Violence

[Cascadia]

To be fair, it says 2016 on the map

[Mjl]

“Hey don’t lump me in with the actual white supremacists just cuz I was storming the Capitol alongside them, it’s not like I was wearing a nazi shirt too, that was just some other guys I was with!”

Everyone who was involved in protests this summer is a looter and rioter by that logic

[Mjl]

To be fair, it says 2016 on the map

Fine, swap out Clinton for Biden. That doesn't change the math. Blue + blue can't equal red.

[Deleted User 89]

To be fair Trad, you didn't really clarify that was the 2016 election.

correct...apologies

[ousdahl]

“Hey don’t lump me in with the actual white supremacists just cuz I was storming the Capitol alongside them, it’s not like I was wearing a nazi shirt too, that was just some other guys I was with!”

Everyone who was involved in protests this summer is a looter and rioter by that logic

If one wants to apply that logic, sure, but that’s also deflecting from the discussion.

Why are those who accuse others of racism a bigger problem than those who tacitly empower it?

[Mjl]

“Hey don’t lump me in with the actual white supremacists just cuz I was storming the Capitol alongside them, it’s not like I was wearing a nazi shirt too, that was just some other guys I was with!”

Everyone who was involved in protests this summer is a looter and rioter by that logic

If one wants to apply that logic, sure, but that’s also deflecting from the discussion.

Why are those who accuse others of racism a bigger problem than those who tacitly empower it?

Boy who cried wolf

[Deleted User 89]

i could be wrong, but i seem to remember the BLM protesters calling out the rioters much more often and forcefully than the gop has ever done towards racists, white supremacists and q-anon followers

[ousdahl]

Oh come on, why expect Mericans to actually condemn the bigotry when we’ve got Aesop’s Fables instead?

[PhDhawk]

Oh come on, why expect Mericans to actually condemn the bigotry when we’ve got Aesop’s Fables instead?

I don't know why I'm responding to this, it's between you and mjl. and honestly talking to you is about as much fun as talking to a wall, but I'll try it anyway.

Here's an example of how the type of thing you and mjl are talking about can be a problem.

Pretend Chad had a large group of terrorists making threats against the US. Person A thinks there should be stricter rules for getting people from Chad to get a travel visa to the US. Person A's sole reason for thinking this is due to the terrorist threat and has nothing to with race. Person B is a notorious racist, they are going to likely support this idea whether the terror threat is real or not. They might even say racist shit when they talk about supporting it. Person C, who is a journalist, doesn't think we should support the ban either because they think the terrorist threat is exaggerated or aren't aware that it exists. Person C heard person B talking about it at a speech at a rally, then person C writes an article stating that he's against the stricter visa rules because it's racist and the only reason for the increased security is an attempt to make it even harder for POC to come to the US. You read this, assume it's true, and then lump anyone who supports a stricter Visa process for people from Chad as a racist.

But where does that leave person A. He came to his conclusion with no basis on race...he's supposed to abandon his ideals and logical conclusion because a racist agrees with him based on separate racist ideologies.

Calling someone a racist, when they're not being racist is a big problem.

Further, a lot of things get called racist that shouldn't. That term is a big one. Things like cultural appropriation, or being racially insensitive, or not using a politically correct term are not in and of themselves racist. And calling them that diminishes the power of the word.

Even further, I've met lots of racist left-wing progressive liberal democrats, and it would be silly for me to claim that you and Trad were racists by association and should leave the party or else you're also racist. And while I admit that as a party, the Republicans have done an abysmal job of distancing themselves from racism, in fact, in many cases, they've embraced it which is part of why I've distanced myself from them. You're really painting with broad strokes, and in doing so, you're unintentionally stifling information that should be part of the conversation.

[Deleted User 89]

there’s an enormous difference in one party having a few bad apples (relatively speaking), and one party, at best, offering shelter to the whole bunch...and at worst, actively fostering that sentiment

[PhDhawk]

there’s an enormous difference in one party having a few bad apples (relatively speaking), and one party, at best, offering shelter to the whole bunch...and at worst, actively fostering that sentiment

I agree. And I said as much.

[ousdahl]

Oh come on, why expect Mericans to actually condemn the bigotry when we’ve got Aesop’s Fables instead?

I don't know why I'm responding to this, it's between you and mjl. and honestly talking to you is about as much fun as talking to a wall, but I'll try it anyway.

Here's an example of how the type of thing you and mjl are talking about can be a problem.

Pretend Chad had a large group of terrorists making threats against the US. Person A thinks there should be stricter rules for getting people from Chad to get a travel visa to the US. Person A's sole reason for thinking this is due to the terrorist threat and has nothing to with race. Person B is a notorious racist, they are going to likely support this idea whether the terror threat is real or not. They might even say racist shit when they talk about supporting it. Person C, who is a journalist, doesn't think we should support the ban either because they think the terrorist threat is exaggerated or aren't aware that it exists. Person C heard person B talking about it at a speech at a rally, then person C writes an article stating that he's against the stricter visa rules because it's racist and the only reason for the increased security is an attempt to make it even harder for POC to come to the US. You read this, assume it's true, and then lump anyone who supports a stricter Visa process for people from Chad as a racist.

