)
I think a major part of the problem is that people such as my coworkers, whom I have tremendous respect for, never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. Mostly what you end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

(emphasis added).

I mean, I'm glad you're softening your statement; doing so makes it less absurd. But your eyerolling and moaning about how I misunderstood your point is pretty much at your feet in this case.
Quote:

I have some other points, I'll get to them tomorrow and also include the cites, graphs, circumstantial political data etc. that you requested - if I have time.
By all means do so. But if your point is that a significant problem is that some white people don't immerse themselves in African American culture, suddenly we're not so far apart in our views, and I no longer need cites for your claim.

MrDibble 09-19-2018 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21215982)
You know that’s an apple to cabbage comparison. Tsk!

No, it's apples to apples. I get that you don't like them apples, though.

Damuri Ajashi 09-19-2018 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21214089)
Okay. Does it ever work? Has there ever been a thread where accusations of bigotry actually shut up the person being called a bigot? Or are people so thoroughly inured to it that even in cases where the accusation is entirely justified, the thread just keeps on chugging? Often for hundreds of posts, even when the racism is super fucking clear? I've never seen it actually work.

This is another thing. There's a huge fucking difference between "someone called me a bigot without reason (and I ignored it and kept talking about how the real problem is anti-white racism for 20+ pages or kept talking about how black people are dumber than white people for 35+ pages)" and "someone called me a bigot without reason, and this led to me being assaulted/deplatformed/etc.".

The former just does not matter. Like, at all. It has literally no effect. I've had a former partner accuse me of racism when I criticized Islam; this was annoying but I pointed out how silly it was and it didn't stop the discussion. It's akin to any stupid rhetorical fallacy - you're going to run into it from time to time, best to just ignore it and move on, and not do what fuckwits like Sargon do and turn a tweet with two notes into something that represents the entire left.

The latter matters, but remains vanishingly rare. I can think of a small handful of examples, which the right brings up without fail every time the issue is mentioned (if this were a common thing, you'd think we'd hear about different, more recent events, rather than the same few cases every single time), but, again, this is not a common thing.

I feel like the OP is conflating the two things. "Shutting down debate" does sound pretty awful, and yeah, what happened to Milo, Murray, and that one Oberlin professor was shitty. But it's exceedingly rare. Meanwhile, someone in a debate calling the other person "racist" and being ignored by everyone else? That's pretty common. It just really doesn't matter.

And that's the typical right-wing gambit - act like the common, inconsequential occurrence of someone calling someone else "racist" and it having no actual fucking impact is the same as someone being assaulted by protesters for being a bigot, and waxing poetic about how scary it is that our free speech is under attack by those evil leftists. And it works. This is a horrifyingly huge part of modern right-wing discourse.

I don't think that "shutting down debate" is limited to situations where you are physically excluded from debating. These are only the most extreme examples.

Shutting down debate through accusations of racism is usually an exercise in thought policing. It doesn't really work, except against liberals. But liberals are starting to develop an immunity to this tactic and moderates have been rolling their eyes at it for years now.

Damuri Ajashi 09-19-2018 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 21214183)
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I don’t think it’s the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.

Some people would call that scientific racism.

Quote:

I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.
There is also a long history of ethnic and racial stereotypes in education and intelligence that persist, in many cases, despite being disproved.

Damuri Ajashi 09-19-2018 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21214193)
You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers--for whom you have tremendous respect--never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.

I don't think this is that far off.

Most white folks seem to understand racism in the abstract or from what they see in the news. Very few of them have had frank discussions about racism with minorities. It makes wypipo extremely uncomfortable. I had a discussion over the summer with a black friend about affirmative action where all the other guests were white, you could almost hear their buttholes constricting. The discussion was about politics and it meandered into a discussion about race for a few minutes and in those few minutes it became uncomfortable enough that we stopped almost mid-thought. Suburban minorities rarely speak frankly with their suburban white friends about race.

I'm pretty sure that you can shut those fairly liberal white people up with accusations of racism. And they resent it. Then some of them take that resentment into the voting booths with them.

Damuri Ajashi 09-19-2018 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21214309)
Some people "see" more of it than others, because of course individuals differ on what are valid and invalid claims of racism. If one approaches it from a perspective of "[Other person] said [X] is racist but I don't find [X] to be racist, therefore [Other person] is either hysterically oversensitive or a member of the uber-PC thought police trying to shut me down", then one will perceive a higher percentage of claims of racism to be invalid. That doesn't mean that [X] isn't racist (nor that it is); it merely demonstrates a rather narrow and self-centered approach to assessing these claims.

In the aggregate, one false claim of racism is not balanced by one correct accusation of racism.

Budget Player Cadet 09-19-2018 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21216818)
I don't think that "shutting down debate" is limited to situations where you are physically excluded from debating. These are only the most extreme examples.

Shutting down debate through accusations of racism is usually an exercise in thought policing. It doesn't really work, except against liberals. But liberals are starting to develop an immunity to this tactic and moderates have been rolling their eyes at it for years now.

... That's my point. It never works. To the degree that it's common, it doesn't matter at all. To the degree it matters, it's vanishingly rare. So why should we care about the former, or treat the latter as anything but a very rare breakdown of acceptable norms? It's a deepity.

Damuri Ajashi 09-19-2018 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21217030)
... That's my point. It never works. To the degree that it's common, it doesn't matter at all. To the degree it matters, it's vanishingly rare. So why should we care about the former, or treat the latter as anything but a very rare breakdown of acceptable norms? It's a deepity.

To the degree that its common it can create resentment. Identity politics that demonize otherwise liberal people is a problem. Not all liberal male critics of Hillary are Bernie Bros, but this didn't stop people from hurling the label at any young men that criticized Hillary. This stifled criticism but probably hurt her at the polls.

People are cautious about criticizing Israel IRL because of accusations of anti-Semitism. This doesn't actually lead to more support for Israel.

Liberals have to be very careful about criticizing ANY form of Affirmative Action.

Liberalism used to be a principles based ideology. It is now turning into a narrative based ideology. This is driving away moderates and independents. This may not be enough to make YOU vote for Trump or stay home on election night but at the margins it makes difference and the critical race theorists do not have a large enough voting block to ignore those margins.

manson1972 09-19-2018 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21217322)
To the degree that its common it can create resentment. Identity politics that demonize otherwise liberal people is a problem. Not all liberal male critics of Hillary are Bernie Bros, but this didn't stop people from hurling the label at any young men that criticized Hillary.

Who hurled this label at any young men that criticized Hillary?

Mr. Nylock 09-19-2018 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21216410)
Are you serious?



(emphasis added).

I mean, I'm glad you're softening your statement; doing so makes it less absurd. But your eyerolling and moaning about how I misunderstood your point is pretty much at your feet in this case.

By all means do so. But if your point is that a significant problem is that some white people don't immerse themselves in African American culture, suddenly we're not so far apart in our views, and I no longer need cites for your claim.

No, we are probably not so far in our views, we just have different ways in expressing ourselves.

Probably our real differences stem more from our opinions on what should be considered appropriate when interacting with people who have views further away from ours.

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-20-2018 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21218164)
No, we are probably not so far in our views, we just have different ways in expressing ourselves.

Probably our real differences stem more from our opinions on what should be considered appropriate when interacting with people who have views further away from ours.

Not clear on what you mean by that last sentence. It may be that you're suggesting I don't value civil discourse as much as you do when engaging with folks we disagree with.

As for that, and I wanna be civil here, I see a different difference. Your initial contribution to this thread echoed a contribution to another thread: you dismissed ideas with an ad hominem. That is, rather than talking about the views held by those you disagree with, you imagined things about their personal lives that would render their views contemptible and ignorant.

You did the same to me awhile ago, as I stated before, and it's about the only thing I remember about you as a poster, given how shockingly wrong your assumptions in that ad hominem were.

I don't consider that sort of personal attack to be appropriate, FWIW.

etasyde 09-20-2018 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21217424)
Who hurled this label at any young men that criticized Hillary?

This insult came up in almost every thread from the time period in the election forum, and almost every thread from Reddit on /r/politics and several other boards. It still comes up often enough if Hillary gets criticized in /r/politics. It was a common phenomenon across the Internet.

I'll spend maybe five minutes but google pops up the term (searching this site alone) frequently enough. I'm ignoring illusions to bernie bro and using only the exact phrase, or variants like "berniebro" or "bernie-bro."
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveG1 (Post 20849632)
The kind of Bernie Bro "purity" you are saying NO to, is exactly what we need to avoid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21154595)
And "far-left"? There are some Bernie Bros at SDMB, if that's what you mean, but I don't think they're a majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 19773652)
Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 21169100)
It doesn't really mean anything, but anything that'll shut up the Bernie Bros is a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear (Post 20806781)
And unlike way too many Bernie Bros, I'd do what I could to stop Trump.

Thread Title: "Hey Bernie, go to hell and take all of your Bros with you"

I can easily dig out more.

OH, apparently, someone already had at the time:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayna (Post 19781937)
Someone asked how Bernie would accomplish anything.

"FUCK BERNIE VOTERS. FUCK THEM ALL. GO TO HELL."

Douche bags, twat, swamp donkey, retarded cunts.

"Lying fucking cunt."

"Didn't know you were special needs."

"We don't need your vote."

I asked followers to support Bernie delegates.

"Are you and your friend old enough to use the restroom?"

"We don't need you or Bernie."

"Bernie Bros go home!!!! We don't need you!!! #ImWithHer"

"We don't need you. We want REAL Democrats!"

And just know that this is an extremely small sampling of the constant barrage of filth Bernie supporters were subjected to on a daily basis for a year.

And this is in addition to the campaign and its surrogates insulting us at every turn. Deeply. Relegated to Hell.

If anyone wants to dismiss the damage this caused as "hurt feelings," then I contend you should expect to lose a lot more elections.


etasyde 09-20-2018 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21216026)
What if the knowledge comes by a deference to authority and thru no true critical understanding on the part of the individual who comes to the same knowledge as that authority figure who did his/her due diligence? Sort of similar to laypeople's knowledge that there is an inverse relationship between space and time?

I don't believe you can have an "authority" on racial stereotypes. It also depends on the nature of the stereotype being upheld by this "authority" and how this "authority" became such. Deference to the Grand Wizard of the KKK doesn't excuse racism, for instance. And how can an individual who did not do his due diligence identify an "authority" who did?

When dealing with people, deference to authority without critically examining the claims of said authority is not generally acceptable. Would you excuse a mother who poisoned her baby with mushrooms because her non-mycologist neighbor, the local "authority" on mushroom picking, gave her a mystery shroom and said it'd raise the baby's IQ?

Jasmine 09-20-2018 10:15 AM

Humans can pretty much abuse almost anything, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the problem itself.

That is, in fact, one of the favorite tactics of naysayers. For example, enemies of the "Black Lives Matter" movement will triumphantly point out a false claim of police abuse as if that negates the fact that Blacks have been the victims of police abuse throughout the history of this nation.

Sure, there are women who will make false claims to garner media attention or extort money, but that doesn't change the fact that sexual harassment has been prevalent in all facets of our society.

Gyrate 09-20-2018 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21219200)
This insult came up in almost every thread from the time period in the election forum, and almost every thread from Reddit on /r/politics and several other boards. It still comes up often enough if Hillary gets criticized in /r/politics. It was a common phenomenon across the Internet.

I'll spend maybe five minutes but google pops up the term (searching this site alone) frequently enough. I'm ignoring illusions to bernie bro and using only the exact phrase, or variants like "berniebro" or "bernie-bro."

Nobody's disputing the fact that the phrase "Bernie Bros" (and variants) exists and was levelled at Sanders supporters. But that wasn't the assertion being questioned, which was that "any young men that criticized Hillary" were called such regardless of their views on Senator Sanders.

AHunter3 09-20-2018 10:35 AM

I'm not going to say "abused", or even "used when factually wrong", but I'll say "used when tactically a bad idea".

Pretend this is 1860. You could accuse Abraham Lincoln of having deplorably racist attitudes. You would not be factually in error to do so — if I recall correctly, he did not believe "the Negro" to be an equal in every way to "White".

As Avenue Q's song says, everyone is a little bit racist; and many activists say that every white person is a participant in racism, that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong but tactically it's more useful (in my opinion) to reserve the terms "racist" and "sexist" for attitudes, intentions, and behaviors — things that a male or white (or etc) individual can modify or ameliorate — and not to use those terms to refer to the fact of institutional racism and patriarchy and the fact that as individuals we are woven into those systems as participants and structures as beneficiaries of it whether we like it or not.

"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.

etasyde 09-20-2018 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21219249)
Nobody's disputing the fact that the phrase "Bernie Bros" (and variants) exists and was levelled at Sanders supporters. But that wasn't the assertion being questioned, which was that "any young men that criticized Hillary" were called such regardless of their views on Senator Sanders.

If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that's what's happening.

Quote:

Another part is the Bernie-Bros- they didnt know how to campaign for their candidate, so they bought Roves lies and kept using them against Hillary, even long after the Nomination was sealed up. I got a couple in my FB feed, they are still going on how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.
How did you read this as anything else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 21219262)
that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong

No, that's absolutely factually wrong.

You literally just included embryos and newborns in the blame for patriarchy. I reject the notion that it even exists, but even if you accept it, casually blaming it on babies is pretty sick.
Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 21219262)
"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.

Yes! This is correct.

manson1972 09-20-2018 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21219269)
If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that's what's happening

So, when dalej42 said:

Quote:

It doesn't really mean anything, but anything that'll shut up the Bernie Bros is a good thing
he really meant all young men who criticized Hillary? He didn't mean actual supporters of Bernie?

nelliebly 09-20-2018 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 21219262)
I'm not going to say "abused", or even "used when factually wrong", but I'll say "used when tactically a bad idea".

Pretend this is 1860. You could accuse Abraham Lincoln of having deplorably racist attitudes. You would not be factually in error to do so — if I recall correctly, he did not believe "the Negro" to be an equal in every way to "White".

Lincoln had racist attitudes that were not seen as racist back then due to the racism of the time. Calling Lincoln's attitudes racist doesn't diminish or dismiss his achievements.

Quote:

As Avenue Q's song says, everyone is a little bit racist; and many activists say that every white person is a participant in racism, that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren't factually wrong but tactically it's more useful (in my opinion) to reserve the terms "racist" and "sexist" for attitudes, intentions, and behaviors — things that a male or white (or etc) individual can modify or ameliorate — and not to use those terms to refer to the fact of institutional racism and patriarchy and the fact that as individuals we are woven into those systems as participants and structures as beneficiaries of it whether we like it or not.
What term do you propose to use in place of "institutional racism"?

Quote:

"Racist" and "sexist" and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can't really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.
Respectfully, you have it backward. Racist is already perceived as such a horrible insult that it's nearly impossible to have frank conversations about its subtle and pervasive forms, and the bar for what constitutes racism has been set ridiculously high.

Shodan 09-20-2018 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21219403)
Respectfully, you have it backward. Racist is already perceived as such a horrible insult that it's nearly impossible to have frank conversations about its subtle and pervasive forms, and the bar for what constitutes racism has been set ridiculously high.

Well, it's certainly meant to be a horrible insult, but I disagree about the height of the bar. "You're white and male and part of the system therefore you are racist whether you think so or not" isn't a particularly high bar IMO.

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 09-20-2018 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21219534)
"You're white and male and part of the system therefore you are racist whether you think so or not" isn't a particularly high bar IMO.

Thankfully, the bar is much higher. Unfortunately, there are still lots of people who still say or do racist things (like, say, characterizing some black people as the n-word based on their behavior).

Left Hand of Dorkness 09-20-2018 02:00 PM

I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.

Mr. Nylock 09-21-2018 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21218682)

I don't consider that sort of personal attack to be appropriate, FWIW.

Given your manner of posting in these threads, what you consider to be appropriate is worth very little in my opinion.

Damuri Ajashi 09-21-2018 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine (Post 21219215)
Humans can pretty much abuse almost anything, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the problem itself.

Noone is saying that racism/sexism/bigotry doesn't exist. That's not the debate.

Quote:

That is, in fact, one of the favorite tactics of naysayers. For example, enemies of the "Black Lives Matter" movement will triumphantly point out a false claim of police abuse as if that negates the fact that Blacks have been the victims of police abuse throughout the history of this nation.
As a critic of BLM (or what it had become at one point), I point out the scientific study conducted by a prize winning economist that shows that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than whites after you take reasonable variables into account. I point out that blacks get shot about 3 times more frequently than whites and that the poverty rate is about three times higher in the black community than the white community.

In fact its not the critics of BLM that are using anecdotal evidence, it is in fact BLM that is doing so. The entire critical race theory movement uses anecdote and narrative rather than data and analysis.

Anecdote and narrative can be useful in some things. It can prove that cops do in fact seem to get cleared for shootings that almost any civilian would go to jail for but they have not proven that the justice system is more lenient towards cops that kill white men versus cops that kill black men. That would require logic, analysis and data.

Anecdote can also prove that BLM has instigated riots. You only need to instigate one riot to be a violent organization. Just like you only need to beat your wife once to be a wifebeater. Anecdote is sufficient in that case. no study needs to be conducted to see if BLM is violent or that someone is a wifebeater, one data point is all you need.

