Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

It seems the modern definition of racism is "having a negative opinion of a person or people of color, and of things pertaining to their culture, stereotypes etc." So people who oppose Black Lives Matter are called racists, regardless of their provided reasons. People who bring up black-on-black crime stats are called racists, regardless of context or intention. And no productive conversations can ever occur on such topics, because the conversation is so toxic to so many people.

Why? Because people have been programmed by society to be extremely fearful of racism, and to feel collectively guilty or upset about the mistreatment of certain groups of people in the past, even if nobody alive has been involved or affected by it.

For anyone interested, the actual definition of racism is on Google. Notice how many people don't know the real definition of racism, yet they feel totally comfortable accusing people of it ad nauseam, effectively shutting down what could have been an open and informative discussion.

Usually their given definition of racism is something along the lines of, "oppression of racial minorities by the racial majority". Which of course makes it impossible in their mind for anyone other than white people to be racist. This definition is much more convenient for their "f**k whites, defend the blacks" narrative.

But I just wanted to point out that racism doesn't at all include people who simply generalize about or stereotype groups of people, whether based on experience, facts, or subconscious bias. It is only when a person consciously believes that an entire racial group is inferior or superior to others that they can be accurately called racists. I know that's a lot to take in, my guilty white friends, but it is true.

Also, black-on-black crime is the leading cause of death for young black men, meanwhile police killings account for less than .01% of deaths, and 99% of those are totally justified killings. Picture what those numbers look like, honestly visualize it.

Talking about police racism as if it's some huge issue, when it is actually microscopic, is taking away attention from the massive number of black people being killed all the time. Stop with the white guilt and the condescending racism and the virtue signaling, and start actually caring about the lives of the people you pretend to care about.

Good argument.

Yeah, I'm really sick of the race-baiting from the regressive left who view everything through the lens of race, gender, or other identities. It's ridiculous.

The only people so concerned with race are the regressive left and actual white supremacists. Kind of funny, I think.

And I'm really tired of this white guilt nonsense. Bad things happened in the past, sure. Slavery, segregation, slaughter of natives, but that's the past. We can't fix the past.

We can make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today.

Imagine a person who lives in the past, someone who always thinks about what he should've done differently. Is that a good way to live? No, of course not. If it's not good for an individual, how can it be good for society?

Thanks for whitesplaining this. I didn't know that black people kill each other, that totally makes it OK to murder them. Just like since automobile accidents kill 30,000 people a year in the US, it's OK for me to run you over in my car.

Sure, but are the stated facts accurate?

Nope.
"Because people have been programmed by society to be extremely fearful of racism, and to feel collectively guilty or upset about the mistreatment of certain groups of people in the past, even if nobody alive has been involved or affected by it."

The mistreatment isn't in the past, and past events still have effects in the present. You can't just wash your hands of widespread cultural phenomenon and pretend they don't exist.

But, in the United States, whole groups of people aren't lawfully indicted on the actions of a few. That is what makes us different from other nations.

Words don't have "real" definitions. Anyone claiming that "racism means this" should attach something before that to the effect of "when used by me in this context". Same for every other word. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive - they describe how people used to use words, not how they should use them going forward.

I also don't think anyone can realistically claim that 99% of police killings are totally justified, as I don't think there's a great deal of independent scrutiny. Given that there is a blatantly unjustified killing every few weeks, there would need to be a truly staggering number of justified killings for that to work out. I suspect, although I have nothing to back this up, that 90% is more likely to be true. On the other hand, America is a very big place.

Of course, there's no reason why someone can't simply care about both. Generally speaking, the loudest voices when it comes to inner-city black-on-black murder are also BLM supporters. Those who say "but what about black-on-black crime?" often seem to simply be trying to minimise a very real, very serious issue by raising another which they don't care much about at all, and to which they propose no solutions.

Let me make an analogy. I don't care about immigration. Let's assume that Britain has social problems caused by immigration from Syria and Romania. It would be extremely disingenuous of me, when arguing in favour of accepting Syrian refugees, to say that Romanians are actually a bigger problem. Not only do I think that there's no reason to stop migration from Romania, but that also wouldn't change that Syrian refugees were still causing problems.

There are children who have cancer. Doesn't make we can't give out flu vaccines.

