# There's no diversity like liberal diversity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 31, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770 "2007-10-31T20:02:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/21 "2007-10-31T21:08:52Z")
Well, now that’s just wrong. On page 3, INTERNALIZED RACISM: “…The behavior of one person of color toward another that stems from this psychic poisoning. Often called ‘inter-racial hostility;’” Um, dude, it’s “intraracial”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/22 "2007-10-31T21:14:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Rather, it’s essentially just using “racism” to refer to a social phenomenon rather than an individual psychological one. Whoops, ran out of time on the edit window. As I was saying: This “only whites can be racist” stuff is based not on any belief that non-whites can’t be racially prejudiced or discriminatory, but on the concept of identifying racism as **an aspect of a society** , rather than of individual opinions about race. I don’t think that this particular interpretation of “racism” is a necessary or particularly useful one, especially since it is used so often in a garbled form (as in the current OP) to induce mouth-foaming tizzies on the part of conservatives. I prefer a more commonly understood concept of “racism” that doesn’t need several pages of explanation and backstory in order to avoid shocking people. But there’s no denying that if you **do** interpret racism societally rather than individually, the inherent racism of the US system is indeed of the white-supremacist kind. For a variety of historical and social reasons, white racism against non-whites is overwhelmingly dominant in our American social system, above all other kinds of racism. And all of us who are white Americans are indeed both “privileged and socialized on the basis of race” by this system. There is nothing intrinsically anti-truth or irresponsible or over-PC about pointing out that simple fact. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/23 "2007-10-31T21:16:39Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] IOW: “I know this is an irresponsible overgeneralization about liberals, just as bad as the irresponsible overgeneralizations about conservatives generated by some prejudiced leftists, but I’m just going to go with it anyway as an act of retaliation.” [/quote] Actually, it’s “Pot, meet kettle”. [QUOTE=Kimstu] I also note that if you look at more of the quotations from the “facilitator’s” materials cited at the above [link](http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8552.html), you will notice that their position is considerably more balanced than the OP is claiming: [/quote] You find that balanced??? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/24 "2007-10-31T21:19:09Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Yes, we never see thread titles or posts on this board that are blanket statements about Republicans or Conservatives based upon the actions or statements of just one or a few people, do we? :rolleyes: Face it, this kind of PC garbage is liberalism run amok. I don’t recall seeing any posts from you castigating, say, Der Tries for his inaccurate and prejudiced depiction of anyone against abortion as someone who hates women. Since conservatives as a whole are often held responsible on the boards for the misdeeds of a few extremists, since Republicans are frequently branded with the idiotic rhetoric of the religious right, I have no problem laying this one square in the lap of liberals. This, right here, is where your philosophy leads if it is not leavened with a good dose of common sense. Deal with it. [/QUOTE] Deal with it? Why should I? That bears absolutely no resemblence to anything I think, believe, or advocate. What is there in that quote that I need to “deal with?” Do you have to “deal with” the KKK, because they’re closer to you on the political spectrum than they are to me? Of course not. Anyone comparing you to the KKK because you skew conservative is an asshole. Just like anyone comparing me to Shakti Butler because I’m a liberal is an asshole. And yeah, there are a lot of assholes on the boards these days. Way more than there should be. Don’t be one of them, Dave. Stop being part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/25 "2007-10-31T21:22:51Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Whoops, ran out of time on the edit window. As I was saying: This “only whites can be racist” stuff is based not on any belief that non-whites can’t be racially prejudiced or discriminatory, but on the concept of identifying racism as **an aspect of a society** , rather than of individual opinions about race. I don’t think that this particular interpretation of “racism” is a necessary or particularly useful one, especially since it is used so often in a garbled form (as in the current OP) to induce mouth-foaming tizzies on the part of conservatives. I prefer a more commonly understood concept of “racism” that doesn’t need several pages of explanation and backstory in order to avoid shocking people. But there’s no denying that if you **do** interpret racism societally rather than individually, the inherent racism of the US system is indeed of the white-supremacist kind. For a variety of historical and social reasons, white racism against non-whites is overwhelmingly dominant in our American social system, above all other kinds of racism. And all of us who are white Americans are indeed both “privileged and socialized on the basis of race” by this system. There is nothing intrinsically anti-truth or irresponsible or over-PC about pointing out that simple fact. [/QUOTE] Yes, I understand what it is. It’s nothing even close to being a “fact”. It is complete and utter bullshit used to advocate the victim mentality that is so useful in perpetrating the social and political power of what is commonly called “the black leadership”; i.e Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk-and the liberal power elite of the Democratic party. This attitude furthers the problem of racism in our society rather than alleviating it. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/26 "2007-10-31T21:24:33Z")
