I think your perception is influenced by your position on the issue. IIRC correctly you concluded in another thread that false accusations of racism don’t cause significant harm. But if you think opposition to Obama’s policies were only rarely characterized as racist then you and I have a different understanding of the word rarely. I mean shit, it’s even happened in this thread!
On their own in a vacuum? No. Otherwise, it would depend (but most of the time, probably, no). But this probably tells you nothing – if you really want to know, point out some specific examples. I’ll rarely say “that example is racist”, but I might, more often, say “it’s reasonable to suspect that racism may be involved in that example”.
And this is the thought process that perpetuates casual accusations of racism. If you think that’s okay then, well I acknowledge that. I happen to think it’s terrible but that’s just me.
Sometimes racism is casual. Sometimes it’s much more than that. Sometimes it’s not present. All of these things can be worth discussing or bringing up, depending on the topic and the circumstances involved.
But what did I say in that last post that’s objectionable? Do you disagree that it’s ever appropriate to consider that racism may be involved in a particular assertion or stance?
Casually saying that it’s reasonable to suspect that racism may be involved in that example is objectionable. It’s because you and I have different ideas about the severity of an accusation of racism. I think it’s a nuke that is like calling someone a child molester - you think it’s less so and could spark good discussion. It’s hard to convey how alien that mindset is to me. These accusations should be saved for actual racism.
A prominent analogy I can think of is the Anti-Defamation League. I think it’s fair to say they are a serious about fighting anti-semitism. But when people trot out inept comparisons to Nazis they rightfully are opposed, because inappropriate comparisons trivialize the holocaust. That is the point I’m trying to make.
When I was a fast food manager, I hired a black person, he was only my second hire, and I though that he was well qualified (for fast food job).
My GM chastised me for it, telling me that he would quit as soon as he got his first paycheck, because he would be, in his words, “Nigger Rich.”
I called that out as racist, and he said that no, it’s just an accurate term, and I’d see that we’d waste time orienting and training him.
Well, he wasted no time training him, but I did. When I quit a year or so later, he was still working there, and had gotten as much of raises and promotions as possible while still crew. (The GM was later fired [asked to resign] for unrelated reasons dealing with his lack of commitment and integrity to his position).
Now, my GM, by refusing to “waste time” on such people, ensured that they would all quit rather soon, as he made it pretty clear that they weren’t welcome.
Oh, but any hint that he was a racist, man he would go off. “I’m not a racist! I’ve worked with black people!” Then he would point to other GM’s who “shared” his views.
I do agree with the point that actual racism is a much bigger and more harmful problem than possible incorrect accusations of racism. Most people seem to think that to be racist, you have to actively be harming a “racial” group, this allows real racists to hide in the group, and if you try to point out the racist in the group, they try (and often successfully), to make the accusation about the whole group.
What does your first sentence even mean? What is “casually saying” versus just saying something mean? If a manager at a McDonalds in St. Louis has never hired a black person in 20 years, or just hired 3, then you object to saying (or just “casually saying”, whatever that means) “it’s reasonable to suspect that racism may be involved”?
What does it mean that such accusations “should be saved for actual racism”? I would agree – don’t call out suspected racism unless you really, honestly suspect that racism might be involved.
A big part of our disagreement (and maybe all of it) may be due to simple misunderstandings. I don’t understand what you mean by all these phrases, or how they relate to what I have posted.
Enfranchisement for Women. Desegregated schools. Marriage Equality. Were any of these things “too much” to grab for? How long should Women, Blacks, and Gays have waited? (This question is directed to conservatives, not necessarily to you, Urbanredneck).
Yes. It’s not reasonable to suspect that racism may be involved barring evidence of actual racism. I gave actual examples of this happening on this board.
I think I’ve gotten your meaning sufficiently to say that our disagreement is probably not based on simple misunderstandings.
I still don’t understand what “casually saying” means, and I also gave an example – you don’t think a fast food manager in St. Louis never hiring a black worker might be “evidence of actual racism”?
Maybe we really do live on different planets.