Quote:

Sure, there are women who will make false claims to garner media attention or extort money, but that doesn't change the fact that sexual harassment has been prevalent in all facets of our society.
The questions isn't whether there are false claims of sexism (not sexual harassment), the question is whether accusations of sexism are being abused. It6 loses its stigma. People sprain their eyes rolling them at people accusing others of sexism when they criticize Hillary. This turns into people rolling their eyes (somewhat less) when people call out mild forms of sexism that COULD be overlooked (but probably shouldn't).

Damuri Ajashi 09-21-2018 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21219298)
So, when dalej42 said:



he really meant all young men who criticized Hillary? He didn't mean actual supporters of Bernie?

Let me revise my statement because this is going to get into a tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct.

Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice. It was basically accusing young liberal men of being sexist in large part to dismiss them and shut them up. Turns out they could still vote.

Damuri Ajashi 09-21-2018 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21219742)
I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.

Or they will just shut up and vote for the other guy come election day.

Its not effective to tell other people how to react to your insults.

You can certainly talk to them about why you think their statements or behavior is racist but simply calling them a racist (in many cases simply for disagreeing with the PC version of the facts) and dismissing them is extremely ineffective in a democracy.

iiandyiiii 09-21-2018 07:33 AM

With regards to BLM, Damuri Ajashi, I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men, though the criminal differences were far, far smaller, and you ignored it. So it's not a question of data vs anecdotes -- it's different data and different understandings of the facts.

Shodan 09-21-2018 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21219693)
Thankfully, the bar is much higher. Unfortunately, there are still lots of people who still say or do racist things (like, say, characterizing some black people as the n-word based on their behavior).

I've heard people claim they weren't going to engage with those that they think said something like that, but unfortunately it didn't turn out to be true.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21219742)
I disagree. I don't think "racist" and "sexist" are horrible things to be called. I mean, it sucks that we have a world in which racism and sexism are so ingrained into our culture, but given their ubiquity, if someone calls you out for doing something racist or sexist, instead of treating it like they just accused you of being a serial puppy rapist, just frickin pay attention to what they're talking about. Maybe they have a point, and you need to adjust behavior; maybe they don't. Either way isn't the end of the world.

The specific instance that I mentioned was the "you didn't do anything racist, but you are part of the system/white privilege/whiteness/white supremacism". Calling that "racist" is counter-productive, mostly because they don't IMO have a point. Collective guilt != burning crosses, IOW.

Regards,
Shodan

Gyrate 09-21-2018 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21220989)
Let me revise my statement because this is going to get into a tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct.

This is not "tedious discussion about whether an absolute statement is correct". This is "asking for some evidence for a questionable assertion".

Quote:

Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice.
So you keep asserting. Still waiting for the evidence.

Yes, people were called Bernie Bros derisively... but thus far all those people we have seen discussed were actually Sanders supporters. That they also criticized Clinton remains correlation, not remotely causation.

Quote:

It was basically accusing young liberal men of being sexist in large part to dismiss them and shut them up.
An even more questionable and evidence-free assertion. Of course, one could also argue that accusing anyone daring to challenge broad and baseless criticism of Clinton as doing so to "dismiss them and shut them up" is itself a ploy to dismiss them and shut them up.

iiandyiiii 09-21-2018 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21221119)
I've heard people claim they weren't going to engage with those that they think said something like that, but unfortunately it didn't turn out to be true.

D'ohh! Thanks for reminding me. I'm still hopeful that this individual might change.

manson1972 09-21-2018 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21220989)
Young liberal men that criticized Hillary were derisively called Bernie bros. This occurred frequently enough that you can say it was a common practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21221129)
So you keep asserting. Still waiting for the evidence

Yes, this. I'm also waiting for some evidence. Showing that people called supporters of Bernie "Bernie Bros" is not evidence that young white men who criticized Hillary were called "Bernie Bros"

etasyde 09-21-2018 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21221376)
Yes, this. I'm also waiting for some evidence. Showing that people called supporters of Bernie "Bernie Bros" is not evidence that young white men who criticized Hillary were called "Bernie Bros"

I'm hoping this is sarcasm, but these days its impossible to tell. You're either directly parodying the guy, in which case kudos, or you're mirroring him and in which case :smack:

Also, you invented the "white men" thing whole cloth, the original claim had nothing to do with race. Shifting the goalposts is natural, but when you try to shift that far I'll call you out on it.

manson1972 09-21-2018 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21221736)
Also, you invented the "white men" thing whole cloth, the original claim had nothing to do with race. Shifting the goalposts is natural, but when you try to shift that far I'll call you out on it.

My fault, I didn't add "white" into it to move goal posts. Just a posting mistake.

Ambivalid 09-21-2018 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21220993)
Or they will just shut up and vote for the other guy come election day.

Its not effective to tell other people how to react to your insults.

You can certainly talk to them about why you think their statements or behavior is racist but simply calling them a racist (in many cases simply for disagreeing with the PC version of the facts) and dismissing them is extremely ineffective in a democracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21221119)
The specific instance that I mentioned was the "you didn't do anything racist, but you are part of the system/white privilege/whiteness/white supremacism". Calling that "racist" is counter-productive, mostly because they don't IMO have a point. Collective guilt != burning crosses, IOW.

These posts bring up an important point. It involves asking what the ultimate goals are of those who bandy about such terms and phrases as "if you are white you are racist" or "white fragility" or for the sake of this discussion, even "white privilege". Ostensibly, the goal is to spread awareness of widespread, systematic and institutional racism, from which every single white American derives some level of benefit. So if the goal is to raise awareness which leads to personal introspection and ultimately, hopefully, long-term change, it seems to me these rhetorical devices are an extremely ineffecient, even self-sabotaging means to achieving those goals.

This is because the people most in need of enlightenment in re to these issues are not going to be receptive to a message that from the outset labels them as a racist. Or even of having some sort of "privilege" not granted to minorities. The reality is, if you are genuinely interested in reaching those people who are most in the dark-and not just trying to shame them and thus elevate yourself, you need to approach and frame the issues in a decidely not-so-hostile, accusatory manner. I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?

ETA: I want to be clear, I do not dispute the validity of the terms or phrases I mentioned. I meant that in the context of spreading awareness and sparking introspection, they seem decidely wrong-headed.

MrDibble 09-21-2018 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21221801)
I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?

Compared to...?

Ambivalid 09-21-2018 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21221987)
Compared to...?

Compared to what I'm suggesting should be employed instead; namely a less accusatory or divisive rhetorical strategy that doesn't cut off the nose to spite the face. One that doesnt engender an immediate shutting down of minds, the very minds that are ostensibly trying to be reached and opened. We can discuss/debate what the particulars of that revised strategy could be, my point in the post you quoted was to say that the current one seems designed to fail.

MrDibble 09-22-2018 06:02 PM

You mean all the "shut-up-and-wait" stuff that didn't work before?

AHunter3 09-23-2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21219403)
What term do you propose to use in place of "institutional racism"?

I don't know. Feminism has "patriarchy" and also "sexism", two different terms. I think it would be useful if there were a term that meant "institutional racism" as distinguished from personal attitudes and beliefs that are unequal and biased, but there sort of isn't and I don't have a good nominee that would improve on "institutional racism".



Quote:

Respectfully, you have it backward. Racist is already perceived as such a horrible insult that it's nearly impossible to have frank conversations about its subtle and pervasive forms, and the bar for what constitutes racism has been set ridiculously high.
Yeah, I guess so... I just read George Yancy's Backlash about the reactions to the "Dear White America" letter, and the responses were way over the top; I thought I was misremembering the letter and that it flung a lot of specific blame and accusation of the "institutional racism" variety, along with judgmental accusations of culpability etc, but it absolutely doesn't. It would be hard to imagine a more reasonable letter, one that simply asks people to look at the racist social structure.

That's really sad.

Ambivalid 09-23-2018 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21223894)
You mean all the "shut-up-and-wait" stuff that didn't work before?

I'm not familiar with the term quoted above.

BigT 09-23-2018 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etasyde (Post 21219269)
If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that's what's happening.


How did you read this as anything else?

How do you read it as being about anyone who disagrees with Clinton? It specifically refers to "their candidate." It very clearly is about Sanders supporters, and not just anyone who criticizes Clinton.

I criticized Clinton a lot. I was never called a Bernie Bro. And, heck, I actually said I preferred Sanders over Clinton. What I didn't do is act like the Bernie Bro and glorify Sanders while attacking Clinton. I actually got that, despite their differences, both were on the same side.

I didn't, however, engage in the conspiracy rhetoric. I made sure my criticisms were constructive criticisms. I recognized that Clinton was the favorite to win, and accepted that. I focused my ire on Trump, not someone on the same side.

And I sure as hell didn't threaten to vote for Trump if Sanders lost. Or say I'd sit out the election and not try to stop him.

MrDibble 09-23-2018 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21225262)
I'm not familiar with the term quoted above.

Maybe you're familiar with "Shut Up And Dribble"? How about "Don't Be So Uppity"?

BigT 09-23-2018 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21208694)
Oh, so there is a consensus among "experts" on this issue? I never knew.

I presume this is snark. But that means you're not interested in actually debating the topic. And that would be pointless.

So I will instead respond like it's not snark. Yes, there a fairly broad consensus. It doesn't take much to notice. White people saying the n-word? Generally considered racist. Yet you said your friends were debating that. Seems they aren't representative.

Where there is debate is stuff like whether merely mentioning the word (without using it) is acceptable. And there's also some debate on whether "nigger" and "nigga" are the same word, with some people saying that the latter is sometimes okay but the former is never okay.

You were claiming liberals don't pay attention to what black people say about racism. But black people are the ones basically calling the shots on anti-black racism. Who started BLM? It wasn't white people.

My position on what is and isn't racism against black people is pretty much entirely informed by black people. And other liberals on this board have said similar.

You attacked our positions not based on what they are, but on whether we were listening to black people. So that is my response.

Ambivalid 09-23-2018 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21225393)
Maybe you're familiar with "Shut Up And Dribble"? How about "Don't Be So Uppity"?

I'm confused. This sounds like the historically condescending attitudes from some in the white community towards those in black communities that are speaking out against racism. While related, it's not the issue I was discussing. It's not exclusively black Americans who are trying to spread awareness of white privilege, there are significant portions of white America doing so as well. It is this combined group that I referred to when suggesting that a less accusatory, confrontational strategy be adopted in order to most effectively reach the goals of those of us wishing to ultimately dismantle "white privilege". Your replies would only be relevant if I was speaking exclusively to the black communities. Which i certainly am not.

Mr. Nylock 09-23-2018 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21225423)
I presume this is snark. But that means you're not interested in actually debating the topic. And that would be pointless.

The idea that there even is such a thing as "expert" in matters such as this is absurd on its face - it's not a point I want to debate here and now, but if it's something you want to go back and forth on, like when we're bored and battling insomnia in the wee hours of the morning and have nothing to do but argue subtle points about the meaning of various things I might still be up. Some nights I'm not sleeping so well other nights I'm out, it's hard to predict.

Quote:

So I will instead respond like it's not snark. Yes, there a fairly broad consensus. It doesn't take much to notice. White people saying the n-word? Generally considered racist. Yet you said your friends were debating that. Seems they aren't representative.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my thoughts in a serious way; I mean this sincerely. Some of my responses to you, may seem pedantic at first blush, however, I believe you are misrepresenting what I say by using words that are distinctly different, with subtle yet important differences in meaning.

The first thing I want to correct is that I did not say friends, they are coworkers. I think this is important. If these were friends I would not bothered to post in this thread - I would not feel that I have anything relevant enough to even bother writing about.

Why is this distinction important? I believe it matters because in this situation we are not choosing to be in each others company, we are required to work alongside each other day in day out because we have the required skill to do the work that needs to be done. The relevance to this is that this interaction over the years has put me into contact with opinions and ideas distinctly broader and more complex than what I see expressed by my friends (I have a mix of minority and non-minority friends).

Quote:

Where there is debate is stuff like whether merely mentioning the word (without using it) is acceptable. And there's also some debate on whether "nigger" and "nigga" are the same word, with some people saying that the latter is sometimes okay but the former is never okay.
This is nothing close to what I said. There is and has been considerable debate about the appropriate use of these and other racial slurs, none of what I said should lead you to the conclusion that this is what any or all of it was about. Jumping to this conclusion only indicates that you rarely have these kinds of conversations.

Quote:

You were claiming liberals don't pay attention to what black people say about racism. But black people are the ones basically calling the shots on anti-black racism. Who started BLM? It wasn't white people.
Again, I never said liberals in any of my analysis; once more you are inserting words that I did not use. Why is this significant? I believe that OP is describing a broad problem that does not necessarily fit into neat categories of political affiliation. Also, saying I said liberal you are ascribing a level of partisanship to my analysis I find odious.

Implying that BLM is calling the shots on on anti-black racism, with the assumption that it is highly regarded by an overwhelming majority of black people is just another type of stereotyping in my opinion. Beyond that, is a decentralized newly formed movement such as BLM really equipped to flesh out all these more subtle matters of usage and context.

Quote:

You attacked our positions not based on what they are, but on whether we were listening to black people. So that is my response.
The OP isn't necessarily about positions, it is about reactions and feelings.

MrDibble 09-24-2018 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21225464)
I'm confused. This sounds like the historically condescending attitudes from some in the white community towards those in black communities that are speaking out against racism. While related, it's not the issue I was discussing. It's not exclusively black Americans who are trying to spread awareness of white privilege, there are significant portions of white America doing so as well. It is this combined group that I referred to when suggesting that a less accusatory, confrontational strategy be adopted in order to most effectively reach the goals of those of us wishing to ultimately dismantle "white privilege". Your replies would only be relevant if I was speaking exclusively to the black communities. Which i certainly am not.

No, it's still relevant - I'm saying this is just an extension of that same "change only at the pace the privileged are most comfortable with" attitude to both the Blacks and their allies (as was the case in the days of Civil Rights too).

Damuri Ajashi 09-28-2018 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21221029)
With regards to BLM, Damuri Ajashi, I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men, though the criminal differences were far, far smaller, and you ignored it. So it's not a question of data vs anecdotes -- it's different data and different understandings of the facts.

There is NO dispute about my 3x number its statistical FACT based on the admittedly incomplete but still statistically relevant data we have. The statistics you derive from incomplete data (all data suffers from this but particularly incomplete data) becomes less and less reliable the more you parse it.

The article you link is parsing the data to the point where the sample size is losing its statistical significance. This is bad science.

The article you link tries to derive conclusions based on 40 shootings over a 3 year period. By that rationale the ONE shooting of one Asian child under 14 makes Asian males under 14 are 3 times more likely to be shot and killed than white males under 14. Your statistics are not statistically relevant. No other data is presented in the article.

There may very well be a systemic cops problem but the gross data does not point to a race problem and trying to reach conclusions from data that is not collected to determine your particular hypothesis means that you are not correcting for reasonable variables.

Damuri Ajashi 09-28-2018 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21221801)
These posts bring up an important point. It involves asking what the ultimate goals are of those who bandy about such terms and phrases as "if you are white you are racist" or "white fragility" or for the sake of this discussion, even "white privilege". Ostensibly, the goal is to spread awareness of widespread, systematic and institutional racism, from which every single white American derives some level of benefit. So if the goal is to raise awareness which leads to personal introspection and ultimately, hopefully, long-term change, it seems to me these rhetorical devices are an extremely ineffecient, even self-sabotaging means to achieving those goals.

This is because the people most in need of enlightenment in re to these issues are not going to be receptive to a message that from the outset labels them as a racist. Or even of having some sort of "privilege" not granted to minorities. The reality is, if you are genuinely interested in reaching those people who are most in the dark-and not just trying to shame them and thus elevate yourself, you need to approach and frame the issues in a decidely not-so-hostile, accusatory manner. I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?

ETA: I want to be clear, I do not dispute the validity of the terms or phrases I mentioned. I meant that in the context of spreading awareness and sparking introspection, they seem decidely wrong-headed.

I think that the terms white privilege and white fragility could not have been better designed to close minds. At least with "white privilege" it sort of tracks what the term is trying convey. White fragility OTOH is not very descriptive of the sort of racial defensiveness that some white people have when discussing race.

Damuri Ajashi 09-28-2018 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21223894)
You mean all the "shut-up-and-wait" stuff that didn't work before?

Yes. That is exactly what he means. :rolleyes:

You realize that this is a democracy and white people account for about 75% of all voters. You can't just shout them into silence and then assume that your shouting will convince them to vote your way.

Damuri Ajashi 09-28-2018 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21226294)
No, it's still relevant - I'm saying this is just an extension of that same "change only at the pace the privileged are most comfortable with" attitude to both the Blacks and their allies (as was the case in the days of Civil Rights too).

This attitude is indeed very critical race theory. They are somewhat critical of the civil rights movement for moving at the fastest pace that white people would allow. There is a reason for that. White people were an even larger majority then. They couldn't demand anything that they couldn't convince the majority to give them.

Gyrate 09-28-2018 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21236290)
I think that the terms white privilege and white fragility could not have been better designed to close minds. At least with "white privilege" it sort of tracks what the term is trying convey. White fragility OTOH is not very descriptive of the sort of racial defensiveness that some white people have when discussing race.

