“Innocents” my arse…
Boo hoo, wait, I need a refill…
Oh, is it “If You’re Bigoted Against Bigots You’re The Bigot” Bingo time again?
Yeah, keep “innocently” pushing the “Yelling” narrative. :dubious:
Remind me again, who was the first to lose their “fucking” shit in this exchange? Why, I believe it was you…
Just so you know, I’m just going to ignore this crap from you from now on. Like I said, I’m not here to prove my worthiness to you. I’m explaining why here.
Okay, now that I’ve gone through the rest of your response, I see nothing more worth responding to, except this:
I don’t recall that.
So are we pulling back from the “decades of imprisonment” being as bad as rape? is 6 months in prison as bad as rape? What about house arrest? Community service?
We shouldn’t falsely imprison innocent people. I’ve never said different.
What I said is I don’t give a shit for the scale of the non-problem.
Agreed. Good thing I’ve done nothing of the sort.
There’s no “logic” behind racism and sexism.
…said the Angry Yelling Man
And I never said we should measure rape by years of imprisonment. My questions were designed to draw this out of you:
Cool. Glad we agree.
I hadn’t heard you say anything at all, other than to imply the opposite. But hey, I’m glad we’re clear now.
Not sure how that jibes with your disagreement about judging every case on its own merits only, but whatever.
If there are only a few falsely imprisoned people out there, then that’s all anyone expects you to care about. Mentioning the falsely accused is not meant to diminish the problem of real rape, at least not by me.
Of course there is, it’s just bad logic. And it’s what you are using - bad logic, to blame innocent people for things they didn’t do simply because of their membership in a group, to satisfy your anger at other members of that group.
Ah, I see you’re playing the game where you insult and provoke and then blame the victim. Ironic.
If you call me names, or make false accusations, I’ll defend myself. I might even get angry. I don’t think getting angry about that is a bad thing. Do you think anger is a bad thing?
I’m sorry you have things to be angry about, but taking them out on those who are sympathetic to you doesn’t help, it just makes things worse. I know from experience that this probably won’t make you less angry though, which is why I have to make myself immune and say I don’t care what you think of me.
[Moderating]
And that’s a warning.
[/Moderating]
Singling out this point because I believe it’s a big source of our disagreement – I think the vast majority of racist actions and assertions, nowadays, come from people who don’t know they’re saying or doing racist things. If they’re afraid to talk about it, it’s often because they really believe black people are racists, and that challenging them is some kind of reverse racism or something.
Yes, and that’s part of the problem. If someone says something innocently - without racial INTENT - and they are treated as if they were a Klan member with full intent, they’re going to be quite shocked and turned off by the lack of benefit of the doubt.
And the people who are most likely to say those things are the ones who are the LEAST racist, since they don’t know what is racist and what isn’t. They have grown up in a world where they didn’t hear racist jokes or statements or stereotypes. That should be cause for celebration, but instead they get punished for an innocent mistake.
And there’s still plenty of room for simple disagreement about something being racist. Especially as times change and whites and blacks interact more.
I don’t quite get this point. I see how it could happen but not how it is related.
Being ignorant of racism isn’t something to celebrate, in my opinion. Racism is still much, much too powerful of a force in society, and being ignorant of it doesn’t help. In fact, it hurts, I believe, because it means that one is unable to identify and challenge racism, including when it comes from one’s self.
I also think this sort of ignorance is much more willful than by chance, in most cases. If someone has lived somewhere in the US less than 95% single race, then it’s unlikely that they could have avoided learning about racism unless they were deliberately trying to ignore/avoid it.
Okay, I’ll leave it there for now.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. But your position on this issue is so alien and incomprehensible to me that I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Really?
So you think we should teach kids all the racist jokes and racist stereotypes? Why, so they can avoid repeating them?
The ultimate goal is a world where nobody knows anything about racism because it no longer exists.
And part of that is when black people (or whatever race) ALSO don’t know about them because they are no longer victims of them, and therefore don’t take offense, even to unintentional racism.
In the meantime, we should at least understand that a well-meaning, innocent white person who accidentally makes a comment that offends a black person or whatever is not the same as a raging racist who does so, and should be treated differently. And that is why INTENT matters. To treat innocent mistakes the same as deliberate acts only backfires.
So the fact that I’ve never heard a certain racist joke will hurt me because I can’t stop myself from telling it one day?
I get what you mean, but nobody can be an expert on racism and shouldn’t be expected to be just to make it through the day without slighting anyone. Part of their learning process, though, could be making mistakes and learning from them. That won’t work if they are bashed in the head for even innocent mistakes. Instead, they’ll learn to avoid talking, especially to black people. That’s not going to help.
Or perhaps the world is changing and kids aren’t exposed to racism like they used to be? Ya think?
No, but we should teach them what racism is, its affects, why it’s bad, how to avoid it, how to identify it, etc. Do you disagree? Not teaching them anything about it is very bad, in my view.
This sounds like a world in which no one knows anything about history. Why would that be a goal? I think a much better goal is one in which we understand the mistakes of past generations so that we can avoid making them again, and racism is a huge part of this. People absolutely need to understand racism to avoid it, identify it, and challenge it.
Who says it’s the same? I can criticize both in different ways. Making a mistake isn’t the end of the world. Being criticized isn’t the end of the world.