But where does that leave person A. He came to his conclusion with no basis on race...he's supposed to abandon his ideals and logical conclusion because a racist agrees with him based on separate racist ideologies.

Calling someone a racist, when they're not being racist is a big problem.

Further, a lot of things get called racist that shouldn't. That term is a big one. Things like cultural appropriation, or being racially insensitive, or not using a politically correct term are not in and of themselves racist. And calling them that diminishes the power of the word.

Even further, I've met lots of racist left-wing progressive liberal democrats, and it would be silly for me to claim that you and Trad were racists by association and should leave the party or else you're also racist. And while I admit that as a party, the Republicans have done an abysmal job of distancing themselves from racism, in fact, in many cases, they've embraced it which is part of why I've distanced myself from them. You're really painting with broad strokes, and in doing so, you're unintentionally stifling information that should be part of the conversation.

Thank you for the explanation.

Where does that leave person A, though? What’s preventing this person from maintaining his reasonable position while also condemning the racism?

If I were person A, I would say something like, there is a credible threat from terrorists in Chad, and we need to recognize that, but also realize this is prone to misunderstanding from knee-jerk xenophobic reaction from racists which are deplorable. Let’s recognize threats without letting bigotry get the best of us.

Is that really so difficult?

Cuz even if it is, I think it’s still a better approach than, “it’s not up to me to distance myself from the racists even though we’re in agreement, it’s up to you to stop expecting me to distance myself from as much.”

Please elaborate on this part: “Things like cultural appropriation, or being racially insensitive, or not using a politically correct term are not in and of themselves racist.” Rather than claim “not in and of themselves racist,” wouldn’t we all be better of just trying to not be racially insensitive? Or, say, trying to just avoid using politically incorrect terms?

I’m all for free speech, especially in the context of humor. But at some point I’d rather just eat humble pie and say, “sorry, that was insensitive” rather than double down explaining why the real problem is actually you for perceiving my racial insensitivity as actual racism.

And yeah, it would go a long long way if the GOP would lead by example and actually speak up about condemning shit, instead of their hollow “unity and healing” bullshit.

[PhDhawk]

Oh come on, why expect Mericans to actually condemn the bigotry when we’ve got Aesop’s Fables instead?

I don't know why I'm responding to this, it's between you and mjl. and honestly talking to you is about as much fun as talking to a wall, but I'll try it anyway.

Here's an example of how the type of thing you and mjl are talking about can be a problem.

Pretend Chad had a large group of terrorists making threats against the US. Person A thinks there should be stricter rules for getting people from Chad to get a travel visa to the US. Person A's sole reason for thinking this is due to the terrorist threat and has nothing to with race. Person B is a notorious racist, they are going to likely support this idea whether the terror threat is real or not. They might even say racist shit when they talk about supporting it. Person C, who is a journalist, doesn't think we should support the ban either because they think the terrorist threat is exaggerated or aren't aware that it exists. Person C heard person B talking about it at a speech at a rally, then person C writes an article stating that he's against the stricter visa rules because it's racist and the only reason for the increased security is an attempt to make it even harder for POC to come to the US. You read this, assume it's true, and then lump anyone who supports a stricter Visa process for people from Chad as a racist.

But where does that leave person A. He came to his conclusion with no basis on race...he's supposed to abandon his ideals and logical conclusion because a racist agrees with him based on separate racist ideologies.

Calling someone a racist, when they're not being racist is a big problem.

Further, a lot of things get called racist that shouldn't. That term is a big one. Things like cultural appropriation, or being racially insensitive, or not using a politically correct term are not in and of themselves racist. And calling them that diminishes the power of the word.

Even further, I've met lots of racist left-wing progressive liberal democrats, and it would be silly for me to claim that you and Trad were racists by association and should leave the party or else you're also racist. And while I admit that as a party, the Republicans have done an abysmal job of distancing themselves from racism, in fact, in many cases, they've embraced it which is part of why I've distanced myself from them. You're really painting with broad strokes, and in doing so, you're unintentionally stifling information that should be part of the conversation.

Thank you for the explanation.

Where does that leave person A, though? What’s preventing this person from maintaining his reasonable position while also condemning the racism?

If I were person A, I would say something like, there is a credible threat from terrorists in Chad, and we need to recognize that, but also realize this is prone to misunderstanding from knee-jerk xenophobic reaction from racists which are deplorable. Let’s recognize threats without letting bigotry get the best of us.

Is that really so difficult?

Cuz even if it is, I think it’s still a better approach than, “it’s not up to me to distance myself from the racists even though we’re in agreement, it’s up to you to stop expecting me to distance myself from as much.”

Please elaborate on this part: “Things like cultural appropriation, or being racially insensitive, or not using a politically correct term are not in and of themselves racist.” Rather than claim “not in and of themselves racist,” wouldn’t we all be better of just trying to not be racially insensitive? Or, say, trying to just avoid using politically incorrect terms?