"Minds closing" at the use of the term "white fragility" is pretty much the fucking definition of "white fragility".

iiandyiiii 09-28-2018 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21236213)
There is NO dispute about my 3x number its statistical FACT based on the admittedly incomplete but still statistically relevant data we have. The statistics you derive from incomplete data (all data suffers from this but particularly incomplete data) becomes less and less reliable the more you parse it.

The article you link is parsing the data to the point where the sample size is losing its statistical significance. This is bad science.

The article you link tries to derive conclusions based on 40 shootings over a 3 year period. By that rationale the ONE shooting of one Asian child under 14 makes Asian males under 14 are 3 times more likely to be shot and killed than white males under 14. Your statistics are not statistically relevant. No other data is presented in the article.

There may very well be a systemic cops problem but the gross data does not point to a race problem and trying to reach conclusions from data that is not collected to determine your particular hypothesis means that you are not correcting for reasonable variables.

Here's the ProPublica report:

https://www.propublica.org/article/d...lack-and-white

It makes its conclusions based on analyzing over 1200 shootings over a 3 year period. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. It analyzed the limited federal data available for police shootings.

fedman 10-01-2018 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB99 (Post 21207439)
While I think racism and sexism should be called out MORE often, the problem is that (A) nobody wants to admit to being racist and (B) people have different definitions for how ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ is defined.

First, literally everyone holds some level of racist/sexist ideas, even if only implicitly. But the rhetoric is such that if a person says something impolite or ignorant, we immediately jump to saying “This person is a racist,” which is synonymous with “evil.” The assumption that ‘racist = evil’ causes people to shut down and avoid critically examining their behavior. Since no one wants to admit to being racist and the rhetoric against accused racists is so vitriolic, we have big obstacles that prevent understanding and actually improving people’s behavior.

The second half is that many people assume that you are only ‘racist’ if you are ‘a racist,’ in the sense that racists are people who wear white hoods. Explicit, overt racism/sexism is their threshold. Another definition I’ve heard is that “racism” is only when the powerful group exercises their power over the minority group. (This definition implies it is impossible for anyone to be racist against white people.)

At the same time, there is another extreme that girl’s accusations of racism over practically any trivial thing. If a white person wear dreadlocks, that’s racism. If a white girl wears a Chinese dress, that’s racism. I once had someone tell me I was “racist” because I didn’t like the depiction of sexualized underage girls in Asian pop culture. I once had someone tell me I was a “bigot” because I remarked that a fictional character’s sexual orientation was not relevant to the plot of a story.

I want to be sympathetic, but it’s really hard when people hurl accusations of racism over the most inconsequential chickenshit. I suspect the problem would be easier to solve if we could come to some common consensus on what “racism” and “sexism” actually means.

what is left out is Jews claiming 'anti-Semitism" whenever a Jewish person is accused of something, like Crown Heights hit and run murder (more ironic is calling semitic arabs anti-Semitic)

fedman 10-01-2018 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21212827)
Okay, so the question "has anyone ever used accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to dodge/win a debate?" is fucking trivial. Of course they have. It's a thing, just like saying "Well, you're a woman, so obviously I win this debate" is a thing. My problem is that people blow it way the fuck out of proportion. There is an entire cottage industry on the right acting like political correctness is strangling public discourse. As if the biggest concern for anyone who is worried about free speech absolutely must be the people who use accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry to shut down speech they don't like.

And it works. It's the core of Trump's message. The list of right-wing shitheads who have made a career on youtube by complaining these people - often just one or two shitheads on twitter - is staggering. Most of the republican message these days, to the degree that it's effective, is either about guns, abortion, or "sticking it to the SJWs".

(Seriously, this is a really instructive case - one or two people on Twitter said they were a bit uncomfortable about the jokes in the Doom Eternal trailer, and there are dozens of videos taking the piss out of those handful of tweets. Some of them have hundreds of thousands of views. This sort of intentional exaggeration is, in my experience, far more common than actual cases of people shutting down debate by shouting "bigot".)

This shit works. It allows reactionary right-wing douchebags to effectively turn free speech into a wedge issue, acting as though anyone who supports social justice is anti-free-speech, or supports the actions of any given idiot who says something stupid on twitter. And in doing so, they amplify the voices who do inappropriately yell "sexist/racist/bigot" far beyond their normal reach. They nutpick, which leads to people believing this is a common problem, rather than a very rare one.

This is why I have a problem with the way this debate is framed.

but you're ignoring the left-wing censorship of other (read non-pc) viewpoints via protests on campuses and inside academia

Urbanredneck 10-01-2018 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fedman (Post 21240835)
but you're ignoring the left-wing censorship of other (read non-pc) viewpoints via protests on campuses and inside academia

Ever heard the phrase about reaping what you sew?

I agree the lefties on college campuses totally make the case for conservatives. Consider white people told to stay off campus at Evergreen: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...-controversies

White people told not to walk across Berkeley. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...stop-white-st/

Georgetown telling white students to not attend an event: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/18/g...o-white-allies

Why dont truly open minded liberals stop this crap? Instead we get "well now you know how we feel" crap.

manson1972 10-01-2018 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21241180)
Georgetown telling white students to not attend an event: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/18/g...o-white-allies

Not sure what you are reading, but I don't see in that article where "Georgetown" was telling white students to not attend an event. Looks like the event organizers were telling them.

MrDibble 10-01-2018 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21236305)
You realize that this is a democracy and white people account for about 75% of all voters. You can't just shout them into silence and then assume that your shouting will convince them to vote your way.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote away discrimination in broader society. At least, not the same people who currently maintain it by their inaction.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21236328)
This attitude is indeed very critical race theory.

You say that like it's a bad thing...
Quote:

They are somewhat critical of the civil rights movement for moving at the fastest pace that white people would allow. There is a reason for that.
Yes. I believe it's called "white fragility"

Of course, that didn't make it a good reason.

Budget Player Cadet 10-01-2018 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fedman (Post 21240835)
but you're ignoring the left-wing censorship of other (read non-pc) viewpoints via protests on campuses and inside academia

Have you ever been on a campus?

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-01-2018 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21241180)
Consider white people told to stay off campus at Evergreen: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...-controversies

Consider that in the sense that I consider the Sword of Shannara novels--i.e., poorly-written fantasy? Or consider that in the sense that it's a pernicious falsehood propagated by right-wing pundits looking to smear the left?

I certainly can't consider that in the sense that I consider real things that actually happened, because white people were NOT told to stay off campus at Evergreen. I'm a little bewildered at your repetition of this objective nonsense, given that I've copiously cited debunking articles in the past. If I thought it'd make any difference, I'd cite them again.

BPC's theory--that small events by tiny minorities of leftists are twisted by right-wing pundits in order to fool conservatives like UrbanRedneck who don't take the time to vet their sources--seems ever more accurate.

manson1972 10-01-2018 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21241520)
BPC's theory--that small events by tiny minorities of leftists are twisted by right-wing pundits in order to fool conservatives like UrbanRedneck who don't take the time to vet their sources--seems ever more accurate.

This is definitely true. Similarly, somehow a moronic tweet by some random person that is liked by 100 people has the exact same importance as a moronic tweet by members of our government that affects hundreds of millions of people. I never did get that.

Larry Borgia 10-01-2018 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21241205)
Not sure what you are reading, but I don't see in that article where "Georgetown" was telling white students to not attend an event. Looks like the event organizers were telling them.

That, and I can't see the slightest reason why someone who doesn't go to school there would care about this.

Urbanredneck 10-01-2018 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21241520)
Consider that in the sense that I consider the Sword of Shannara novels--i.e., poorly-written fantasy? Or consider that in the sense that it's a pernicious falsehood propagated by right-wing pundits looking to smear the left?

I certainly can't consider that in the sense that I consider real things that actually happened, because white people were NOT told to stay off campus at Evergreen. I'm a little bewildered at your repetition of this objective nonsense, given that I've copiously cited debunking articles in the past. If I thought it'd make any difference, I'd cite them again.

BPC's theory--that small events by tiny minorities of leftists are twisted by right-wing pundits in order to fool conservatives like UrbanRedneck who don't take the time to vet their sources--seems ever more accurate.

Are you kidding?

Just watch this video of the white teacher being attacked:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

What was this womans "crime'? She showed up that day! The video also shows other staff including the college president being attacked.

Yes, I have read some debunking sites like this: https://psmag.com/education/the-real...rgreen-college . But how do you "debunk" that video?

I'm not convinced. If their really was no story here why did the campus chief of police resign? Why did the college have to pay off all those teachers and staff? Why is there enrollment down 20%?

They did it again this year: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-white-people/

This article also shows a poster that says "POC Only". https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...t-at-what-cost

Why do they let the lunatics take over a college anyways?

rat avatar 10-01-2018 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21242065)
Are you kidding?

Just watch this video of the white teacher being attacked:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

What was this womans "crime'? She showed up that day! The video also shows other staff including the college president being attacked.

Yes, I have read some debunking sites like this: https://psmag.com/education/the-real...rgreen-college . But how do you "debunk" that video?

I'm not convinced. If their really was no story here why did the campus chief of police resign? Why did the college have to pay off all those teachers and staff? Why is there enrollment down 20%?

They did it again this year: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-white-people/

This article also shows a poster that says "POC Only". https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...t-at-what-cost

Why do they let the lunatics take over a college anyways?

For the same reason you are lumping every individual who is trying to fight the very real problem of race in with a group of individuals who paid for their transgressions.

While it may help self-justify labeling individuals as less than human, blaming the many for actions of the few is intellectually dishonest.

It is simply a case of confirmation bias to avoid the more complicated aspects of the issue.

Plopping all people in the same bucket is far from fair when nothing you have offered demonstrates this is even a large minority let alone the majority of actors.

rat avatar 10-01-2018 04:17 PM

Just in case you don't read my link above, can you justify why you aren't equally outraged by this?

Quote:

Near the end of the semester, Evergreen was closed for three days because of threats from people who were opposed to the student protests, and officials elected to move its graduation ceremony off campus.

Urbanredneck 10-01-2018 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21242104)
For the same reason you are lumping every individual who is trying to fight the very real problem of race in with a group of individuals who paid for their transgressions.

While it may help self-justify labeling individuals as less than human, blaming the many for actions of the few is intellectually dishonest.

"Paid for their Transgressions"? Right? Are you kidding? It said the punishments range from warnings to "community service". Oh yeah, that makes sense. Punish a student by forcing them to work for the same crazy liberal/progressive causes they already support!

But your right. I dont blame the students so much as the idiots in charge for allowing this.

Please, Please... if you find a site that actually shows how many students got off with just a warning (which I bet they laughed at), had to do "community service" at the leftist/progressive organization they themselves choose, and to how many were actually suspended - please post it.

Here is a good video of the 20 most outrageous things done at Evergreen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ4mnQ2mV8Q

Everything from attacking staff members to demanding no homework!

Urbanredneck 10-01-2018 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21242116)
Just in case you don't read my link above, can you justify why you aren't equally outraged by this?

Sure that was also bad. The lunatics were allowed to run the asylum and now they are paying for it.

Can you justify the crazies barricading the white staff in their offices, refusing to allow them to leave or even use the restroom, and demanding they be fired?

"Hey hey, ho ho, these racists teachers have got to go..."

Do you think they deserved that?

rat avatar 10-01-2018 05:06 PM

You are still missing the point-But I will move on.

While I get you are making the argument that some how white people are so weak and feeble as to be permanently destroyed by some teenagers taunting them or demanding no homework...

The main thing I see in that video you posted is that it was posted by an individual who is terrified of ideas they don't understand and which is using white supremacist language every single time the teachers demonstrate that they are not suffering from abject terror by the students behavior.

Note at 2:56 where the terms "SJW" and "cukery"

I would suggest that you have an honest discussion with someone who isn't as terrified by the prospect of having equal rights for all Americans. I think that you will find they are not ashamed of who they are, or afraid.

If you keep sticking to media sources like the one you offered, you are only going to hear the propaganda from a group that only came together due to their irrational fears and ignorance.

The shame that those groups are selling is self imposed and merely plays the role of maintaining their irrational beliefs.

You don't even have to resort to authors in these other demonized dehumanized groups you offered above.

rat avatar 10-01-2018 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21242184)
Sure that was also bad. The lunatics were allowed to run the asylum and now they are paying for it.

Can you justify the crazies barricading the white staff in their offices, refusing to allow them to leave or even use the restroom, and demanding they be fired?

"Hey hey, ho ho, these racists teachers have got to go..."

Do you think they deserved that?

No I just don't cower when teenagers react in response to very real social problems.

Despite your implications not all of us are terrified by these actions. When people have been wronged for a long time and silenced they tend to blow off some steam once they finally get an opportunity to not be silenced.

A serious question, have you ever spent much time with teenagers even when they haven't been subject to institutionalized bias and racism?

rat avatar 10-01-2018 05:38 PM

Urbanredneck,

Before you dismiss this as a SJW statement, take the time to consider it.


There is a typical human behavior called the fundamental attribution error or attribution effect. This behavior typically takes active, intentional effort to not be subject to it so remember this is not a judgmental claim on my part.
For people who you consider to belong to other groups the tendency is to apply moral judgments to their actions rather than considering external factors.

For people who do consider to be in your group the tenancy is to downplay actions and intent or to better take external factors into consideration.

This is true for people who drive different brands of cars, like other sports teams or for those who belong to other races.
These attribution errors are why despite my request to address the very real threats of violence by people who didn't like the protests you ignored that part of my argument and focused on your pre-existing narrative in your argument.

With the understanding that I am making no claims about your beliefs the jargon I mentioned before is deeply rooted in white nationalism. White nationalism, like many mass movements leverages our human limitations to grow their base. The themes in that youtube video are directly adapted from writings by an organization founded by Wesley A. Swift and Richard Girnt Butler who also founded and ran the Aryan Nations.

While I have absolutely no doubt that you almost certainly didn't know the origins of this propaganda, the fact that they are taken directly from these groups are exactly why they elicit accusations of raicsm/sexism/bigotrywhen they are used when people do know their origins.

If I was proselytizing with bible verses people would assume I am Christian and that same logic works in this case.

If you feel like the intent of your message is being lost by people resorting to labeling your ideas as such it may behoove you to simply change the terms you are using and the citations you offer to avoid references to terminology that was born directly from the white supremacist movement.

BigT 10-01-2018 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 21225610)
The idea that there even is such a thing as "expert" in matters such as this is absurd on its face - it's not a point I want to debate here and now, but if it's something you want to go back and forth on, like when we're bored and battling insomnia in the wee hours of the morning and have nothing to do but argue subtle points about the meaning of various things I might still be up. Some nights I'm not sleeping so well other nights I'm out, it's hard to predict.

No I'm not interested in such a debate. I'm pretty sure it's going to boil down to the definition of expert, because, with mine, it seems so utterly obvious there are experts. There are people who study racism and have made it their life's work. And there is a fairly broad agreement on what is and isn't racism--the debates are in the nuances.

As for the rest, we're talking past each other so much and have gone so far afield that I think we'd just be going further off the road to keep on.

Since I have so thoroughly misunderstood you, I will ask you the most basic of questions: what is your answer to the OP?

Mine is basically "no." At least, among those who are actually anti-racist, there is very little use of "racist" to try and shut down debates. And, rather than the word being watered down, it is being artificially limited, because people get too insulted by even suggesting the idea that something might be racist.

I do, however, see a small but worrying tendency of people being called racist for saying anti-racist things. I recently saw a video making fun of racist remarks made towards her. And she was called a racist for making fun of them.

And here's my second question: what relevance does your second post have? What are you saying about the topic of the thread? I clearly misunderstood your point, so could you make it more clear?

BigT 10-01-2018 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fedman (Post 21240835)
but you're ignoring the left-wing censorship of other (read non-pc) viewpoints via protests on campuses and inside academia

Protests are themselves a form of free speech. They cannot be a form of censorship.

That said, you can have examples where people go beyond protesting. Where they do more than just stand and shout. Where they threaten physical harm, or, worse, actually commit it. Where they artificially entrap people.

The problem is, the protests that conservatives talk about tend to just be protests. If the conservative speaker decides not to have a debate, then it is labeled "censorship." Or they will say that they shouldn't be allowed to speak, which is then called "censorship," when it is really just stating their opinion.

The cries of censorship by the right are to the point where many on the left just ignore it, as we assume it wasn't really censorship. It was someone using their speech to disagree.

BigT 10-01-2018 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 21221801)
These posts bring up an important point. It involves asking what the ultimate goals are of those who bandy about such terms and phrases as "if you are white you are racist" or "white fragility" or for the sake of this discussion, even "white privilege". Ostensibly, the goal is to spread awareness of widespread, systematic and institutional racism, from which every single white American derives some level of benefit. So if the goal is to raise awareness which leads to personal introspection and ultimately, hopefully, long-term change, it seems to me these rhetorical devices are an extremely ineffecient, even self-sabotaging means to achieving those goals.

This is because the people most in need of enlightenment in re to these issues are not going to be receptive to a message that from the outset labels them as a racist. Or even of having some sort of "privilege" not granted to minorities. The reality is, if you are genuinely interested in reaching those people who are most in the dark-and not just trying to shame them and thus elevate yourself, you need to approach and frame the issues in a decidely not-so-hostile, accusatory manner. I mean, how well has the current method been at affecting anything but closing minds?

ETA: I want to be clear, I do not dispute the validity of the terms or phrases I mentioned. I meant that in the context of spreading awareness and sparking introspection, they seem decidely wrong-headed.