Oh, really?

And why is one specific definition found on Google the *actual* definition as opposed to some other definition?

Didn't racism exist before September 4, 1998, when Google was founded? Or before 1884, when the "Oxford English Dictionary" was first published? Or before 1807, when Noah Webster first published "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language"?

It isn't a few people. The ones without any innate or unconscious bias are a minority. The nomination of Trump proves you wrong if nothing else.

Trump has stated that he plans to indict whole groups of people? What did he say?

This graphic is making the rounds in the various dominions of hell where conservatives like me congregate and discuss these matters.

Hah.

"When I say 'n****r', I mean 'intelligent, upstanding member of society who has my full respect', regardless of whatever meaning you ascribe to the word."

Of course, now I'm free to define "intelligent", "upstanding" and "respect" however I wish too.

You don't change the language by insisting that everyone accept your new definition of the word as legitimate, because your minority political interest group stamps its feet and shouts down anyone who objects.



Actually they're both. Dictionaries are an instruction manual on how to be understood by others who speak the language it describes. They're as close to the 'science' of language as one can get. "Definition", after all, derives its meaning from "definite".

A precise statement of the essential nature of a thing; a statement or form of words by which anything is defined.




However, I think it's entirely fair and realistic to say that those ~10% are more likely the result of poor judgement, flawed policies, etc than to assume the cause was racist intent. I would hope that most people are aware of just how difficult a job cops have, that they are subject to daily pressures that most of us rarely (if ever) have to face.



I don't think I've witnessed more than a handful of BLM supporters even acknowledge that black on black violence is a deep-rooted problem that far exceeds that of their troubled relationship with law enforcement. It would be nice to see some examples if you have any.



Except that high levels of violence in black communities is more directly related to the fractious interactions with law enforcement. The underlying causes of both problems likely stem from the same source.



And just like many flu sufferers, most BLM activists seem too preoccupied with their own misery to worry about their neighbour's fight against cancer.



I think that black on black number has dropped a little over the last few years, but it's still shockingly disproportionate.

You immediately reply to his post with a racist term (whitesplaining). You seem to kind of prove his point.

Yes. Its a racist term. You're making a generalization based upon race that all white people act a certain way.

Consciousness of racism has nothing to do with white guilt. Rather, it's a matter of redressing wrongs that can still be redressed, and choosing not to forget what our fellow citizens had endured in the past simply for who they are.

No, words mean what we collectively agree upon, and dictionaries (which are updated constantly) are there to inform you of what the currently agreed upon definition is. Yes, in a technical sense they simply mean what we want, but that in no way justifies knowingly using a definition that is not agreed upon. Otherwise I could use words in completely absurd ways, and justify it with your description of how words and their definitions work.


I didn't literally mean 99%, my point was to say a vast majority of. But even assuming your estimation is more accurate, what's 10% of less than .01% (I believe the exact number is .004% of black lives lost are from police shootings)? So that's .0004% of black deaths that are from unjustified police killings, by your estimation. That is so tiny it is difficult to even comprehend.


Who said they can't? It's not that they are unable, but that they are unwilling. Many people do not even consider black-on-black crime to be an issue worthy of discussion, and respond very negatively and emotionally to the topic, especially if you're talking about people on the left, and even more especially with BLM.


Anyone can say they support BLM, and polls show that many "supporters" don't even know exactly what the group is all about. They simply see a group protesting "unjustified" police violence, and believe it to be a progressive group without giving much critical thought. But I've seen plenty of black people who are absolutely appalled by the methods of BLM, like blocking the highway and keeping working class citizens of all colors from getting to work. So yeah, many support it, and many don't.


Let me make a more accurate analogy. Talking about victims of lung cancer, would you say I was victim blaming for pointing out that smoking can be linked to 80-90% of it? Would you blame evil tobacco companies and say that their sole intention is to give people cancer, and that the smoker has no responsibility for their decision to start smoking? Would you ceaselessly bring up anecdotes about lung cancer victims who didn't smoke? Would you accuse me of hating all victims of lung cancer for bringing these stats up?

I certainly hope not. But this is how it is when it comes to police violence and black crime stats. They are not separate issues that distract from the other, they are directly related. You can't talk about one without the other unless you want to obscure the facts.