Being ignorant of racism should be criticized. It’s not a good trait, any more than being ignorant of poverty, or child abuse, or the Holocaust, or a million other bad things. Do you believe being ignorant of these things is positive or negative? If it’s negative, isn’t ignorance of racism negative also? Shouldn’t it be challenged, and even criticized, especially when it’s used as an excuse?
Obviously not – but knowledge of racism will help you identify racist things. It’s necessary to do this.
I don’t think it’s “bashing in the head”, for the most part. “You shouldn’t say that” or “you shouldn’t do that” is appropriate, or even “I think that thing you said/did is racist”. Further, I know lots of people who needed a ‘sharp’ lesson (perhaps not a head-bash) on racism to understand it and learn from it. All tones and approaches can work with different people. I’ve known people who ignore harsh attacks and listen to calm, ‘nicer’ arguments, and I’ve known people who shrug off the calmer arguments and are shocked into learning from sharper and harsher arguments.
To some degree, perhaps, but if they’re being sheltered from racism, then they’re being harmed, just as society is harmed if people don’t learn about racism. Being ignorant of racism is bad and hurts society.
Of course. But most of these innocent mistakes aren’t about someone saying they didn’t realize that there was a systematic oppression of blacks in the pre-civil rights era, it’s about someone saying blacks sure do seem to like fried chicken. I don’t think we can, nor should we, teach kids about every little racial slur that’s ever been used so they can avoid them all.
That’s all I’m asking - criticize it in different ways. Which is why you must consider intent.
You can have a doctorate in racial studies or whatever and still not know every little racial slur or offense. By “ignorance” I mean ignorance of the nitty gritty of racism and the kinds of offenses that get people in trouble.
Is it? Am I required to know every little offense that other people once used just to avoid them all? Maybe I should learn from my mistakes, but to know in advance? It’s like learning a foreign langauge - do you learn all the bad words upfront, just to make sure you don’t accidentally say them? Should we teach our kids all the bad words?
And again, there will be a day when blacks don’t take offense because they grew up in a world without such things too, so no innocent mistakes will result.
Yes, but I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about those who DO bash people in the head for it. So I’m glad you agree.
That’s fair. But when you don’t know someone, you should start with the calm and nice until you know it doesn’t work and then escalate.
Of course. We’re talking about different kinds of ignorance.
Okay, this sounds awfully different than “The ultimate goal is a world where nobody knows anything about racism because it no longer exists.”. No, we don’t need to teach kids about every little nuance of racial slurs. But when they say something racist, they should be educated, even if they were ignorant of it before hand. Such education shouldn’t ‘hurt’, but if someone is predisposed to being defensive, and can’t consider the possibility that they might have said or did something racist, then the education might indeed be a bit ‘painful’, I would imagine.
When I have knowledge of intent, I certainly will, but I usually don’t have this knowledge.
Okay. I think you phrased it very poorly above when you said “…a world where nobody knows anything about racism…”, since that really does sound like not knowing anything at all about racism.
I don’t think a world with absolutely zero racism is likely, but hopefully we’ll get to a world in which racism is very rare, and when it occurs, it’s quickly challenged and very sharply criticized. In order to do that challenging and criticizing, one must understand racism (which doesn’t necessarily mean knowing all the slurs and stereotypes).
I feel unable to judge any black person for what rhetoric they use to challenge and criticize anti-black racism, short of calls for violence. I can’t know, and will never know, what it’s like to experience this every day, and therefore I can’t know what rhetorical response is “going to far”, so to speak (other than calling for violence). I think it’s possible that responses that you might feel are “bashing them in the head” are, in fact, pretty reasonable, considering their experiences. Really, really bad things warrant rhetorical head-bashing, sometimes.
An example – after the ACA was passed, a black Congressman was spit by a protester as he entered the Capitol. It’s entirely reasonable that he interpreted this as a disgustingly racist gesture, even though there’s a possibility that the gesture was just meant as anti-ACA, rather than anti-black. When someone sees their fathers and uncles and brothers and sisters spit on for going to school, or voting, or some other normal activity, then they’re going to interpret it differently than others, and this is reasonable. I think it would be entirely inappropriate to challenge this Congressman on this point.
That’s what I do, but others might choose different tactics, and I’m not going to judge them (short of calls for violence).
Okay. I blame your poor phrasing above for the misunderstanding. 
Google has a doodle celebrating the Chinese New Year with monkeys on it. Google it. I’m hiding in my bunker to avoid the rampaging hordes.
I’m still in shock over the rioting from puppy-monkey-baby.
Why is violence exempt? If you can’t challenge them on other things, why this? Maybe violence is justified too. Who are you to say?
It’s a judgment call. Perhaps some calls for violence (like, say, a slave asking other slaves to join him in rebellion) are appropriate. I’m just saying that I feel able to judge calls for violence, but I don’t feel able to judge rhetoric that falls short of calling for violence, even if the rhetoric is very harsh. It’s possible there would be exceptions to this, but none come to mind right now.
I feel able to judge anything at all. I always consider my knowledge, or lack thereof, in my judgements, but I don’t make blanket statements like that. In this case, I’d say some rhetoric is way too harsh.
Okay, we disagree on this.