The problem is that, while you can go a little ways with discussing thing by just discussing the concepts rather than the terms, it's extremely difficult to continue a discussion without naming the concept you are discussing.

I used to think I could discuss white privilege without using the term. And I can, at the most basic level--even if it gets tedious and long winded, which are bad for understanding in this slogan/buzzword culture. But I lose the ability to discuss it as it increases.

That said, I do object to "if you are white you are racist," but on conceptual grounds. If you mean "racist" the way it is normally used, then it is false. If you mean it in the "everyone is a little bit racist" way, then it's true, but unfairly singles out white people.

I am against any attempt to redefine white so that the KKK slogan "anti-racist means anti-white" is true. I'm against anything that seems hypocritical, where inserting black where you use white would be considered racist.

But I think we have to use these terms. The best we can do is mention what they mean, then say there is a term for that, and be clear that it doesn't mean what they think it means.

rat avatar 10-01-2018 06:54 PM

It would help if people understood the difference between Implicit Bias, Explicit bias and Racism though.

But to be honest neither side (conservative/liberal) seems to be interested in that. When some minorities try to explain I have seen them shouted down by both sides.

Mr. Nylock 10-01-2018 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21242324)
No I'm not interested in such a debate. I'm pretty sure it's going to boil down to the definition of expert, because, with mine, it seems so utterly obvious there are experts. There are people who study racism and have made it their life's work. And there is a fairly broad agreement on what is and isn't racism--the debates are in the nuances.

Alright, I can get on board with that. Give me three names of experts then and tell me what specific credential separates them from non-expert.

Quote:

As for the rest, we're talking past each other so much and have gone so far afield that I think we'd just be going further off the road to keep on.

Since I have so thoroughly misunderstood you, I will ask you the most basic of questions: what is your answer to the OP?
My answer to the OP is yes and no. As an example to illustrate my opinion I will give you
the redskins name controversy. Given your proclivity to rely on experts, you may not find this example palatable given that the studies only assess the feelings of your average person of Native American descent and do not rely on the opinions of people who have spent an undetermined as of yet years using scientific analysis to draw a conclusion as to whether something is offensive or not.


Quote:

Mine is basically "no." At least, among those who are actually anti-racist, there is very little use of "racist" to try and shut down debates. And, rather than the word being watered down, it is being artificially limited, because people get too insulted by even suggesting the idea that something might be racist.
The biggest problem I have with this is when one can no longer separate the individual and the race. I believe this perpetuates a new type of racism, and, although often well meaning erects new barriers more than it breaks down old ones.

Quote:

I do, however, see a small but worrying tendency of people being called racist for saying anti-racist things. I recently saw a video making fun of racist remarks made towards her. And she was called a racist for making fun of them.
This happens also. Lots of things happen, people do get called racist for saying anti-racist things, people get called racist for things many minorities would not call racist, sometimes racism doesn't get called out when it should. I believe all of these things exist in society, this is not a zero-sum game.

Quote:

And here's my second question: what relevance does your second post have? What are you saying about the topic of the thread? I clearly misunderstood your point, so could you make it more clear?
I'm not really sure what the relevance of anything I say has. My point is that I work with people who have been to college, I work with people who have been to jail, some are from the worst backgrounds you can imagine, numerous religions, non religions and political perspectives. Many of us have various opinions on things but somehow, with all of this we are able to support each other and get along. So while these experts are coming from on high like moses with his tablets to formulate the unalienable truths of what is and is not racist and giving edicts on who to watch out for and who to hate and why, we are humbly going about our work and find a way to get along and listen to each other - and, perish the thought, sometimes understand even if we don't agree. None of us, however, have spent years studying racism, so our opinions are not really relevant to anything I suppose.

Budget Player Cadet 10-02-2018 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21242173)
"Paid for their Transgressions"? Right? Are you kidding? It said the punishments range from warnings to "community service". Oh yeah, that makes sense. Punish a student by forcing them to work for the same crazy liberal/progressive causes they already support!

But your right. I dont blame the students so much as the idiots in charge for allowing this.

Please, Please... if you find a site that actually shows how many students got off with just a warning (which I bet they laughed at), had to do "community service" at the leftist/progressive organization they themselves choose, and to how many were actually suspended - please post it.

Here is a good video of the 20 most outrageous things done at Evergreen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ4mnQ2mV8Q

Everything from attacking staff members to demanding no homework!

Okay. Are these events at Evergreen State College exemplary of:
A) National politics as a whole
B) Universities as a whole
C) Evergreen State College as a whole
D) Specific events at evergreen state college?

SPOILER:
The answer is D.


Speaking of "attacking staff members", looking into these events at Evergreen led me to this article: Signal Boost: How Conservative Media Outlets Turn Faculty Viewpoints Into National News. It's an interesting piece documenting how the right-wing media takes relatively innocuous statements by liberal professors, morphs them into something far less innocuous, and makes them national news. For example, why is it national news when a college professor speaks up against Trump at a commencement speech? It isn't. It shouldn't be. There's nothing surprising or important there. But it feeds into this narrative of far-left colleges, and it's essentially a form of doxxing via signal-boosting. And when this happens, look at some of the consequences:
The repercussions: Ms. Taylor said she had received racist, sexist messages as well as death threats. In a statement on Facebook at the end of May, she announced that she was canceling her forthcoming public talks.

"The cancellation of my speaking events is a concession to the violent intimidation that was, in my opinion, provoked by Fox News," she said.

[...]

The repercussions: On Wednesday, facing what law-enforcement officers called "non-specific" threats, Trinity College temporarily shut down.

Mr. Williams said he also received threats by email and telephone. "This attack is at a level of vitriol and hatred in excess of what I have ever experienced," he said in his statement. "This seems to be a national drive of intimidation of professors which all colleges and universities should be concerned about."

[...]

The repercussions: Ms. Bond told The Chronicle that she had received death threats and hateful email messages. Her university supported her throughout the process, she said, but the episode gave her pause about bringing academic work to the public.
Again, this seems a far bigger problem than "PC gone wild" or a few dumb college students going a little too far.

And of course, you always see people reach to the usual suspects. Evergreen again? What, has there not been a single noteworthy outbreak of "PC gone mad" at a college since then? It seems to me like this is something that happens from time to time at Evergreen, and really not so much elsewhere. It has virtually no direct impact on national or even state politics. To the degree it has any impact at all, that impact is driven entirely by the right-wing backlash when the pipeline outlined in that article turns a minor local story into national news.

In the case of Evergreen, the nutjobs from all across the country turned out, leading to threats of massacre that force the school to temporarily shut down and a white supremacist rally at Evergreen. Students felt unsafe and threatened. They had to move their own graduation ceremony off campus because of this. From the article:
Online vigilantes from 4chan, Reddit and other forums swarmed to unearth Evergreen students’ contact information. They have harassed us with hundreds of phone calls, anonymous texts and terrifyingly specific threats of violence that show they know where we live and work.

After I published an essay on Medium to explain the protesters’ side of the story, my full name, phone number and home address were posted online, and I was bombarded with hate-filled messages. I found my name and personal information on message boards, along with rape threats and discussions about which racial slur fit me best (the consensus was the N-word). It took three days to get my personal information taken down, and for others it took longer.

In the past few weeks, the school has been shut down four times because of threats, including one from an anonymous caller who said, “I’m on my way to Evergreen University now with a .44 Magnum. I am gonna execute as many people on that campus as I can get a hold of.”
This seems substantially more significant than the initial student protests. And even more significant than that: politicians are using this as an excuse to go after higher education.
On May 31, State Representative Matt Manweller (political science professor at Central Washington University) submitted a “request for investigation” to the Washington State Human Rights Commission. He reiterated Weinstein’s assertion that he was subjected to race-based exclusion; the Commission chose not to take up the request. Manweller also sent a letter to Evergreen’s Director of Government Relations, stating, “Evergreen students are an embarrassment.” He called the college leadership cowardly and complicit, adding, “My colleagues and I have had enough of this ridiculous behavior fostered at our public institutions.” A few days later, with the support of 14 Republican representatives, he submitted House Bill 2221, proposing “transitioning The Evergreen State College to a private four-year institution of higher education.” Senator Fortunato introduced the companion Senate Bill 5946 to reduce state support for the college in a planned regression of funding over five years, culminating in a sale to a private party, echoing similar proposals from the 1970s and ’80s.
As in - because of the actions of these students and the distorted reporting on the right about what happened, politicians attempted to privatize Evergreen University. Again, this seems substantially more significant than the actual student protest.

This is why I talk about type 1 vs. type 2 errors. It's trivial to point out that accusations of racism are abused in some cases; hell, it's happened to me personally. It's not trivial to say that it's an endemic problem, and it's flat-out wrong to say that it's a more common problem than accusations of racism and bigotry being taken out of context and used as a cudgel to beat the left.

JKellyMap 10-02-2018 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21236460)
"Minds closing" at the use of the term "white fragility" is pretty much the fucking definition of "white fragility".

Exactly! DA’s post couldn’t have been more “meta” — more self-referential — if he had tried. It reminds me of the old paradox “This is not a sentence.”

JKellyMap 10-02-2018 06:58 AM

Sorry — here’s DA’s original post, so you don’t have to hunt for it:

“i think that the terms white privilege and white fragility could not have been better designed to close minds. At least with "white privilege" it sort of tracks what the term is trying convey. White fragility OTOH is not very descriptive of the sort of racial defensiveness that some white people have when discussing race.”

manson1972 10-02-2018 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21242173)
Everything from attacking staff members to demanding no homework!

Holy fucking shit! Students demanded no homework? Why didn't you mention this before? It's clearly the beginning of the path downward to anarchy.

:rolleyes:

Urbanredneck 10-02-2018 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21242899)
Okay. Are these events at Evergreen State College exemplary of:
A) National politics as a whole
B) Universities as a whole
C) Evergreen State College as a whole
D) Specific events at evergreen state college?

SPOILER:
The answer is D.

Actually I think a better answer would be "All of the Above" since for example
A - look at republicans or members of the Trump administration getting kicked out of restaurants and vilified by the MSM as being radical right wingers.
B. Ok try this. Walk thru any university with a MAGA hat on and just see how it goes over. You will be yelled at, spat on, threatened, etc... You would be blind not to see how crazy the left is on college campuses.
Then go a day wearing a Hillary hat and see how your treated?
C. Ok, on that one I dont know that college but it seems like its been a sort of leftwing radical college for a long time and maybe, this time they just went over the line. And the thing is ALL STUDENTS and ALUMNI, should be concerned about how their college is run and portrayed. Students from Evergreen will graduate, apply for a job and well... if the hiring person thinks Evergreen students are bunch of radical idiots they might hire someone from another school.
D. I'm not sure specifically but the thing is, videos DONT LIE. Teachers and staff were attacked, their ONLY CRIME IS THEY WERE WHITE. The campus police were not allowed to protect them and this is why the head of campus safety quit her job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21242899)
As in - because of the actions of these students and the distorted reporting on the right about what happened, politicians attempted to privatize Evergreen University. Again, this seems substantially more significant than the actual student protest.

Well you know what, again, pictures dont lie. The campus was total chaos. NO LEARNING was taking place. Watch the damn video and see the students demanding that they not be held accountable for homework and projects.

And yes, the college administration should have been taken to task for letting this get out of hand. NO WAY should staff members been allowed to be threatened like that. WATCH THE VIDEO! The college president looked like a spineless weenie. Did you listen to him? He admitted he was racist. He said his staff were racist and would go thru training. He basically admitted every wacko demand the students had were right on and he was going to do whatever they asked. The man was a wimp and doesnt deserve his taxpayer funded job.

And NOW they come out with this BS statement about how 80 students were punished??? By making them work for whatever liberal/progressive group they want? I'm not saying all 80 but frankly many more would have been suspended and not allowed to return without admitting fault, having a parent or guardian, and apologized for threatening staff and disrupting the school.
Also I would post signs all around campus informing students this was a UNIVERSITY. NOT a free for all and their were rules and consequences.
Should that college get reprimanded and even lose state funding? Well that is taxpayer money isnt it? Dont ALL the taxpayers in the state deserve a say so on how their tax money is spent? This is why tax money doesnt go to private, religious based schools.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21242899)
This is why I talk about type 1 vs. type 2 errors. It's trivial to point out that accusations of racism are abused in some cases; hell, it's happened to me personally. It's not trivial to say that it's an endemic problem, and it's flat-out wrong to say that it's a more common problem than accusations of racism and bigotry being taken out of context and used as a cudgel to beat the left.

So what will be the response from the left? This problem is not going away.



Please tell me.
What should be done to students who do these acts?

Should college administrations allow them when they know its being videoed and will soon be on computer screens all over the world?
As for me, the viewer, what should I do?
Ignore them?
Blow them off as right wing propaganda?
What criteria should I use when judging an incident?

Now have there been similar incidents at other colleges this year? I dont know but the thing is video cameras are everywhere. Alternate news sites are everywhere. Where once college students could do about whatever they want and it wouldnt get out other than local news, now with the power of cameras and the web, it does make the national news. Its a new world for the left and they better deal with it.

Urbanredneck 10-02-2018 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21243294)
Holy fucking shit! Students demanded no homework? Why didn't you mention this before? It's clearly the beginning of the path downward to anarchy.

:rolleyes:

What I wonder is how many students were let out of tests and assignments because well... they demanded it? It doesnt look like much learning was taking place at that school.

"Sorry I couldnt do my homework, I was busy attacking white staff members".

rat avatar 10-02-2018 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKellyMap (Post 21243068)
Sorry — here’s DA’s original post, so you don’t have to hunt for it:

“i think that the terms white privilege and white fragility could not have been better designed to close minds. At least with "white privilege" it sort of tracks what the term is trying convey. White fragility OTOH is not very descriptive of the sort of racial defensiveness that some white people have when discussing race.”

In an attempt to move these discussions forward I want to expand on this.

Cognitive dissonance or the mental discomfort of finding out a fact that you were not aware of and provides a conflict with two beliefs or moral views is not uncommon.

Privilege is NOT AN INSULT but call feel like one or yes sometimes used as one, just as the term ignorance is. We are not omniscient, we simply are mostly ignorant, and privilege is one example as a case where that is often true.

Unless you believe you are some type of omniscient god to not take insult to someone pointing out that there are ideas and information that you may just not have experienced. And check your pride when you assume that you some how know how someone else feels.

Fragility is also a pretty good term for what happens with 'white fragility' or in other types. Where a person, even due to no fault of their own, have no possibility of knowing some information but also lack the ability to talk about the subject.

Both of these terms even if they are used as an insult do not need to be taken as an insult. If you want to de-weaponize them you have a choice to do so by just refusing to view them as an insult and address the topic at hand.

The crux is if you just ignore it or show it down with irrelevant counter examples you are not addressing it. And yes people will get pissed off and frustrated by this and to be honest even if you simply ignore it you are adding to the problem.

When a person says "Political candidate X is causing problem Y" returning with "Well political candidate A also caused problem Y or problem Z two decades ago" does nothing to solve problem Y.

People are justifiably frustrated with problem Y never being honestly discussed and problem Y will never be solved. As the discussion is about problem Y and not problem Z it is not useful to focus on problem Z at the same time even if it is important.

If you are concerned that the terms white privilege and white fragility are weaponized you have the power to disarm them. You can do so by simply choosing to not taking it personally, not trying to shift the blame, and staying on topic.

If someone said "I think you are stepping on my foot" you do not solve that problem by saying that "well Bill Clinton stepped on this other persons foot" you simply look at your own foot and see if it is true.

If you practice this a few times and work through the discomfort it will become painfully obvious how childish and unnecessary your previous response was.

Yes there will still be sexists, racists and bigots on all sides, but eradicating all of them is not in scope at all.

rat avatar 10-02-2018 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21243861)
What I wonder is how many students were let out of tests and assignments because well... they demanded it? It doesnt look like much learning was taking place at that school.

"Sorry I couldnt do my homework, I was busy attacking white staff members".

This is a misdirection, and the only people who are still stewing about this are people who are trying to use it as a proxy for ad hominem attack related to national politics.

You do realize you are talking about a private collage that is famous for not having grades BTW?

manson1972 10-02-2018 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21243861)
What I wonder is how many students were let out of tests and assignments because well... they demanded it? It doesnt look like much learning was taking place at that school.

"Sorry I couldnt do my homework, I was busy attacking white staff members".

Yeah, I wonder. Got any idea?

rat avatar 10-02-2018 02:03 PM

Focusing on a small college with an enrollment smaller than most school districts which has been declining for years, which accepts 95% of applicants and has no grades, no departments, and no majors as the only example for months of outrage shows the argument is pretty weak anyway.

It is merely a special case to justify the mythology of terrified white men.

rat avatar 10-02-2018 02:10 PM

To fight ignorance, and to also show that men don't need to be afraid of admitting being wrong.

Evergreen is a publicly funded college, just not part of our state University system, so I was wrong but that doesn't change majority of my point.

Wow, somehow doing the right thing wasn't painful...

Urbanredneck 10-02-2018 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21243899)
Focusing on a small college with an enrollment smaller than most school districts which has been declining for years, which accepts 95% of applicants and has no grades, no departments, and no majors as the only example for months of outrage shows the argument is pretty weak anyway.