I’m not sure if you have. The examples I’ve put forward seem, to me anyway, to be rather reasonable examples of potential “actual racism”. Can you at least put forward the circumstances under which you would not object to someone saying “it’s reasonable to suspect that racism might be involved”?
The former is an example of actual racism, the latter is a casual accusation of racism. There were four earlier examples listed. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree that the accusations of racism were warranted. Tell me, do you understand the Anti-Defamation League example?
So what evidence would be enough to suspect that racism might be involved in a McDonalds in a town like St. Louis having never hired a black person? Or is it never okay to suspect that racism is involved in hiring decisions?
Sounds like a very straight forward example of racism.
Sounds like a spurious and pointless accusation of racism.
I agree with the ADL in your earlier example – comparisons to Nazis should not be made lightly. I also agree with this principal with regards to accusations of racism – they should not be made lightly. That doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve said so far.
That was an allegation that some of the specific members of the religious right (and others) supporting Trump were racist. A rather vague accusation – certainly some of them have said or done racist things, while others have not.
I wouldn’t make this post, but to me it’s as mundane as “some of them are assholes”. Racism and other forms of bigotry are extremely common, at least in people and situations I’ve interacted with in my life.
If he was actually saying all of them are racist, then that is wrong, and I have specifically criticized such generalizations on this board in the past.
This is the same type of generalization that I think is wrong, and I have specifically criticized many times on this board. IMO, it’s never okay to lump all the members of a big and diverse group into one negative category.
This is a thoughtful examination of approaches to shootings with regards to race. I think it’s a reasonable post, and a reasonable question asked. I don’t know if I’d make the point in the exact same way, but I think it’s a valid question for a difficult topic, and a good post. Thoughtful discussion and questioning of this type seems to me to be in keeping with the highest traditions of the SDMB. This didn’t strike me as generalizing, since the poster specifically said “some…” and “some on the right…” when discussing the possible involvement of racism.
This was a flippant response, and I wouldn’t make it this way. While I think that it’s very reasonable to be skeptical of advocates of “states’ rights” considering the absolutely horrific history in America of states’ rights advocates, it deserves thoughtful consideration, IMO. But sometimes people feel like being snarky.
What makes an accusation of racism “casual”? Is any accusation, or statement of suspicion that racism might be involved, “casual” without incontrovertible 100% beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof of hatred of all black people? Is there some grey area? I don’t understand the way you’ve repeatedly used “casual”. What’s the significance of this word in this context?
Those are sick, sad people in every example I clicked, and I’m more than happy to distance myself from them in every way. There was a lot to attack about Obama, the color of his skin wasn’t one of those things.
As far as citations, have you not seen the riots? Have you not seen the “he voted trump, beat his shit!” video? Have you not seen the kidnapped mentally handicapped kidult tortured on Facebook live? Has this been covered by media? Besides the livestreamed torture session, of course, where, shocker, “white racists” were still to blame for the kidnapping and torture or a mentally handicapped person.
Also, right wingers being disgusting doesn’t mean the left is less disgusting, it means both sides have major issues to address (that’s an assertion I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way), but I would still say the left is more prone to seemingly random acts of violence, crybullying, and brigading.
Again, not to say the right doesn’t, not to say it’s okay for them to do it, it’s just less common and more roundly denounced. In fact this is, from brief lurking, one of the more moderate liberal forums I’ve read. Far more willing to decry the BS on the left despite supporting their ideology. Something something high IQs or something? Dunno why but it’s better than the usual hyper-polarized discussion I usually see.
Violent anarcho-communists and safe space SJW snowflakes are very different people that are both very left.
Casualness is not the act of generalizing, though that’s also undesirable. Casual accusations are those without reasonable basis and they can be leveled against a whole group, a subset of a group, or even an individual. The non-rare examples I cited are examples of this. That basis need not be incontrovertible, but should at least be based on some substantial evidence. This goes back to my earlier idea that accusations of racism are incredibly serious and should be made only with a commensurate level of evidence.
Anyways, I think these casual accusations of racism is incredibly lazy to trot out as often as it is. It weakens the criticism in general, and many times is simply not accurate.