Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

I feel like Henry Louis Gates probably shouldn't have mouthed off to the cops the way he did.

However, I feel like the cops should have allowed him to show proof of his residence in the apartment which he was trying to "break into." Utility bills mailed to him, leases, etc.

^^ What are you talking about----he OWNED the house!! Gates didn't even give the cops a CHANCE to ask for ID----he just started fussin': "What, because I'm black, I'm breaking-in?", or something like that; and, IIRC, it was a passerby that called the cops, so the cops didn't have anything to DO with someone thinking he was breaking-in, they were just doing their job, reporting to the address the caller gave.

It never ceases to amaze me how age means next-to-nothing, in regard to intelligence----he was, like, 60-years-old, ATT, IIRC----one would almost expect a kid to be so stupid / disrespectful, but NOT someone HIS age.

Yeah, the other thing that ticked me off, regarding the Katrina coverage, was that they kept interviewing BLACK people----meanwhile, all-the-while, there were WHITE people hurting just as badly, but almost NONE of them were interviewed.

That friggin' Campbell Brown (NBC, ATT [of whom I was a fan, before Katrina]) interviewed an 8-year-old black boy, who was just-a-fussin' ("When is somebody gonna DO something, for us?", or something like that)----and, you KNOW he was just parroting his parents!! She wanted everybody to say "Awww, poor black people----look how we treat them"! ! GOD, that ticked-me-off----because, IMO, people shouldn't be USING children, at a time like that, to manipulate people's emotions!!

It seems you want me to fold and say, "Oh, yes, you're totally right," but that aint happening.
No, I concede there are bigoted brown people. But this notion that whites are the most discriminated group in America is overblown to the point of absurdity.

Those awful black people, getting all the attention, and all the breaks!

I'd settle for any concrete argument that suggests the opposite, but that ain't happening either.



Huzzah!



And yet you go straight back to the misrepresentation with this asinine strawman.

That's not my position, Bill. Kindly refrain from implying it is.



I get a similar feeling watching the BBC's Comic Relief, but I give them a pass because I believe their intent is legitimately to help the children they portray. It's one thing to use children to garner sympathy and charity where such are deserved, quite another to use them to push a selfish agenda. "Think of the children" has power because, obviously, most of us do.

As a minority group like blacks have had centuries of racial oppression heaped on their shoulders, racism is going to be more significant against them than against whites. You an choose to shrug racism against you off if you're white - with the exception of physical assault - but bigoted words carry much more weight if you're part of a group that had been left on the outside for so long.

You're back to the collectivist fluff again. How racism (or any other directed bigotry) affects people depends on the unique circumstances of the individual victim, and on how the racism manifests.



Bigoted words carry as much weight as the situation determines. The fact that you recognise physical assault as an exception suggests to me that you do actually understand that, despite your arguing against it. If you can recognise one aggravating factor, why are you so steadfast in your denial of others?

The mere threat of physical assault, as opposed to the act, is one such factor. The fact that (despite aggregating narratives suggesting otherwise) black people can and do ascend to positions of authority and power is also a factor. It's immaterial to my contention whether or not there's a higher incidence of one type of racism over another, I'm not competing for a medal.

What seems clear to me, through observation and experience, is that anti-white (along with anti-male, anti-nationalist, etc) sentiment is on the rise. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree that's something to devote time to opposing, even if it's simply to avoid the inevitable backlash. I don't care what the origins are, I don't care who started it and I don't care who is perceived to be the greatest victim. If you oppose racism you should oppose it in all its forms.

A one-sided narrative of victim-perpetrator serves to fuel antagonism, it doesn't help anyone.

There was never a one-sided perspective in any class I attended. Often, I was the only one taking a different side. Many times, the only other person who cared was the professor.

People think that their kids go off to college and become more liberal. Well, it's a problem of definitions, isn't it? Conservatism wants to keep things the same, and people change when they learn new stuff, and there's always new stuff.

My own parents regret the decision that they made which led to me feeling not completely alone in the world, since it led to me rejecting their narrow-minded views. I guess my complete social rejection by their group would have been better than me leaving that group.

Edit: Highlights added for emphasis. There is no monolithic university culture. There is also Liberty University. I have a buddy in PoliSci who went there. He didn't agree with everything he heard there, either.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 02 Feb 2017, 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Whilst I appreciate the anecdote, how does it apply to the discussion at hand?

Incidentally, if you're the sole person taking a different side against literally everyone else, it's a one-sided conversation. The term implies anything from lopsided to heavily lopsided to purely partial.

Last edited by adifferentname on 02 Feb 2017, 10:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

I didn't feel like restating, so I just edited my previous post.

The other digression, the nitpicking at the definition of conversation. I like them, so I often find it hard not to get drawn into those kinds of semantic discussions, but in this case it feels like naked needling to me. Let's stick to you putting up standard talking points and me demolishing them.

Keep your naked needle away from me!

Likewise. And hey, it's your anecdote. You could just have easily said "I was exaggerating for effect" and I'd likely have bought it (tougher sell now, of course).



Then you're aware that "demolishing" doesn't mean "evading, slithering away from, going out of one's way to avoid confronting at all costs", right?

I ask because there appears to be some confusion on your part.



I can assure you that my hands are large and manly. I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee.

Most of the time, I felt okay with noting my opposition, getting glared at, and glaring back. The one time I decided to take it all the way, it ended up with me trying to explain how using Obama portrayed as a gangster for a photo in a business presentation was clear bigotry. Explaining it repeatedly and calmly to the other 20 or so people present, whose reactions ranged from "You should shut up and tell Prof D-bag" to "There's no way that's racist." I thought it was only the people glaring at me who disagreed, but that convinced me that the moderately modern ideas I voiced were not welcome. The women in the Honor Society didn't take well to me pointing out the way they dissed other women all the time based on their appearance, and found out that was the least of the ways they rejected feminism.

I'm not a total glutton for punishment. I knew which audiences understood science and which didn't, and eventually gave up on the Finance degree because of the consistent alt-right dominance.

Often is often. I didn't keep a diary of my dissent, although at times I wished that I had.

Wait a minute... Anti-white? Anti-male? Anti-nationalist? It might help your case not to use buzzwords of the Alt Right. You accused me of misrepresenting your arguments as racist, but you've used arguments popular with the white nationalist movement.

My case?

You have two options, Bill. You may pick one, and only one. Two shalt thou not pick, nor is zero an acceptable answer.

1) Call me a white nationalist member of the "Alt-Right".
2) Admit that such an implication is ridiculous, that the above statement is an especially flimsy genetic fallacy, and that you're so massively out of your depth here that you have no choice but to crassly attempt to draw a line between me and white nationalists.

If you lack the courage to pick either then I believe you know exactly what that says about you and your principles.

I don't know what your personal values and politics are, so I'm not going to be bullied into choosing one or the other. I'm just stating how your rhetoric on this subject parrots that used by Alt Right white nationalists.
And how do you know my politics and values? One of your fellow WP conservatives had asked how I could be a Christian and be pro-choice, assuming I was okay with abortion. I had to inform her that I'm actually pro-life, even though I hold most of the pro-life movement in contempt.