It is merely a special case to justify the mythology of terrified white men.

I'm not terrified.

You can call me ignorant but I thought the term "College" meant real learning like grades, tests, papers, all nighters getting ready for finals, sweating thru tests, taking good notes, etc... My college, the University of Kansas, had all those and they did kick students out who didnt make grades.

Your right, I expected a little more from a place called a "college". And your right, this level of stupidity is rare at REAL universities and I should not focus on it.

Why would any real student who desires to work hard in an academically challenging environment leading to a respected degree waste their time and money there?

Urbanredneck 10-02-2018 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21243876)
This is a misdirection, and the only people who are still stewing about this are people who are trying to use it as a proxy for ad hominem attack related to national politics.

You do realize you are talking about a private collage that is famous for not having grades BTW?

No I wasn't. Sorry I wont bring up Evergreen again.

BTW, if they dont have grades, then how do they make sure the students learn?

manson1972 10-02-2018 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21244005)
Why would any real student who desires to work hard in an academically challenging environment leading to a respected degree waste their time and money there?

Isn't it obvious? They get to yell and scream at white teachers and protest the assignment of homework while having ignorant Americans think they represent the entire base of Liberal thought and/or the Democratic Party.

Chingon 10-02-2018 02:46 PM

I see that KU education is spectacular.

rat avatar 10-02-2018 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21244022)
No I wasn't. Sorry I wont bring up Evergreen again.

BTW, if they dont have grades, then how do they make sure the students learn?

The teachers give a pass fail by the teachers evaluation, which is why some of the claims made by the video you provided were clearly not realistic to me. If you piss off a teacher enough they can simply fail you in the course and without grades you have no recourse. I personally didn't like the idea as I want feedback or metrics, so I can't answer why others may find the idea compelling.

Urbanredneck 10-03-2018 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21244105)
The teachers give a pass fail by the teachers evaluation, which is why some of the claims made by the video you provided were clearly not realistic to me. If you piss off a teacher enough they can simply fail you in the course and without grades you have no recourse. I personally didn't like the idea as I want feedback or metrics, so I can't answer why others may find the idea compelling.

Right. Me either. But my background was more in the sciences and grades were based on things like tests and labs.

Tests for example, were graded by computers and you were either right or wrong on a calculus test.

OTOH I can see it as a good life lesson because often you have to kiss up to your boss and its always good to be on the good side with your professor.

Urbanredneck 10-03-2018 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21244024)
Isn't it obvious? They get to yell and scream at white teachers and protest the assignment of homework while having ignorant Americans think they represent the entire base of Liberal thought and/or the Democratic Party.

I wonder if this is a kind of "last chance" college for students who couldnt get in or couldnt hack a real university?



Looking back I remember all the students who flunked out of KU their freshmen year because they couldnt hack the heavy homework and work load and hadn't learned good study habits. They often switched to community colleges which like Evergreen, took anyone.

Budget Player Cadet 10-03-2018 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21243851)
Actually I think a better answer would be "All of the Above" since for example
A - look at republicans or members of the Trump administration getting kicked out of restaurants and vilified by the MSM as being radical right wingers.

Do you understand the difference between "isolated incident" and "indicative of politics as a whole"? You can't take one isolated incident, point to another isolated incident, and say, "this is representative of typical politics in the US". It isn't even indicative of a movement! And what the fuck does that have to do with what happened at Evergreen?

Quote:

B. Ok try this. Walk thru any university with a MAGA hat on and just see how it goes over. You will be yelled at, spat on, threatened, etc... You would be blind not to see how crazy the left is on college campuses.
Bit of a shifting of the goal posts here. Yes, a general hostility towards those who will wear MAGA hats on campus is definitely a thing at institutes of higher learning. This should come as no shock; in an environment that tends to lean smart and young, Trump is phenomenally unpopular. Wearing a MAGA hat doesn't just say "I'm a republican", it specifically says "I support Trump". It's akin to, say, having a "black lives matter" or "Fuck Trump" bumper sticker in Buttfuck, Texas - see what kind of reactions you get there. Or showing up in literally any hick town high school wearing a shirt from the rival town's high school football team.

But no. Nice try, but no. This is a very different story. If this were, in fact, emblematic of colleges as a whole, you would be able to bring up stories like the riots at Evergreen - not two teenagers wearing MAGA hats to a historically black college the week of Charlottesville and seeing some backlash - on a regular basis. These "alternative media" sources you bring up would guarantee it! But you can't, and that's my point - this kind of thing does not happen regularly. It's not typical. It's a rarity. It's not a real problem.

Quote:

C. Ok, on that one I dont know that college
Yeah, you really don't. You've made all kinds of insinuations about how awful Evergreen is, and how it's a hippy-dippy-radical-leftist school that makes no sense and where students get coddled and don't learn anything. Here's the thing, though - it really isn't. Graduation rates, post-graduation earnings, and student loan repayment, all well above the national median. By all accounts, Evergreen is a thoroughly decent liberal arts college, whose students go on to find decent employment.

So if we're talking about whether these actions are emblematic of the school as a whole... Well, no. Fuck no. Not any more than god knows how many schools should be seen as "That rioting school" because their students land them headlines by setting cars on fire after losing (or winning) some sports game. It's just that when a student screws up at Evergreen, right-wing hack pundits take it upon themselves to turn it into national news.

Quote:

Well you know what, again, pictures dont lie. The campus was total chaos. NO LEARNING was taking place.
Ever seen Penn State after a football game? :rolleyes: Most schools have some kind of riots or parties or something. Ohio State riots over winning a football game. Evergreen riots for social justice. Somehow the latter is national news, and the former is just what we expect after a sports game.

(Side note - the same thing happens after major protests. The average San Francisco NFL game leads to 11 arrests. But when 20 Antifa activists were arrested at a far larger protest in Berkeley, this is suddenly national news.)

Quote:

Watch the damn video and see the students demanding that they not be held accountable for homework and projects.
Keep in mind that these are college students - young, often still teenagers, and often quite stupid. You are complaining about a bunch of teenagers demanding "no homework". Shit, I should transport you to every single high school classroom in the world for some perspective.

Quote:

Should that college get reprimanded and even lose state funding? Well that is taxpayer money isnt it? Dont ALL the taxpayers in the state deserve a say so on how their tax money is spent? This is why tax money doesnt go to private, religious based schools.
Again, I feel the need to point out that college students rioting is nothing new. Ohio State rioted after they won a football championship. Notre Dame's football team is named after a particularly famous riot against the KKK. Here's a little list of noteworthy riots - number 20 might interest you. Notice how many of these are over sports or over nothing whatsoever.

You're treating this like a big deal we really need to deal with. It's really not.

Quote:

Now have there been similar incidents at other colleges this year? I dont know but the thing is video cameras are everywhere. Alternate news sites are everywhere. Where once college students could do about whatever they want and it wouldnt get out other than local news, now with the power of cameras and the web, it does make the national news. Its a new world for the left and they better deal with it.
But that's just it - leftist protesters go overboard protesting racism at evergreen, and the entire "alternative media" freaks out over it for weeks, months, years (seriously how long are you going to flog this single fucking case as though it were emblematic of colleges as a whole?), right-wing politicians argue we should privatize a state college which is, by all means, reasonably successful, the campus sees countless threats of violence, students get doxxed and threatened, and ultimately the right-wing backlash is far more significant than the actual event.

That is the part of this which is emblematic of policy in America. Abusive accusations of abuse of accusations of sexism/bigotry are a real, endemic problem. You don't really address any of my points, beyond saying, "Hey, maybe privatizing this college is a good idea if the students are going to riot like that!"

So with that in mind, do you support privatizing University of Mississippi? :)

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-03-2018 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21245183)
I wonder if this is a kind of "last chance" college for students who couldnt get in or couldnt hack a real university?



Looking back I remember all the students who flunked out of KU their freshmen year because they couldnt hack the heavy homework and work load and hadn't learned good study habits. They often switched to community colleges which like Evergreen, took anyone.

To be clear, Evergreen is ranked #7 in top public schools in the Western region of the country. It's not a #1 school, but it's also very far from a "last chance" college.

My transcript from UNCA is 1 page long. My Evergreen transcript, for twice as many years, is thirty pages long.

Every single professor wrote a full-page evaluation of the work I did in their class. In one science/history of agriculture class, I lamed out on the weekly homework assignments, and this shows up in the transcript. My transcript also mentions that I did extra research to challenge the veracity of claims in one of our textbooks, and that I filled a gap in the syllabus (the history of post-Civil War agriculture in the South) with an excellent project/presentation I did with a friend, and my score on the soil chemistry exam.

My transcript also includes the full-page evaluations I wrote of my own work. Sometimes my opinions of my work differed from my professors: in some cases I evaluated myself more harshly, and in other cases less harshly than my professors did.

If you don't want any feedback from professors, Evergreen is the wrong school for you. If the only feedback you want is a grade, Evergreen is the wrong school for you. If you want an insane level of feedback, go to Evergreen.

And yes, it has a very strong science program.

rat avatar 10-03-2018 12:00 PM

If my explanation on why Evergreen wasn't right for me made it sound like a sub-par school I apologize. It serves a very specific population, but that small population is often highly self motivated.

A self motivated student will learn more from the back of a cereal box than a legacy ivy league student will if they are just trying to get a piece of paper.

It is fairly common for Community Colleges to have better teachers and more access to those teachers compared to a lot of research schools BTW.

Damuri Ajashi 10-03-2018 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21236460)
"Minds closing" at the use of the term "white fragility" is pretty much the fucking definition of "white fragility".

Yes, and it works fucking beautifully if what you are trying to achieve is electing Donald Trump president, losign both houses of congress, losing the majority of governor's mansions and state legislatures and dealing with a shift in the Supreme Court.

Damuri Ajashi 10-03-2018 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21236581)
Here's the ProPublica report:

https://www.propublica.org/article/d...lack-and-white

It makes its conclusions based on analyzing over 1200 shootings over a 3 year period. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. It analyzed the limited federal data available for police shootings.

It doesn't make the claim that black 15-19 year old boys are 21 times more likely to be shot that 15-19 year old white boys based on 1200 shootings of 15-19 year old boys. It is using a data set of 1200 shootings but that includes ALL shootings for which they have data. They are reaching this statistical conclusion based on a few dozen shootings.

Damuri Ajashi 10-03-2018 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21241241)
I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote away discrimination in broader society. At least, not the same people who currently maintain it by their inaction.

In a democracy, you have no other choice. If you don't really care about changing society then all you are really doing is whining and hoping to annoy society into doing what you want. Without popular support, and voter support I don't see how you get the changes you think you want.

Quote:

You say that like it's a bad thing...
Its a horrible thing. Its a cancer on reasoned rational thought.

Quote:

Yes. I believe it's called "white fragility"
No, its called democracy. Throwing tantrums just gets you ignored or disdained.

Quote:

Of course, that didn't make it a good reason.
Its the only reason that counts.

MrDibble 10-03-2018 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21245991)
In a democracy, you have no other choice.

Of course you do. Only piss-poor democracies are tyrannies of the majority with no judicial checks and balances.
Quote:

Without popular support, and voter support I don't see how you get the changes you think you want.
Patience and education of the next generation, usually.
Quote:

Its a horrible thing. Its a cancer on reasoned rational thought.
A cancer, you don't say?

Anyway, exclusive reliance on supposed "reasonable, rational thought" is highly overrated, especially when its underlying assumptions, like whiteness, are never questioned.

Hell, here you'll find people arguing how rational the Nazis were. That's what prizing rationality über alles gets you.
Quote:

No, its called democracy.
Pre-Civil Rights America (the era we were specifically discussing there) was not a democracy in anything but name, any more than Apartheid-era South Africa was.
Quote:

Throwing tantrums just gets you ignored or disdained.
History shows that's not entirely the case.
Quote:

Its the only reason that counts.
... for the fragile Whites. For the oppressed PoCs, not so much.

Here, try an experiment - put "democracy" in one hand, and shit in the other, and tell me which gets filled first...

Urbanredneck 10-03-2018 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21245667)

So with that in mind, do you support privatizing University of Mississippi? :)

Can you even freaking read or do you just go around implying things?



Where did I ask for the schools to be privatized?



I'm just saying maybe do not let the lunatics run the asylum. Have rules. Enforce them. Back when I was in college at KU we had all kinds of looney demonstrations and such but we as students, still hand to do our homework and pass our exams.


Now back to my question - how will the left deal with the real situation of cameras being everywhere and the actions of leftist students getting broadcasted?



Here is an idea. Start being proactive and being adults. For example in THIS video posted recently of a pro Kavanaugh demonstration at the University of Texas and their signs getting ripped up. This time an actual adult (Dean of Students) steps in to tell the idiot leftist to stop the attacks and remind students of free speech rules.

Budget Player Cadet 10-04-2018 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21246508)
Can you even freaking read or do you just go around implying things?

There's a certain bitter irony here. Let's see if anyone else can spot it; I'm on my phone which makes going through strings of quotes obnoxious. In the meanwhile, if you'd like to actually respond to my point, I'd love to hear it.

Budget Player Cadet 10-04-2018 05:30 AM

Actually never mind, it's really easy.

Quote:

Should that college get reprimanded and even lose state funding? Well that is taxpayer money isnt it? Dont ALL the taxpayers in the state deserve a say so on how their tax money is spent? This is why tax money doesnt go to private, religious based schools.
:rolleyes:

I'm reading what you wrote and responding to it. Please, do me the same courtesy.

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-04-2018 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21246508)
I'm just saying maybe do not let the lunatics run the asylum. Have rules. Enforce them. Back when I was in college at KU we had all kinds of looney demonstrations and such but we as students, still hand to do our homework and pass our exams.

Oh! Well that's all right then. We had to turn in our homework and pass our exams at Evergreen, too. And I betcha that at your school, students complained about homework, too.

And guess what? Evergreen has rules, and they're enforced. The problem is that you don't like how they were enforced.

Gyrate 10-04-2018 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21245970)
Yes, and it works fucking beautifully if what you are trying to achieve is electing Donald Trump president, losign both houses of congress, losing the majority of governor's mansions and state legislatures and dealing with a shift in the Supreme Court.

Yes, the reason that all those white supremacists, neo-Nazis, homophobes and misogynists voted for Trump was because Hillary called them a bad name. Otherwise they would have been totally open to voting for Democrats. Yes, that makes complete sense. I mean, Trump and other Republicans poured out a steady stream of abuse that dwarfed anything the Democrats said but no, Hillary is the bad guy here.

And never mind that the right-wing has dedicated decades to building a massive propaganda machine, including multiple mass media networks, pumping out lies and slander against Democrats and the left. Never mind the vast coordinating disenfranchisement and voter suppression efforts by the right under the guise of "preventing voter fraud" despite evidence of actual voter fraud being infinitesimal (and frequently carried out by Republicans themselves. Never mind the known foreign interference with the US elections, happily facilitated by many, many high level Republicans themselves, including the systematic dismantlement of security and oversight of electronic voting systems. Never mind organizations like ALEC which have been effectively writing legislation at all levels of government designed to skew the system in their favor in return for paying off their pet politicians to sponsor whatever bills they're handed (sometimes without even reading them). No, what's important is that we can blame the Democrats for everything. Because that's totally a rational conclusion to come to. Admittedly it has fuck-all to do with the original point, but one should never miss an opportunity to blame Hillary and the Democrats just on principle.

Seriously, dude, the argument you're making is that white fragility is not just a real thing but is actually a significant factor in how the right make their voting decisions, and that in fact they are a bunch of... what's the word? oh yes... snowflakes who have to be shielded from reality lest they lash out in some brainstem-driven fury of petty retaliation that will ultimately harm them in a variety of ways but which will briefly allow them to feel all smug and superior. Is that the argument you wanted to make?

Gyrate 10-04-2018 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21245667)
Do you understand the difference between "isolated incident" and "indicative of politics as a whole"? You can't take one isolated incident, point to another isolated incident, and say, "this is representative of typical politics in the US". It isn't even indicative of a movement!

It depends on how many of them involve singing the chorus of "Alice's Restaurant".

iiandyiiii 10-04-2018 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21245980)
It doesn't make the claim that black 15-19 year old boys are 21 times more likely to be shot that 15-19 year old white boys based on 1200 shootings of 15-19 year old boys. It is using a data set of 1200 shootings but that includes ALL shootings for which they have data. They are reaching this statistical conclusion based on a few dozen shootings.

A few dozen? Where in the link does it say that? I'm pretty sure you're looking at the wrong paragraph. There's one paragraph about shootings of teens under 14 that refers to 41 shootings, but that has nothing to do with the numbers for shootings of boys age 15-19 between 2010 and 2012, which is where the 21 times ratio comes from.

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21242349)
Protests are themselves a form of free speech. They cannot be a form of censorship.

When those protests are used to shout down dissent or to pressure others to censor, then it is a form of censorship. Don't you think it is a form of censorship when you protest a speaker and demand that your college ban them from speaking on campus?

Or is that just more speech?

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 21243867)
In an attempt to move these discussions forward I want to expand on this.

Cognitive dissonance or the mental discomfort of finding out a fact that you were not aware of and provides a conflict with two beliefs or moral views is not uncommon.

Privilege is NOT AN INSULT but call feel like one or yes sometimes used as one, just as the term ignorance is. We are not omniscient, we simply are mostly ignorant, and privilege is one example as a case where that is often true.

