You should be called out on this one (, too). It’s hugely reminiscent of …
To excerpt just one important piece:
What’s more, false ideas about black peoples’ experience of pain can lead to worrisome treatment disparities. In the 2016 study, for example, trainees who believed that black people are not as sensitive to pain as white people were less likely to treat black people’s pain appropriately.
Whether you generalize to all PoC, and/or whether you speak of trauma vs. physical pain, has virtually no relevance to the error in cognition (I’m being kind) of which you’re guilty here.
Does he live in a cave? Has he never been exposed to modern day films, books, movies? The plight of African Americans has been given a lot of attention for decades (as it should). We even have an entire month based around Black history.
If he’s the American equivalent of a Taliban member, that’s even further indictment of him.
Well, what’s obvious to you isn’t obvious to me. And I don’t think it’s going to be obvious for an all-white jury who have little to no interaction with Black people, which is almost assured.
That is correct. Personal experiences mean a lot. I do believe that growing up in a diverse neighborhood was very good for me, and I know that not everyone has had that advantage.
But even still, it doesn’t require that level of empathy to know that it’s a bad idea to single out a Black person to receive KKK imagery. You’d need to be a moron to think that’s not going to make you look really bad.
(Also, I want to point out to anyone unfamiliar with the term that monkeysphere has nothing racial about it. It’s a term I have previous familiarity with.)
It’s definitely a bad idea, a bad optic. And I think this email is in fact racist. The author who captioned the image and is accused of sending the email admitted so much and resigned his position at the pro-life group.
But to say a reasonable person - in a state with like 93% white population - would know the email is going to cause trauma, and should therefore be liable in court, is a whole nother level. Assuming it would cause trauma for most people, even when used in a negative sense, you can’t use the argument that a reasonable person would interact with Black people and just know.
Even interacting with Blacks isn’t enough, you have to be on such terms as to talk about racism and politics. I’m not a politically oriented person. My social relationships aren’t built on politics and often are devoid of them. There are two people in my monkeysphere I am comfortable talking politics with, neither of which are Black. How many West Virginians do you think count Black people as part of their monkeysphere, and talk racial politics with them? How many of those do you think would ever discuss the KKK?
Max here serves as an example as to why schools should be doing more to teach about racism and its effects on our fellow citizens, rather than the less that they are pushing for.
No, when I say I think people of color are more psychologically resilient, I don’t mean people of color literally have thicker skin. I don’t think the psychological resilience is genetic whatsoever. That’s ridiculous.
Whether you generalize to all PoC, and/or whether you speak of trauma vs. physical pain, has virtually no relevance to the error in cognition (I’m being kind) of which you’re guilty here.
I don’t see how it is an error in cognition. It’s a generalization - it will not always be the case that a person of color is more psychologically resilient than others.
There’s no difference in the thought process between that and concluding that farm laborers are stronger than accountants.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Arguing someone is “more psychologically resilient” is inherently saying that you can be more abusive toward them and it’s okay, because they can take it.
Yeah, it’s not the same when you say it about farmers. But farmers aren’t a fucking race. You’re talking about experiences, not acting like somehow dark skin and African ancestry changes how someone’s brain works.
For once, can you just acknowledge that maybe you have some racist ideas in your head and need to change them, instead of trying to figure out some way in which you are right?
You start to get somewhat reasonable, then you pull this shit. How the fuck can’t you know that ascribing some quality to a race would be perceived as racist, even if it’s supposedly “positive”?
That’s why nations never demonize their enemies when they’re at war.
That’s why there are no Russian propaganda stories endeavoring to serve as pretexts for their actions in Ukraine, and in an effort to garner domestic and international support.
That’s why groups who are constantly dehumanized, marginalized, and belittled are never the victims of random attacks and continued efforts to reduce their place in society.
Dude. There’s some shit wrong with you. Seriously. Maybe move to the Northeast – a major metro area – and GTFO of Florida.
I am making no connection whatsoever between what you wrote, and what I wrote.
A comparable generalization is to say a survivor of war is more resilient than a person who has never seen war, on account of them experiencing war and coming out of it. It is in no way dehumanizing, marginalizing, or belittling the survivors of war to speak of them as especially resilient human beings.
Turn it around, and it is still in no way dehumanizing, marginalizing, or belittling of people who have not experienced war when you speak of survivors of war as especially resilient human beings.
If a country chooses to demonize their enemies that has zilch to do with any of my points.