[QUOTE=Weirddave] Yes, I understand what it is. It’s nothing even close to being a “fact”. It is complete and utter bullshit used to advocate the victim mentality that is so useful in perpetrating the social and political power of what is commonly called “the black leadership”; i.e Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk-and the **liberal power elite of the Democratic party**. This attitude furthers the problem of racism in our society rather than alleviating it. [/QUOTE] Surely you can name plenty of high ranking Democrats that believe in the definition of institutional racism? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/27 "2007-10-31T21:26:11Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > You find that balanced??? More balanced than you were trying to paint it, certainly. As I went on to say in my most recent post, I personally don’t subscribe to this “societal rather than individual” interpretation of the concept of racism, and don’t think it’s a particularly useful contribution to the issue of race and racial prejudice. But it’s perfectly reasonable to say that according to that interpretation, racism in American society equals white-supremacist racism. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Yes, I understand what it is. It’s nothing even close to being a “fact”. It is complete and utter bullshit used to advocate the victim mentality that is so useful in perpetrating the social and political power of what is commonly called “the black leadership”; i.e Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk-and the liberal power elite of the Democratic party. Well, this is interesting. You’re arguing that American society does **not** in fact, for a variety of historical and social reasons, privilege white racism over other kinds of racism? In other words, according to you, there’s no net pro-white bias left in modern American society? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/28 "2007-10-31T21:27:33Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] This “only whites can be racist” stuff is based not on any belief that non-whites can’t be racially prejudiced or discriminatory, but on the concept of identifying racism as **an aspect of a society** , rather than of individual opinions about race. [/QUOTE] “Only whites can be racist” is stated as a corollary of “all whites are, by definition, racist.” Which is a bullshit definition and completely robs the term “racist” of any meaning, both socially and individually. ---
**Author:** ![nashiitashii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7c8e57/32.png) [@nashiitashii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nashiitashii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/29 "2007-10-31T21:30:12Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] That is, this “diversity training” stuff (for which I hold no brief in general, btw) is not actually claiming that nonwhite people can’t be prejudiced, hostile, discriminatory towards members of other races, etc. Rather, it’s essentially just using “racism” to refer to a **social** phenomenon rather than an **individual psychological** one. [/QUOTE] On the contrary, [this handout](http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/3d0208922083e5d59664be8371ab5f0f.pdf?PHPSESSID=cc242b8f5d2e447030f782dd6e082bc2) that defines the above terms and others specifically claims that racism is something that _only_ white people can claim because some English men “invented” the word “white” as a term of “race.” Personally, it deeply offends me. Why? It’s another instance of people using my skin color to assume that I or my ancestors had anything to do with their and their ancestors’ oppression. Not every white person in the US had family over here when some of the more horrible bits of racist behavior occurred. Part of my family didn’t come to the US until after the civil rights movement was in full swing, and part of my family wasn’t here until well after the beginning of the 20th century. We shouldn’t be teaching people to be hostile toward others based on their appearance; what would be a better measure is to do more training that encourages open mindedness rather than vindictiveness. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/30 "2007-10-31T21:34:27Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > “Only whites can be racist” is stated as a corollary of “all whites are, by definition, racist.” Whites within the US, that is. Because, as I noted before, these claims are based on an interpretation of racism as a characteristic of a **society** rather than individual opinions or prejudices. And the dominant (and historically defining) form of racism in the US **as a society** is indeed white racism. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Which is a bullshit definition and completely robs the term “racist” of any meaning, both socially and individually. Well, you’re certainly right that it robs the term “racist” of any meaning **individually**. It’s interpreting racism not as something manifested in different directions and to different extents by the beliefs of different individuals, but as an inherent **social** tendency that all members of a particular society are affected and influenced by. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/31 "2007-10-31T21:38:47Z")
What a stupid OP. never mind that (as it turns out) this is only the opinion of one (1) individual rather than an institution or a whole class of “liberals” as the OP would have us believe, but he hasn’t even offered any support for his allegation that even this one individual is a “liberal.” How about a cite that Shakti Butler is a liberal? It’s generally not a good idea to run with whatever hysterical political screed finds its way into your email inbox as a thread idea. They tend to blow up in your face and make you look stupid like this one has. Liberals don’t think that all white people are bigots or that non-whites cannot be bigots. That’s the end of it. This discussion is resolved. Maybe the OP can find a nice, inflammatory “War on Christmas” email to blog about next. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/32 "2007-10-31T21:40:48Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Well, you’re certainly right that it robs the term “racist” of any meaning **individually**. It’s interpreting racism not as something manifested in different directions and to different extents by the beliefs of different individuals, but as an inherent **social** tendency that all members of a particular society are affected and influenced by. [/QUOTE] But the term “blghjeroplop” would suffice if they wanted to a new term for this. Using a pre-existing term, while it’s within their rights as contributors to the language, just endeavors confusion between it and the new term, and I am not convinced that all of them are not doing it on purpose in order to stoke confusion between the institutional and personal implications of the two terms. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/33 "2007-10-31T21:40:53Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Do you have to “deal with” the KKK, because they’re closer to you on the political spectrum than they are to me? [/QUOTE] Actually, I would say that I do have to deal with them. I think anyone who styles them self a conservative or has conservative leanings needs to be aware of the extremists on that side of the spectrum, if as nothing more than a cautionary tale on what not to do, something along the lines of “there but for the grace of God (or maybe a good deal of common sense) go I”, but more usefully to study what should be the limits of ones beliefs. For example: Do all anti-abortionists shoot doctors? Of course not. Is it even typical of a majority of those people?, again of course not. Might it be useful to examine the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement in an attempt to understand how some people pervert it to such an extreme? I think so, I think that would be very useful indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/34 "2007-10-31T21:43:10Z")
Kimstu has shown (adroitly) that the sentiment in the OP is not liberal. Liberalism concerns itself with individuals. It is conservatism that frets over societies. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/35 "2007-10-31T21:50:17Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > But the term “blghjeroplop” would suffice if they wanted to a new term for this. Using a pre-existing term, while it’s within their rights as contributors to the language, just endeavors confusion between it and the new term, I completely agree, which is one of the reasons I personally don’t favor this societal interpretation of the term “racism”, and don’t think it’s particularly useful. > [@Ludovic](#): > > and I am not convinced that all of them are not doing it on purpose in order to stoke confusion between the institutional and personal implications of the two terms. I think you’re probably right about that, too. Again, I personally am not advocating the societal interpretation of “racism” that this “diversity facilitator” is trying to promote; I’m just pointing out that it does have more of a rational basis than the OP realizes. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/36 "2007-10-31T21:54:51Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Whites within the US, that is. Because, as I noted before, these claims are based on an interpretation of racism as a characteristic of a **society** rather than individual opinions or prejudices. [/QUOTE] Then why say “all whites?” It seems to me that parsimony requires us to take the definition at face value. > [@](#): > > And the dominant (and historically defining) form of racism in the US **as a society** is indeed white racism. Unquestionably. I take issue with the “and”, however, as I do not accept the proposition as stated to refer to society and not individuals. > [@](#): > > Well, you’re certainly right that it robs the term “racist” of any meaning **individually**. So, if someone calls me a racist, I get to say “Hey, it’s not me. I can’t help it if I was born in a racist society?” I don’t meant that to sound smartass. Why should I try to behave as non-racist (a phrase defined by our interlocutor as ‘a non-term,’) if, at the end of the day, I am still a racist? > [@](#): > > It’s interpreting