Unless you believe you are some type of omniscient god to not take insult to someone pointing out that there are ideas and information that you may just not have experienced. And check your pride when you assume that you some how know how someone else feels.

Fragility is also a pretty good term for what happens with 'white fragility' or in other types. Where a person, even due to no fault of their own, have no possibility of knowing some information but also lack the ability to talk about the subject.

Both of these terms even if they are used as an insult do not need to be taken as an insult. If you want to de-weaponize them you have a choice to do so by just refusing to view them as an insult and address the topic at hand.

The crux is if you just ignore it or show it down with irrelevant counter examples you are not addressing it. And yes people will get pissed off and frustrated by this and to be honest even if you simply ignore it you are adding to the problem.

When a person says "Political candidate X is causing problem Y" returning with "Well political candidate A also caused problem Y or problem Z two decades ago" does nothing to solve problem Y.

People are justifiably frustrated with problem Y never being honestly discussed and problem Y will never be solved. As the discussion is about problem Y and not problem Z it is not useful to focus on problem Z at the same time even if it is important.

If you are concerned that the terms white privilege and white fragility are weaponized you have the power to disarm them. You can do so by simply choosing to not taking it personally, not trying to shift the blame, and staying on topic.

Bullshit.

Its one thing to use the terms White privilege and white fragility with someone who already understands what those terms mean but those terms are provocative when used with someone who doesn't know what it means. They are invented terms and it is unreasonable to expect people to react to them based on the meaning given to them by race scholars.

I could just start making up terms like Liberal Ignorance to mean a fairly innocuous phenomenon where the term ignorance might reasonably be applied and Feminist Castrator to refer to elements of feminism that go overboard in trying to confront "toxic masculinity" but they would be a bad place to start a conversation.

Quote:

If someone said "I think you are stepping on my foot" you do not solve that problem by saying that "well Bill Clinton stepped on this other persons foot" you simply look at your own foot and see if it is true.
But you aren;t saying something as simple as "you are stepping on my foot" you are making up a term (say foot rape) and accusing me of it.

Quote:

If you practice this a few times and work through the discomfort it will become painfully obvious how childish and unnecessary your previous response was.
The use of terms like white privilege and white fragility are unnecessarily provocative and it seems deliberately so.

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21246216)
Of course you do. Only piss-poor democracies are tyrannies of the majority with no judicial checks and balances.
Patience and education of the next generation, usually.

Shouting and stamping your feet is none of those things.

Quote:

A cancer, you don't say?

Anyway, exclusive reliance on supposed "reasonable, rational thought" is highly overrated, especially when its underlying assumptions, like whiteness, are never questioned.
Classic critical race theory. Logic and reason are only useful to the extent that they can be used to justify YOUR positions. When they work against you, then they are flawed.:dubious:

Quote:

Hell, here you'll find people arguing how rational the Nazis were. That's what prizing rationality über alles gets you.
Well then, we might as well shut this whole site down. After allAmerican society is like the Nazis so we have to ignore logic and reason.:smack:

Quote:

Pre-Civil Rights America (the era we were specifically discussing there) was not a democracy in anything but name, any more than Apartheid-era South Africa was.
But it was, that's why the civil rights movement worked. It wouldn't have worked in a tyranny.

Quote:

History shows that's not entirely the case.
I'll go with the percentages on this one. People think that critical race theorists are a joke at best and harmful to society at worst. It is based on ignoring logic and reason in favor of anecdote and subjective feelings.

Quote:

... for the fragile Whites. For the oppressed PoCs, not so much.
When has that ever been the case? Minorities throwing tantrums without convincing the majority that there is a problem to begin with hasn't worked well anywhere, ever.

Quote:

Here, try an experiment - put "democracy" in one hand, and shit in the other, and tell me which gets filled first...
wtf are you talking about?

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21247515)
Yes, the reason that all those white supremacists, neo-Nazis, homophobes and misogynists voted for Trump was because Hillary called them a bad name. Otherwise they would have been totally open to voting for Democrats. Yes, that makes complete sense. I mean, Trump and other Republicans poured out a steady stream of abuse that dwarfed anything the Democrats said but no, Hillary is the bad guy here.

You think Trump won with the votes of nazis, white suprememcists, homophobes and misogynists? You don't think anyone else voted for him? Were these nazis the same folks that told pollsters they wouldn't vote for trump but then went and voted for Trump? Trump need more than Nazis to win and you gave them to him. Good job.

Quote:

And never mind that the right-wing has dedicated decades to building a massive propaganda machine, including multiple mass media networks, pumping out lies and slander against Democrats and the left.
And the left does the same to the right. This isn't merely both sides do it. its simply partisan politics.

Quote:

Never mind the vast coordinating disenfranchisement and voter suppression efforts by the right under the guise of "preventing voter fraud" despite evidence of actual voter fraud being infinitesimal (and frequently carried out by Republicans themselves.
Boy, I'm glad that wasn't there when we elected a black man... TWICE!!!

Quote:

Never mind the known foreign interference with the US elections, happily facilitated by many, many high level Republicans themselves, including the systematic dismantlement of security and oversight of electronic voting systems. Never mind organizations like ALEC which have been effectively writing legislation at all levels of government designed to skew the system in their favor in return for paying off their pet politicians to sponsor whatever bills they're handed (sometimes without even reading them). No, what's important is that we can blame the Democrats for everything. Because that's totally a rational conclusion to come to. Admittedly it has fuck-all to do with the original point, but one should never miss an opportunity to blame Hillary and the Democrats just on principle.

Seriously, dude, the argument you're making is that white fragility is not just a real thing but is actually a significant factor in how the right make their voting decisions, and that in fact they are a bunch of... what's the word? oh yes... snowflakes who have to be shielded from reality lest they lash out in some brainstem-driven fury of petty retaliation that will ultimately harm them in a variety of ways but which will briefly allow them to feel all smug and superior. Is that the argument you wanted to make?
Yes. And you should stop poking the bear. It serves no useful purpose other than give the speaker the psychic gratification of being able to say shitty things under the guise of saying non-shitty things.

You should stop vilifying people for being white. You should stop using language that is prima facie offensive and then retreat to say "well the meaning of that offensive phrase is actually not offensive if you had read the scholarly article on the kneejerk reaction white people (and really everyone) has when confronted with their own privilege or bias.

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21247537)
A few dozen? Where in the link does it say that? I'm pretty sure you're looking at the wrong paragraph. There's one paragraph about shootings of teens under 14 that refers to 41 shootings, but that has nothing to do with the numbers for shootings of boys age 15-19 between 2010 and 2012, which is where the 21 times ratio comes from.

Math.

If using the same kill ratio on white boys would result in 185 white boys shot over 3 years you get a number somewhere in the dozens. I think.

iiandyiiii 10-04-2018 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21248760)
Math.

If using the same kill ratio on white boys would result in 185 white boys shot over 3 years you get a number somewhere in the dozens. I think.

Somehow I'm unconvinced by this very vague non-calculation.

But if you don't want to go further, that's fine. The most damning statistic to me is that 50% of black people report that they personally have been mistreated by police, as compared to only 3% of white people. Unless you believe that black people are less honest or accurate than white people, then this is indicative of a very significant problem with the way law enforcement treats black people.

Damuri Ajashi 10-04-2018 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21248777)
Somehow I'm unconvinced by this very vague non-calculation.

There is a calculation that can be made based on the fact that the article says that if young white males were killed by cops at the same rate as young black males then there would be 185 dead white boys. There are about 5 times as many young white males as young black males. 20% of 185 is about 37 young black males that have been killed by police over 3 years. In which time about 9 white boys have been killed by police (185/21). Now take into account things like poverty and gang activity and that 21 multiplier you are using starts to look less and less meaningful.

This is not hard math. Almost all simple multiplication and division.

Quote:

But if you don't want to go further, that's fine. The most damning statistic to me is that 50% of black people report that they personally have been mistreated by police, as compared to only 3% of white people. Unless you believe that black people are less honest or accurate than white people, then this is indicative of a very significant problem with the way law enforcement treats black people.
The same study that said that cops don't shoot black people more frequently than white people also said that cops harass black people more than they harass white people.

iiandyiiii 10-05-2018 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21249398)
There is a calculation that can be made based on the fact that the article says that if young white males were killed by cops at the same rate as young black males then there would be 185 dead white boys. There are about 5 times as many young white males as young black males. 20% of 185 is about 37 young black males that have been killed by police over 3 years. In which time about 9 white boys have been killed by police (185/21). Now take into account things like poverty and gang activity and that 21 multiplier you are using starts to look less and less meaningful.

This is not hard math. Almost all simple multiplication and division.



The same study that said that cops don't shoot black people more frequently than white people also said that cops harass black people more than they harass white people.

Okay, assuming your calculations are valid, now show me the statistical analysis that says that this sample size is too small to be valid and provide useful information for the populations we're talking about. I've taken a statistics class, but it's been a long time. If you don't think that ProPublica's statistical analysis is valid, you'll have to prove it if you want to convince anyone. From my reading, their analysis is good math and in line with good statistical and probabilistic practices - they even give their confidence levels (that it's really between ten and forty times different). If you feel differently, show me why.

Gyrate 10-05-2018 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21248756)
You think Trump won with the votes of nazis, white suprememcists, homophobes and misogynists? You don't think anyone else voted for him? Were these nazis the same folks that told pollsters they wouldn't vote for trump but then went and voted for Trump? Trump need more than Nazis to win and you gave them to him. Good job.

You just can't stop yourself. "It's the Democrats' fault Republicans keep nominating and electing deeply corrupt politicians!" Seriously, does this "It's your fault for not stopping us from doing evil" argument work anywhere outside Spider-Man comics?

Quote:

And the left does the same to the right.
No it doesn't - not to the scale, breadth, frequency, or level of consequence that the right do it, with a difference of several orders of magnitude. Oh, the right claim that the left do it... but where on the left are the major news networks who directly coordinated talking points with the Obama White House? Where are the national television syndicates forcing their news anchors to broadcast - and often read directly - pre-prepared leftist propaganda as part of their news bulletins? Where are left-wing equivalents of ALEC? Where are the Democrats deliberately restricting access to voting booths in Republican-leaning areas? Until you can answer those, you don't get to claim that it's all just business as usual.

Quote:

This isn't merely both sides do it. its simply partisan politics.
Got it - this isn't merely "both sides do it", it's "both sides do it".

Quote:

Boy, I'm glad that wasn't there when we elected a black man... TWICE!!!
I like how you think that's an argument. Seriously. Did that make sense in your head?

Also, are you now aware that the massive ramping up of the disenfranchisement and voter suppression efforts is specifically because we elected a black Democrat twice?
Quote:

Yes. And you should stop poking the bear. It serves no useful purpose other than give the speaker the psychic gratification of being able to say shitty things under the guise of saying non-shitty things.
Setting aside which of us is engaging in "the psychic gratification of being able to say shitty things under the guise of saying non-shitty things", I thought right-wingers liked people who "tell it like it is"? Who were plain-speaking and open and honest about the Way Things Are? But now you say this sort of thing is "poking the bear." Are you telling me that Democrats instead should start lying more? That they should deliberately engage in massive misinformation campaigns designed to dupe the voting public? That they should keep repeating lies over and over again no matter how often they are debunked until people just automatically believe them without thinking? I mean, that seems to me to be what you're arguing.

Quote:

You should stop vilifying people for being white.
Again, this is less a "thing that is actually happening" and more a "deliberate right-wing misrepresentation of left-wing positions against racism". I know this has been pointed out to you before - why do you keep repeating it?

Quote:

You should stop using language that is prima facie offensive and then retreat to say "well the meaning of that offensive phrase is actually not offensive if you had read the scholarly article on the kneejerk reaction white people (and really everyone) has when confronted with their own privilege or bias.
I'll stop doing that once it gets translated into 1) English and 2) reality.

Urbanredneck 10-05-2018 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21247494)
Oh! Well that's all right then. We had to turn in our homework and pass our exams at Evergreen, too. And I betcha that at your school, students complained about homework, too.

And guess what? Evergreen has rules, and they're enforced. The problem is that you don't like how they were enforced.

You know, you might rethink your constant praise about Evergreen, According to THIS their freshmen class this year will be about 350 students. Thats right. The school whos current enrollment is about 3100 students, if things dont change could quickly drop to less than 1500. Their high point was in 2010 when enrollment was 4500.



It's also interesting that the article said Evergreen was the only college in Washington which is losing students or not losing them anywhere near as bad.


So maybe cutting funding DOES make sense. After all the funding was based on the school having about 4,000 students.If enrollment drops the states money could better be spent at other colleges.

MrDibble 10-08-2018 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21248740)
Shouting and stamping your feet is none of those things.

"Shouting and stamping your feet" is your own characterization of a movement that actually does far more than that.
Quote:

Classic critical race theory. Logic and reason are only useful to the extent that they can be used to justify YOUR positions. When they work against you, then they are flawed.:dubious:
No, logic and reason are only one tool in a set of them. And not the only, or even most important, tool, people not being robots and all.

And only as good as their underlying axioms.
Quote:

Well then, we might as well shut this whole site down.
Naah, I'm OK with keeping the Cafe.
Quote:

After allAmerican society is like the Nazis
Well...
Quote:

so we have to ignore logic and reason.:smack:
You can quote where I said "ignore", as opposed to "not prize above all else", right?
Quote:

But it was, that's why the civil rights movement worked. It wouldn't have worked in a tyranny.
:dubious:several civil rights movements have succeeded in tyrannies. This is just American exceptionalism.
Quote:

People think that critical race theorists are a joke at best and harmful to society at worst.
"People are saying..." is a piss-poor argument.
Quote:

It is based on ignoring logic and reason in favor of anecdote and subjective feelings.
Naah. It's just based on not buying into the bullshit axioms that pass for "reasoning" in the existing discourse. Like the assumption of the validity of whiteness.
Quote:

When has that ever been the case? Minorities throwing tantrums without convincing the majority that there is a problem to begin with hasn't worked well anywhere, ever.
Worked well enough here for 50 years.
Quote:

wtf are you talking about?
I thought you prized logic and reason - doesn't that include empiricism? I'm just proposing a concrete experiment for you to try. Let us know how it goes...

Budget Player Cadet 10-08-2018 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21250679)
You know, you might rethink your constant praise about Evergreen, According to THIS their freshmen class this year will be about 350 students. Thats right. The school whos current enrollment is about 3100 students, if things dont change could quickly drop to less than 1500. Their high point was in 2010 when enrollment was 4500.



It's also interesting that the article said Evergreen was the only college in Washington which is losing students or not losing them anywhere near as bad.


So maybe cutting funding DOES make sense. After all the funding was based on the school having about 4,000 students.If enrollment drops the states money could better be spent at other colleges.

Yeah it turns out constant nonstop vilification can have an effect on an institution, especially a relatively small one. Go figure!

This doesn't exactly hurt my case about right-wing manufactured blowback being far more significant than any actual perceived events at these colleges, mind you...

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-09-2018 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21250679)
You know, you might rethink your constant praise about Evergreen, According to THIS their freshmen class this year will be about 350 students. Thats right. The school whos current enrollment is about 3100 students, if things dont change could quickly drop to less than 1500. Their high point was in 2010 when enrollment was 4500.



It's also interesting that the article said Evergreen was the only college in Washington which is losing students or not losing them anywhere near as bad.


So maybe cutting funding DOES make sense. After all the funding was based on the school having about 4,000 students.If enrollment drops the states money could better be spent at other colleges.

What an absurd post. First, you're citing some hardcore rightwing talk radio twit, not a legitimate news source. Second, even if his numbers are entirely accurate, this is a non sequitur: your criticisms of Evergreen are in no way supported by the allegation that enrollment is down. Enrollment may be down because of a successful smear campaign against them by people who use dishonest misrepresentations of the school.

Please tell me you're ashamed of posting such absurdities.

Shodan 10-09-2018 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21256347)
Enrollment may be down because of a successful smear campaign against them by people who use dishonest misrepresentations of the school.

And Evergreen students and their parents are too stupid to see thru it. Makes sense.

Regards,
Shodan

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-09-2018 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21256435)
And Evergreen students and their parents are too stupid to see thru it. Makes sense.

As a drive-by, that's like a C-. As a thoughtful, considered post that recognizes the entire point of smear campaigns?

Doesn't even rate.

Damuri Ajashi 10-09-2018 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21249697)
Okay, assuming your calculations are valid, now show me the statistical analysis that says that this sample size is too small to be valid and provide useful information for the populations we're talking about. I've taken a statistics class, but it's been a long time. If you don't think that ProPublica's statistical analysis is valid, you'll have to prove it if you want to convince anyone.

No, I don't. People can look at the anemic sample size and reach the conclusion that the sample size is too small to be able to say that 21::1 is a valid statistic. It might very well be the result of a violent turf war in Chicago or couple of violent drug/gang encounters in LA. The only ACTUAL study done has said the exact opposite of what you are saying. The only ACTUAL study done has said that cops don't shoot blacks at higher rates than white after adjusting for reasonable variables. What pro publica did was take a few very small subset of numbers and extrapolated something about society as a whole.

Based on this methodology, I could say that cops kill asians age 14-19 three times as frequently as they shoot whites.

Quote:

From my reading, their analysis is good math and in line with good statistical and probabilistic practices - they even give their confidence levels (that it's really between ten and forty times different). If you feel differently, show me why.
Its bad math. The numbers are small and you are cherrypicking the data to reach those statistics. The fact remains that cops shoot blacks generally 3 times ore frequently than whites generally. P Hacking has been pretty prominent in the news recently and this sort of cherrypicking is a close relative. You get a big data set and look for anomalies that help prove your point.

Damuri Ajashi 10-09-2018 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21249832)
You just can't stop yourself. "It's the Democrats' fault Republicans keep nominating and electing deeply corrupt politicians!" Seriously, does this "It's your fault for not stopping us from doing evil" argument work anywhere outside Spider-Man comics?

I don't think I said any of this.

I said that you drove people on the fence to the other side of the fence. It is your fault that Trump won. Congratulations. Trump thanks you.

Quote:

No it doesn't - not to the scale, breadth, frequency, or level of consequence that the right do it, with a difference of several orders of magnitude. Oh, the right claim that the left do it... but where on the left are the major news networks who directly coordinated talking points with the Obama White House? Where are the national television syndicates forcing their news anchors to broadcast - and often read directly - pre-prepared leftist propaganda as part of their news bulletins? Where are left-wing equivalents of ALEC? Where are the Democrats deliberately restricting access to voting booths in Republican-leaning areas? Until you can answer those, you don't get to claim that it's all just business as usual.
I remember when John McCain was the worst person in the world according to Democrats. I chimed in too because I really wanted Obama to win and every little thing McCain did was amplified and magnified until he we reached maximum outrage. Then Mitt Romney was the worst person in the world. I still remember how Romney was an unfit POTUS because his dog shit himself in a car roof rack.

Its just poliitics. Both sides actually do it.

Quote:

Got it - this isn't merely "both sides do it", it's "both sides do it".
Yes exactly. Just like both sides in a war vilify their enemy, both sides vilify the other side, at least these days. It wasn't always this way.

Quote:

I like how you think that's an argument. Seriously. Did that make sense in your head?
Hmmm, yeah, I think I might have meant that for another post. Its a non sequitor.

Quote:

Also, are you now aware that the massive ramping up of the disenfranchisement and voter suppression efforts is specifically because we elected a black Democrat twice?
Are you sure it wasn't because the seminal SCOTUS case that declared Voter ID constitutional was published in 2008?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawfo...Election_Board

Quote:

Setting aside which of us is engaging in "the psychic gratification of being able to say shitty things under the guise of saying non-shitty things", I thought right-wingers liked people who "tell it like it is"? Who were plain-speaking and open and honest about the Way Things Are? But now you say this sort of thing is "poking the bear." Are you telling me that Democrats instead should start lying more?
First, I'm not a conservative except by the grossly distorted yardstick of this board. Second, its not plain speaking to refer to something in the most offensive way possible. Its not honest to refer to the instinctive defensiveness whites feel when discussing racism as white fragility. Its not particularly descriptive or helpful.

Quote:

That they should deliberately engage in massive misinformation campaigns designed to dupe the voting public? That they should keep repeating lies over and over again no matter how often they are debunked until people just automatically believe them without thinking? I mean, that seems to me to be what you're arguing.
Because of course Democrats never engage in deceptive misinformation campaigns. :rolleyes: Democrats lie just as easily as Republicans if it suits their purposes.

But I agree that Republicans are better at propoganda.

Quote:

Again, this is less a "thing that is actually happening" and more a "deliberate right-wing misrepresentation of left-wing positions against racism". I know this has been pointed out to you before - why do you keep repeating it?
Because its true. It doesn't happen every time but there is a vilification of white people and as 75% of the voting population, they are starting to notice.

Quote:

I'll stop doing that once it gets translated into 1) English and 2) reality.
Crit race theory terms like "white fragility" do more harm than good. You can convey the thoughts and ideas in a way that are easier to understand and digest if you pick less offensive words. Or you can keep electing Donald Trump. I'm sure he is grateful for your efforts.

iiandyiiii 10-09-2018 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21257198)
No, I don't. People can look at the anemic sample size and reach the conclusion that the sample size is too small to be able to say that 21::1 is a valid statistic. It might very well be the result of a violent turf war in Chicago or couple of violent drug/gang encounters in LA. The only ACTUAL study done has said the exact opposite of what you are saying. The only ACTUAL study done has said that cops don't shoot blacks at higher rates than white after adjusting for reasonable variables. What pro publica did was take a few very small subset of numbers and extrapolated something about society as a whole.

Based on this methodology, I could say that cops kill asians age 14-19 three times as frequently as they shoot whites.

Its bad math. The numbers are small and you are cherrypicking the data to reach those statistics. The fact remains that cops shoot blacks generally 3 times ore frequently than whites generally. P Hacking has been pretty prominent in the news recently and this sort of cherrypicking is a close relative. You get a big data set and look for anomalies that help prove your point.

If you're not a statistician, then your opinion on this is pretty meaningless to me -- believe it or not, statistics is a real discipline, and statisticians can determine from sample sizes and such whether a piece of data is large enough to be statistically likely to be valid or not, and in my understanding (again, I am not a statistician, but it doesn't appear you are either), this analysis by ProPublica meets those requirements.

Damuri Ajashi 10-09-2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21254698)
"Shouting and stamping your feet" is your own characterization of a movement that actually does far more than that.

Mine and a significant portion of the voting public.

Quote:

No, logic and reason are only one tool in a set of them. And not the only, or even most important, tool, people not being robots and all.
Logic and reason are not the most important in YOUR toolbox because you have found that you can win arguments with accusations of racism and bigotry. Critical race theory is horse shit and only gains traction because it allows people who would lose arguments on the merits to win by accusing others of racism and bigotry.

Quote:

And only as good as their underlying axioms.
Logic and reason are efforts to define THE objective truth. Not your truth or my truth, etc. THE truth. If that's not really interesting to you, you might be on the wrong website.

The axioms of logic and reason were laid out over a thousand years ago in an effort to discern the truth. Critical race theory has little concern for the truth, only a subjective storytelling.

Quote:

Naah, I'm OK with keeping the Cafe.

Well...
:rolleyes:

Quote:

You can quote where I said "ignore", as opposed to "not prize above all else", right?
You're right, you don't ignore logic. You only ignore it when it is inconvenient and leads to conclusions that are contrary to your political goals.

Quote:

:dubious:several civil rights movements have succeeded in tyrannies. This is just American exceptionalism.
So you think a march on Selma could have stopped the Holocaust? Which tyrannies were open to change as a result of civil rights movements like the one we had?

Quote:

"People are saying..." is a piss-poor argument.
Its a lot to repeat. So let me just link it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...heory#Critique

And that's the more disciplined face of crit race theory that you find in law schools. The stuff you see coming from the other social sciences is absolute horse shit.

Quote:

Naah. It's just based on not buying into the bullshit axioms that pass for "reasoning" in the existing discourse. Like the assumption of the validity of whiteness.
That's bullshit. Whiteness is not a cornerstone of reason or logic. You can argue about whiteness without relying on anecdote and storytelling but it doesn't get you to the promised land of being able to say that all the troubles that minorities face today is the direct result of an invisible form of straight white male supremacy and this social urge is so powerful that as a general rule only straight white males can succeed in this society.

You don't need crit race theory to tell us that life is easier for straight white males.

Quote:

Worked well enough here for 50 years.
You really think that's what happened?

Quote:

I thought you prized logic and reason - doesn't that include empiricism? I'm just proposing a concrete experiment for you to try. Let us know how it goes...
Once again. WTF are you talking about? Is this what you consider argument because if so then I see why crit race theory appeals to you.

Damuri Ajashi 10-09-2018 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21257327)
If you're not a statistician, then your opinion on this is pretty meaningless to me -- believe it or not, statistics is a real discipline, and statisticians can determine from sample sizes and such whether a piece of data is large enough to be statistically likely to be valid or not, and in my understanding (again, I am not a statistician, but it doesn't appear you are either), this analysis by ProPublica meets those requirements.

Well at least you aren't disagreeing with the math. But apparently it doesn't matter to you that the sample size went from 1200 to a few dozen.

Why does it matter what I am, I have a degree in economics and I am familiar with economics and statistics even though I am not an economist or statistician. Just as I don't have to be a mathemetician to know that pi is the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter; I don't need to be a statistician to know that 37 deaths over 3 years is not enough to declare a racist epidemic as severe as you describe. Pro Publica is feeding you factoids to rile you up.

The only actual peer reviewed study published by a Harvard economist in a prominent journal says that cops don't really shoot blacks significantly more than whites. The differences to the extent they exist can be chalked up to statistical noise.

The one statistician that supported the pro publica statement has withdrawn his support. It is effectively P Hacking the data.

Police shoot and kill ~1000 people each year. You are saying that based on ~12 shooting in each of 3 years you can conclude something?

I'm not saying that the peer reviewed study is irrefutable but pro publica is a news organization. They are good at uncovering and reporting news. It is indeed an interesting factoid that in the population of 60+ kids 15-19 shot by police from 2015-2017, 37 of them were black. But this is a factoid because it is a cherry picked fact that distorts the truth. This factoid is not enough to reach the conclusion that cops shoot black kids at 21 times the rate that they shoot white kids.

Why is it that you think that a news article is the equivalent of a peer reviewed study?

iiandyiiii 10-09-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21257439)
Well at least you aren't disagreeing with the math. But apparently it doesn't matter to you that the sample size went from 1200 to a few dozen.

Why does it matter what I am, I have a degree in economics and I am familiar with economics and statistics even though I am not an economist or statistician. Just as I don't have to be a mathemetician to know that pi is the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter; I don't need to be a statistician to know that 37 deaths over 3 years is not enough to declare a racist epidemic as severe as you describe. Pro Publica is feeding you factoids to rile you up.

The only actual peer reviewed study published by a Harvard economist in a prominent journal says that cops don't really shoot blacks significantly more than whites. The differences to the extent they exist can be chalked up to statistical noise.

The one statistician that supported the pro publica statement has withdrawn his support. It is effectively P Hacking the data.

Police shoot and kill ~1000 people each year. You are saying that based on ~12 shooting in each of 3 years you can conclude something?

I'm not saying that the peer reviewed study is irrefutable but pro publica is a news organization. They are good at uncovering and reporting news. It is indeed an interesting factoid that in the population of 60+ kids 15-19 shot by police from 2015-2017, 37 of them were black. But this is a factoid because it is a cherry picked fact that distorts the truth. This factoid is not enough to reach the conclusion that cops shoot black kids at 21 times the rate that they shoot white kids.

Why is it that you think that a news article is the equivalent of a peer reviewed study?

I'm not fully convinced of anything by either study -- two studies, with different results, demand further investigation. All of your numbers here are uncited (and I found your earlier math explanation highly confusing), so I'm responding as if they are accurate for the purposes of this discussion, though I certainly would not vouch for them without further explanation. In my understanding, the ProPublica Risk Ratio calculation is valid and provides a reasonable level of confidence -- 95% that the real ratio is somewhere between 10 and 40, based on a solid exercise in statistical analysis.

I don't offer the ProPublica report as "You are WRONG!", but rather "here is conflicting data". And this data is not easy to come by -- most shootings aren't recorded in this manner and made available to analyze.

My overall opinion on law enforcement treatment of black people is based on many, many pieces of data -- the most prominent of which is the polling that shows that 50% of black people report personal mistreatment by law enforcement.

MrDibble 10-10-2018 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21257373)
Mine and a significant portion of the voting public.

"A significant portion of the voting public" also voted for Donald Trump. Being "a significant portion of the voting public" doesn't preclude being dumber than a box of hammers and just plain bone-ignorant about the world.
Quote:

Logic and reason are not the most important in YOUR toolbox because you have found that you can win arguments with accusations of racism and bigotry.
If that's all it took to win arguments, I'd never lose them. I win arguments with racists and bigots because racists and bigots are fundamentally dumb.
Quote:

Critical race theory is horse shit and only gains traction because it allows people who would lose arguments on the merits to win by accusing others of racism and bigotry.
You realise you're accusing people like Bell, Matsuda and Crenshaw of being unable to debate?

Critical race theory allows people to speak with the underlying racist assumptions of our entire social framework exposed to the best disinfectant first. That's its strength, not its weakness, much as you would have it otherwise.
Quote:

Logic and reason are efforts to define THE objective truth.
There is no objective truth.
Quote:

Not your truth or my truth, etc. THE truth. If that's not really interesting to you, you might be on the wrong website.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide what this website is and isn't exclusively about.

Or choose for me how I get to debate race.
Quote:

The axioms of logic and reason were laid out over a thousand years ago in an effort to discern the truth.
The axiom of whiteness which underpins social discourse is not as old as that.
Quote:

Critical race theory has little concern for the truth, only a subjective storytelling.
Since race has no scientific validity, it's entirely subjective too. So subjectivity is an entirely appropriate approach.
Quote:

:rolleyes:
:smack::dubious::rolleyes::(:smack::eek:

But no real, reasoned, logical response, I see...
Quote:

You're right, you don't ignore logic. You only ignore it when it is inconvenient and leads to conclusions that are contrary to your political goals.
I never ignore logic. I just never mistake myself for a Vulcan or a robot.


And you have no frigging idea what my political goals might be.
Quote:

So you think a march on Selma could have stopped the Holocaust?
Do you know the difference between a single event and a movement?
Quote:

Which tyrannies were open to change as a result of civil rights movements like the one we had?
Visited Eastern Europe lately?
Quote:

Its a lot to repeat. So let me just link it.
Repeating it doesn't actually make the argument. Especially when the critiques include such absolute absurdities as there being no white racism inherent in the US legal system.
Quote:

That's bullshit. Whiteness is not a cornerstone of reason or logic.
It's a cornerstone of how most people discuss race, though.
Quote:

You can argue about whiteness without relying on anecdote and storytelling
You really can't.
Quote:

but it doesn't get you to the promised land of being able to say that all the troubles that minorities face today is the direct result of an invisible form of straight white male supremacy and this social urge is so powerful that as a general rule only straight white males can succeed in this society.
Yet this is self-evidently the case.
Quote:

You don't need crit race theory to tell us that life is easier for straight white males.
And if this is so, why is this so?
Quote:

You really think that's what happened?
Yes, "throwing a tantrum" is exactly what the Whites here did when the British quit governing.
Quote:

Once again. WTF are you talking about? Is this what you consider argument because if so then I see why crit race theory appeals to you.
It's a statement about the negligible value if the pure idea of democracy (which is what you seem to prize) vs the lived experience of that democracy for many PoCs. I realised just saying this might be too much of a subjective thing for you, so I turned it into a concrete empirical exercise for you. I figured you would be eager to put the much-ballyhooed faculty of reasoning to work on something undeniably real, not an airy-fairy subjective account.

But it looks like you only prize reason in the abstract, when you think it lets you win internet arguments. You appear unwilling to apply it to anything real.

Kimstu 10-10-2018 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21257198)
People can look at the anemic sample size and reach the conclusion that the sample size is too small to be able to say that 21::1 is a valid statistic. It might very well be the result of a violent turf war in Chicago or couple of violent drug/gang encounters in LA.

The footnote in the linked article indicates that they took the small sample size into account, and still came up with a range of 10% to 40% for the risk ratio, with a 95% confidence level:
Quote:

Risk ratios can have varying levels of precision, depending on a variety of mathematical factors. In this case, because such shootings are rare from a statistical perspective, a 95 percent confidence interval indicates that black teenagers are at between 10 and 40 times greater risk of being killed by a police officer.
So, while it may not be statistically valid to claim black teens are exactly 21 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens, it is statistically valid to say that black teens are anywhere from 10 to 40 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens.

Gyrate 10-11-2018 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21257311)
I don't think I said any of this.

I said that you drove people on the fence to the other side of the fence. It is your fault that Trump won.

And this remains total nonsense. People largely voted for Trump because they wanted to vote for Trump or because they believed the firehose of bullshit the right have been spraying at Clinton for two decades, not because Hillary was mean to them. Oh, some people whined about being called "deplorables" but those people were never going to vote for Hillary. This idea that if only the Democrats had been a bit nicer Trump would have lost is ludicrous.

Quote:

I remember when John McCain was the worst person in the world according to Democrats. I chimed in too because I really wanted Obama to win and every little thing McCain did was amplified and magnified until he we reached maximum outrage. Then Mitt Romney was the worst person in the world. I still remember how Romney was an unfit POTUS because his dog shit himself in a car roof rack.
I'm sure that's how you remember it. Of course, I remember a lot of Democrats saying positive things about McCain, at least until he saddled himself with a grossly unqualified running mate. And even then, he wasn't considered "the worst person in the world" - that's entirely your hyperbole. And while Romney was a rich, entitled asshole who insulted half the population (which did drive some undecided people to vote for Obama), deeply embarrassed himself abroad and, yes, bragged about animal cruelty, that didn't make him the "worst person in the world" either. Again, that's your hyperbole.

Heck, I don't even think Trump is the "worst person in the world". He's certainly a terrible person by all sorts of metrics and I'm guessing in the end he'll give Buchanan a run for his money in the "worst president" rankings but there are far worse people in the world, including several of the people Trump has openly expressed admiration for.

Quote:

Its just poliitics. Both sides actually do it.