racism not as something manifested in different directions and to different extents by the beliefs of different individuals, but as an inherent **social** tendency that all members of a particular society are affected and influenced by. Ya gotta admit, claiming that all whites are racists sure doesn’t sound like saying that all whites are influenced by racism. Why not call an entrenching tool an entrenching tool? (Joke) ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/37 "2007-10-31T21:55:25Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Well, this is interesting. You’re arguing that American society does **not** in fact, for a variety of historical and social reasons, privilege white racism over other kinds of racism? In other words, according to you, there’s no net pro-white bias left in modern American society? [/QUOTE] Yea, I am arguing that. Right now, today, in the USA, there is no systematic, institutional, nationwide pro-white racism. It doesn’t exist. We have stamped it out. It’s over, history, a dusty relic of the past residing on the ash heap of history, where it belongs. That fight is won. I specifically reject the entire thesis of the “racist society” crowd. That does not mean that there are no racist individuals, of course, or even incidents of racial discrimination by corporations or the government, but these instances are the exception rather than the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/38 "2007-10-31T21:57:14Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] How about a cite that Shakti Butler is a liberal? [/QUOTE] Don’t be silly. > [@](#): > > As the Executive Director of World Trust, Dr. Butler initiated “Heart-to-Heart Conversations”, a national program of public dialogue that speaks to critical social issues of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. > > Dr. Butler is the producer and director of the groundbreaking documentary, THE WAY HOME . The video serves as a model for dialogue that sets the context for constructive conversations on oppression through the lens of race. Her work moves conversations beyond black and white and speaks to the interconnectedness of racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia. > Shakti is an inspirational facilitator, trainer and lecturer whose consulting, writing, and lecturing style supports her use of mind, body, and Spirit or Consciousness as an approach to challenge deeply embedded beliefs and generate new questions. Her work emerges from years of self-exploration, as well as her experience lecturing, speaking, designing workshops, teaching, and training in colleges, universities, organizations, and religious institutions. A warm and compassionate person, she uses her exceptional ability to listen and ask pertinent questions along with her intuitive capacity to support self-directed learning. She enriches people’s ability to move toward an expanded understanding of their own capacity for greatness. > > Shakti’s speaking style incorporates group participation, dialogue, critical self-inquiry, reflection, and whole body learning. Her presentation of THE WAY HOME is greatly enriched because she ties the stories and ideas presented in the film to the personal stories and challenges of the people watching it. In this way, attention is paid to building community amongst audience participants. In 1994, Dr. Butler, on behalf of World Trust, designed and launched “Heart-to-Heart Conversations”, a national program of public dialogue designed to help people share deep feelings about race and culture. This program has gained recognition and been reviewed on both local and national television. > > Shakti and World Trust also recognize that the “Heart-to-Heart Conversations” program, no matter how powerful, must be carefully framed and contextualized. Quality diversity work and reflective educational awareness must link the concerns of the participants to the larger objectives and challenges of their related institutions or organizations. This allows them to maximize their potential for learning and growing. For this reason Shakti actively partners with organizations in order to support established visions, goals, and objectives. > > Dr. Butler received her doctorate in Integral Studies from the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, CA. Her field of expertise is Transformative Learning and Change. A fair minded debater would read that biography and at least admit that the burden of proof has shifted and it’s up to someone else to find a reason to believe she ISN’T a liberal. No idea what you’ll do, of course, but that’s what a fair-minded debater would do. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/39 "2007-10-31T21:59:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Don’t be silly. A fair minded debater would read that biography and at least admit that the burden of proof has shifted and it’s up to someone else to find a reason to believe she ISN’T a liberal. No idea what you’ll do, of course, but that’s what a fair-minded debater would do. [/QUOTE] I can’t see anything in there that says she’s a political liberal. It says she’s “warm and compassionate.” I guess that means “liberal” to you. When come back, bring cite. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770/40 "2007-10-31T22:03:23Z")
OMG!!11!!11!!LOOK WHAT CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE!!![pretend link to some screed by David Duke] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-no-diversity-like-liberal-diversity/424770.md?page=3)