Yes exactly. Just like both sides in a war vilify their enemy, both sides vilify the other side, at least these days. It wasn't always this way.
Way to completely ignore my point.

Quote:

Are you sure it wasn't because the seminal SCOTUS case that declared Voter ID constitutional was published in 2008?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawfo...Election_Board
That gave them to the power to do it. That's not what drove Republican voters to push for implementation of voter ID under the assumption that the only way Democrats - and particularly a black guy - win elections is by cheating.

Quote:

First, I'm not a conservative except by the grossly distorted yardstick of this board.
No, but you expend every effort to build liberal strawmen so you can knock them down and you have shown no qualms about repeating right-wing memes and propaganda.

Quote:

Second, its not plain speaking to refer to something in the most offensive way possible.
Oh, but that's the whole point of that argument - have you not been paying attention? It's dragged out to excuse assholes being assholes, often by the assholes themselves. And anyone offended by the "plain speaking" is a "snowflake". It gets used as an excuse quite a lot.

Quote:

Its not honest to refer to the instinctive defensiveness whites feel when discussing racism as white fragility. Its not particularly descriptive or helpful.
It's both honest and accurate, as your own description of these people reflects.

Quote:

Because of course Democrats never engage in deceptive misinformation campaigns. :rolleyes: Democrats lie just as easily as Republicans if it suits their purposes.
This is like saying "Democrats break the speed limit, Republicans break the speed limit through elementary school playgrounds - they're exactly the same!". It is an argument deliberately designed to handwave away the significant differences of degree, frequency and impact.

Quote:

Because its true.
No, it really isn't.

Quote:

It doesn't happen every time but there is a vilification of white people and as 75% of the voting population, they are starting to notice.
No, there really isn't. There's a vilification of whiny assholes, and a tendency of whiny assholes to ascribe that vilification to their race rather than the fact that they're whiny assholes, but that doesn't make it true. It's the same way homophobes claim that when people call them out for their homophobia they're really being persecuted for their faith - it's just deflection.

Quote:

Crit race theory terms like "white fragility" do more harm than good. You can convey the thoughts and ideas in a way that are easier to understand and digest if you pick less offensive words. Or you can keep electing Donald Trump. I'm sure he is grateful for your efforts.
Which "less offensive words" do you suggest will magically stop fragile white people from voting for Trump?

Oh, and by the way:
Quote:

Logic and reason are not the most important in YOUR toolbox because you have found that you can win arguments with accusations of racism and bigotry.
If that's an accusation you want to level, you might want to re-read your own posts. Because this whole "The Democrats are picking on white people" thing is exactly the type of argument you're claiming to be against.

Damuri Ajashi 10-15-2018 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21257479)
I'm not fully convinced of anything by either study --

Really?

because you seemed pretty convinced when you cited the pro-publica article.

Quote:

two studies, with different results, demand further investigation.
What pro-publica did was not a study. Its not really a study any more than what I did in that post with the math was a study. They engaged in simple division and multiplication, not a study.

Quote:

All of your numbers here are uncited (and I found your earlier math explanation highly confusing), so I'm responding as if they are accurate for the purposes of this discussion, though I certainly would not vouch for them without further explanation. In my understanding, the ProPublica Risk Ratio calculation is valid and provides a reasonable level of confidence -- 95% that the real ratio is somewhere between 10 and 40, based on a solid exercise in statistical analysis.
Where do you get the "a solid exercise of statistical analysis"? The one statistician they were relying on recanted.

Quote:

I don't offer the ProPublica report as "You are WRONG!", but rather "here is conflicting data". And this data is not easy to come by -- most shootings aren't recorded in this manner and made available to analyze.
Pro Publica didn't use any new data.

So on the one hand, you have an actual study by an award winning Harvard economist. And another study by Michigan State university. Both peer reviewed and analytical. And on the other hand you have an exercise in simple arithmetic that pro-publica calls a study. Yeah, both sides are equal here.

Quote:

My overall opinion on law enforcement treatment of black people is based on many, many pieces of data -- the most prominent of which is the polling that shows that 50% of black people report personal mistreatment by law enforcement.
And both studies show that you are correct that police engage in more harassment against blacks than whites. But they don't kill them disproportionately. Not saying that everything is peachy keen as long as cops aren't killing blacks but the discrimination we see in law enforcement is not quite as fatal as you have been led to believe.

iiandyiiii 10-15-2018 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21267267)
Really?

because you seemed pretty convinced when you cited the pro-publica article.

What pro-publica did was not a study. Its not really a study any more than what I did in that post with the math was a study. They engaged in simple division and multiplication, not a study.

Where do you get the "a solid exercise of statistical analysis"? The one statistician they were relying on recanted.

Pro Publica didn't use any new data.

So on the one hand, you have an actual study by an award winning Harvard economist. And another study by Michigan State university. Both peer reviewed and analytical. And on the other hand you have an exercise in simple arithmetic that pro-publica calls a study. Yeah, both sides are equal here.

And both studies show that you are correct that police engage in more harassment against blacks than whites. But they don't kill them disproportionately. Not saying that everything is peachy keen as long as cops aren't killing blacks but the discrimination we see in law enforcement is not quite as fatal as you have been led to believe.

Got it, you're not interested in conflicting data, only in finding various rhetorical ways to justify dismissing it. And I'm not interested in a bunch of uncited dismissals. No need to discuss this further.

Damuri Ajashi 10-15-2018 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21258317)
"A significant portion of the voting public" also voted for Donald Trump. Being "a significant portion of the voting public" doesn't preclude being dumber than a box of hammers and just plain bone-ignorant about the world.
If that's all it took to win arguments, I'd never lose them. I win arguments with racists and bigots because racists and bigots are fundamentally dumb.

How many arguments have you won with racists? Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not. But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn't going to do it.

Quote:

You realise you're accusing people like Bell, Matsuda and Crenshaw of being unable to debate?
No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda and as Posner says, she is among the most likely contemporary legal scholars to have a long lasting effect on society. She uses Crit race theory to try and provide another lens through which we can [should?] view the law. She doesn't use it as the foundation for legal arguments.

Quote:

Critical race theory allows people to speak with the underlying racist assumptions of our entire social framework exposed to the best disinfectant first. That's its strength, not its weakness, much as you would have it otherwise.
No that's not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Quote:

There is no objective truth.
Science and facts beg to differ.

Quote:

Fortunately, you don't get to decide what this website is and isn't exclusively about.

Or choose for me how I get to debate race.
You can proselityze on this board but the board does in fact have a mission. Its right there in the banner (its in a small font tho).

Quote:

The axiom of whiteness which underpins social discourse is not as old as that.

Since race has no scientific validity, it's entirely subjective too. So subjectivity is an entirely appropriate approach.
:smack::dubious::rolleyes::(:smack::eek:
I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.

Quote:

But no real, reasoned, logical response, I see...
So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?

Quote:

I never ignore logic.
It seems like you do.

Quote:

I just never mistake myself for a Vulcan or a robot.

And you have no frigging idea what my political goals might be.
I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.

Quote:

Do you know the difference between a single event and a movement?
OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?

Quote:

Visited Eastern Europe lately?
I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989 I doubt it would have worked for small beleaguered minorities protesting for their rights.

Quote:

Repeating it doesn't actually make the argument.
It does when I am repeating an actual argument.

"shit in one hand democracy in the other" is an argument? I STILL don't know WTF that was about.

Quote:

Especially when the critiques include such absolute absurdities as there being no white racism inherent in the US legal system.
Who said that again?

Quote:

It's a cornerstone of how most people discuss race, though.
You really can't.
Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.

Quote:

Yet this is self-evidently the case.
Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
See Jewish-Americans Generally
See Asian-Americans generally
See African immigrants generally
See Cuban-Americans generally

Because the argument of crit race theory isn't that white males have an advantage (which, I think most people could agree with). Its that white males have an almost unassailable advantage.

Quote:

And if this is so, why is this so?
Because knew that white males had it easier long before crit race theory came along. What crit race theory adds to the mix is the notion that this advantage is almost insurmountable.

Quote:

Yes, "throwing a tantrum" is exactly what the Whites here did when the British quit governing.
Once again, that's called a revolution. In a democracy, that doesn't happen a whole lot, its one of the best features of democracies. But you are succeeding in alienating a lot of voters in a democracy, where people vote for stuff.

Quote:

It's a statement about the negligible value if the pure idea of democracy (which is what you seem to prize) vs the lived experience of that democracy for many PoCs. I realised just saying this might be too much of a subjective thing for you, so I turned it into a concrete empirical exercise for you. I figured you would be eager to put the much-ballyhooed faculty of reasoning to work on something undeniably real, not an airy-fairy subjective account.

But it looks like you only prize reason in the abstract, when you think it lets you win internet arguments. You appear unwilling to apply it to anything real.
Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we've come up with to date. I happen to think that making me king would be fucking fantastic but you would probably disagree. So...democracy is what we have.

And in fact I bet you probably are more in favor of the "pure ideal" of democracy rather than what we have now with the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and all that shit.

Damuri Ajashi 10-15-2018 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21259919)
The footnote in the linked article indicates that they took the small sample size into account, and still came up with a range of 10% to 40% for the risk ratio, with a 95% confidence level:

So, while it may not be statistically valid to claim black teens are exactly 21 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens, it is statistically valid to say that black teens are anywhere from 10 to 40 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens.

Didn't the statistician withdraw his support?

Damuri Ajashi 10-15-2018 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21260456)
And this remains total nonsense. People largely voted for Trump because they wanted to vote for Trump or because they believed the firehose of bullshit the right have been spraying at Clinton for two decades, not because Hillary was mean to them. Oh, some people whined about being called "deplorables" but those people were never going to vote for Hillary. This idea that if only the Democrats had been a bit nicer Trump would have lost is ludicrous.

What you are saying is very defeatist. You are basically saying that there is nothing you did wrong or could have done differently to change the outcome of the last election. That if you had to do it all over again, you would have done it the same and you would have lost yet again.

Effectively, you are saying that Trump was inevitable because this is America. You did not encourage anyone to the polls for trump or discourage anyone from going to the polls for Hillary.

Quote:

I'm sure that's how you remember it. Of course, I remember a lot of Democrats saying positive things about McCain, at least until he saddled himself with a grossly unqualified running mate. And even then, he wasn't considered "the worst person in the world" - that's entirely your hyperbole.
There was literally a segment on a TV show called "worst person in the world" McCain was on it. The politics of destruction had been around for a while by 2008.

Quote:

And while Romney was a rich, entitled asshole who insulted half the population (which did drive some undecided people to vote for Obama), deeply embarrassed himself abroad and, yes, bragged about animal cruelty, that didn't make him the "worst person in the world" either. Again, that's your hyperbole.
Like I said in previous threads, by the time Trump came around, we had practically run out of horrible things to say because we had used them all up on people like McCain and Romney. Saying this stuff about Trump lost some of its efficacy because we had overused these superlatives. Kind of like how we overuse accusations of racism and bigotry.

Quote:

Heck, I don't even think Trump is the "worst person in the world". He's certainly a terrible person by all sorts of metrics and I'm guessing in the end he'll give Buchanan a run for his money in the "worst president" rankings but there are far worse people in the world, including several of the people Trump has openly expressed admiration for.
Oh I see what's going on. You think I am saying that YOU called McCain the worst person in the world.

Quote:

Way to completely ignore my point.
I got your point. I just thought your point was useless and injected something useful in response.

Quote:

That gave them to the power to do it. That's not what drove Republican voters to push for implementation of voter ID under the assumption that the only way Democrats - and particularly a black guy - win elections is by cheating.
You said they did it because of Obama. I'm saying they would have done it way before Obama if they could have gotten away with it and it was the SCOTUS case that gave them the room to do it.

Quote:

No, but you expend every effort to build liberal strawmen so you can knock them down and you have shown no qualms about repeating right-wing memes and propaganda.
Examples?

And what right wing memes are you talking about?

Quote:

Oh, but that's the whole point of that argument - have you not been paying attention? It's dragged out to excuse assholes being assholes, often by the assholes themselves. And anyone offended by the "plain speaking" is a "snowflake". It gets used as an excuse quite a lot.
I thought I had been paying attention and plain speaking usually refers to situations where ignorant people say ignorant things that they THINK are the truth but they aren't true. This is a case where educated people are saying true things and saying it in the way that is most likely to give offense.

Quote:

It's both honest and accurate, as your own description of these people reflects.
I don't think white fragility is accurate or descriptive at all. I think if you asked a bunch of collge stuents what it means they will not have a very good idea based on the term itself. If I called it "white discomfort talking about racism" everyone would know wtf I was talking about.

Quote:

This is like saying "Democrats break the speed limit, Republicans break the speed limit through elementary school playgrounds - they're exactly the same!". It is an argument deliberately designed to handwave away the significant differences of degree, frequency and impact.
OK s you give an example of deceptive republican misinformation and I will give an example of deceptive Democratic misinformation and we will see who runs out first. The notion that your liars are any less deceptive than the other guy's liars is a form of self deception.

Quote:

No, it really isn't.
Yes it is.

Quote:

No, there really isn't. There's a vilification of whiny assholes, and a tendency of whiny assholes to ascribe that vilification to their race rather than the fact that they're whiny assholes, but that doesn't make it true. It's the same way homophobes claim that when people call them out for their homophobia they're really being persecuted for their faith - it's just deflection.
And of course this is where I say "yes there is"

Damuri Ajashi 10-15-2018 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21267272)
Got it, you're not interested in conflicting data, only in finding various rhetorical ways to justify dismissing it. And I'm not interested in a bunch of uncited dismissals. No need to discuss this further.

What you have is not data, its a factoid. Its a journalistic article conveying a trivial item of information claiming to be data.

Once again.

On the one hand: Two peer reviewed studies say that cops do not kill blacks more frequently than whites.

On the other hand: Pro publica does some back of the napkin math to conclude cops kill blacks (between the ages of X and Y) 21 times more frequently than whites and calls it a study that has a 95% degree of confidence that the actual number is 10 times to 40 times, and then the statistician withdraws his support of the "study"

So obviously there is conflicting data, amirite?

This is how the right perpetuates the global warming debate...with conflicting "data"

Or the left perpetuates the GMO debate

Or the whackadoodles perpetuate the vaccine debate

iiandyiiii 10-15-2018 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21267491)
What you have is not data, its a factoid. Its a journalistic article conveying a trivial item of information claiming to be data.

Once again.

On the one hand: Two peer reviewed studies say that cops do not kill blacks more frequently than whites.

On the other hand: Pro publica does some back of the napkin math to conclude cops kill blacks (between the ages of X and Y) 21 times more frequently than whites and calls it a study that has a 95% degree of confidence that the actual number is 10 times to 40 times, and then the statistician withdraws his support of the "study"

So obviously there is conflicting data, amirite?

This is how the right perpetuates the global warming debate...with conflicting "data"

Or the left perpetuates the GMO debate

Or the whackadoodles perpetuate the vaccine debate

Considering what you've said before about black culture, BLM, and many other related issues, I don't find your opinion on this remotely convincing.

Damuri Ajashi 10-16-2018 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21267530)
Considering what you've said before about black culture, BLM, and many other related issues, I don't find your opinion on this remotely convincing.

So you don't find facts convincing because you think I'm racist? Or are you calling me racist because you want to ignore the peer reviewed studies that I am presenting to rebutt your pro-publica article?

:rolleyes:

For viewers at home I believe iiandyiiii is getting rejecting peer reviewed studies because he feels that I am racist to place any of the responsibility for the plight of blacks in America on blacks. (this fits in nicely with the subject of this thread) And the studies that I put forward as evidence should be ignored because I said something that he thinks is racist.

The thing that thinks makes him think I am racist is that I say that some significant part of the failure of black society to succeed in America is black culture. I don't say that racism doesn't exist or that its not a big deal. I think he was particularly offended by my use of the phrase "toxic culture" and I no longer use the term because I can say what I want to say without using a term that causes undue offense.

I also called BLM a violent organization. But this was back when we BLM events were still ending in violence or rioting. That's not really happening any more.

iiandyiiii 10-16-2018 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21269978)
So you don't find facts convincing because you think I'm racist? Or are you calling me racist because you want to ignore the peer reviewed studies that I am presenting to rebutt your pro-publica article?

:rolleyes:

For viewers at home I believe iiandyiiii is getting rejecting peer reviewed studies because he feels that I am racist to place any of the responsibility for the plight of blacks in America on blacks. (this fits in nicely with the subject of this thread) And the studies that I put forward as evidence should be ignored because I said something that he thinks is racist.

The thing that thinks makes him think I am racist is that I say that some significant part of the failure of black society to succeed in America is black culture. I don't say that racism doesn't exist or that its not a big deal. I think he was particularly offended by my use of the phrase "toxic culture" and I no longer use the term because I can say what I want to say without using a term that causes undue offense.

I also called BLM a violent organization. But this was back when we BLM events were still ending in violence or rioting. That's not really happening any more.

No, I'm very interested in the studies you cited, and I'm very interested in finding more data, both since the data available is so sparse, and since the ProPublica study directly conflicts with the data you cited.

But because your mind is already made up on this, and you're choosing to dismiss any data that doesn't match your preconceived notions, I'm not really interested in further exploration of your opinions on the issue.

And not surprisingly, you're misstating my views on some other things, a discussion of which would probably belong in another thread.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.