I’m all for free speech, especially in the context of humor. But at some point I’d rather just eat humble pie and say, “sorry, that was insensitive” rather than double down explaining why the real problem is actually you for perceiving my racial insensitivity as actual racism.

And yeah, it would go a long long way if the GOP would lead by example and actually speak up about condemning shit, instead of their hollow “unity and healing” bullshit.

The problem is with the lumping in of everyone that happens all the time. "The GOP does XYZ because they hate Brown people."

If that's not 100% the case, and in some cases it may be, but if not, that's a really dangerous thing to do. And when it happens, person A, doesn't get the chance to make his case. He and his stance and his information have already been dismissed.

A lot of academics were prevented from giving talks in the past 10 years because some of their data was uncomfortable or didn't fit with PC culture. I think dismissing them as racists, instead of based on the merits (the limitations of their research, for example) is a problem.

As to the part you wanted me to elaborate on, words have meaning. And we should always use precise meaning. A white girl wearing braids, or a white guy owning a taco truck, or an old man using the wrong term for a person's race are not by themselves "racist".

To me racist carries with it intent, and hate....you have to really think one race is superior to another to be racist. When things fall short of that, other words need to be used. When we apply the term racist to things that don't meet that criteria, it weakens the meaning.

[ousdahl]

Person A totally does get the chance to make a case! It’s really as simple as distancing oneself from the deplorables. I think the even more dangerous thing than a false accusation of racism, is someone who doesn’t intend racism but goes along with it anyway.

Regarding intent - I think racism is much more complex than intent. It’s so ingrained that I think it requires nuance.

One time in college we were having a party. A lot of friends were hanging in the basement, including a couple black dudes no one seemed to know. Our sweet Bob Marley poster was missing the next day.

The next weekend, another party. A friend asks, what happened to that sweet Bob Marley poster? I reply, “we dunno, we think it might have been stolen by these black dudes no one really knew at last week’s party.”

Now, I wasn’t trying to be racist! I was just describing the possible culprits, but in a way that didn’t intend race to be a factor. It could have just as easily been “these frat dudes” or “these dudes wearing cargo shorts.” But try to explain that to the friend of a friend who was at the next party who happened to be African American, and whose jaw hit the floor when I said it.

And by one rationale advanced, rather than just say, omg i am so sorry, I wasn’t trying to be racist,” I should have instead responded, “no i didn’t intend to be racist so actually it’s YOUR fault for not recognizing that, now stop lumping me in with the real racists you boy who cried wolf!”

[PhDhawk]

Person A totally does get the chance to make a case! It’s really as simple as distancing oneself from the deplorables. I think the even more dangerous thing than a false accusation of racism, is someone who doesn’t intend racism but goes along with it anyway.

Regarding intent - I think racism is much more complex than intent. It’s so ingrained that I think it requires nuance.

One time in college we were having a party. A lot of friends were hanging in the basement, including a couple black dudes no one seemed to know. Our sweet Bob Marley poster was missing the next day.

The next weekend, another party. A friend asks, what happened to that sweet Bob Marley poster? I reply, “we dunno, we think it might have been stolen by these black dudes no one really knew at last week’s party.”

Now, I wasn’t trying to be racist! I was just describing the possible culprits, but in a way that didn’t intend race to be a factor. It could have just as easily been “these frat dudes” or “these dudes wearing cargo shorts.” But try to explain that to the friend of a friend who was at the next party who happened to be African American, and whose jaw hit the floor when I said it.

And by one rationale advanced, rather than just say, omg i am so sorry, I wasn’t trying to be racist,” I should have instead responded, “no i didn’t intend to be racist so actually it’s YOUR fault for not recognizing that, now stop lumping me in with the real racists you boy who cried wolf!”

Clearly with regard to person A, we're talking about different things. My point is, if the assumption is that anyone on that side of the argument is racist, then no one will listen to him anyway. The number of times I've heard someone dismiss someone out of hand for reasons like that is too numerous to count.

For your example, I guess you have to ask yourself, did you accuse them of stealing it because they were black and you think black people steal, in which case, yeah, that's racist. Or did you accuse them because you assume black guys are more likely to like Bob Marley, or because they were the only people there who you didn't know?

If it's either of the latter two examples, then I think that's prejudice and not racist....which is my point. You tell me, Steve's a racist, and I think Steve is a hateful bigot, not Steve assumes black people enjoy Basketball. One of those can be a problem, and the other one is a vile evil way to live.

I had a similar moment of self-reflection several years ago. I was at the gym, getting ready to go to the shower. I put my I-pod away in the locker, as I'm doing it, a ~18 year old black guy walks by, we make eye contact, he looks at my I-pod, I look at it, we look back at each other, and he sees me set the I-pod in the locker. I go the shower and I worry is he gonna steal my I-pod. I get out, the I-pod is still there. So, I immediately get down on myself about being racist, why'd I assume he might steal that. Then I look around the locker room. There are also two 50 something black men getting dressed. I never once thought they would steal my Ipod. I wasn't being racist, maybe ageist, but not racist. So, yeah it can be nuanced, and something that at first blush looks racist might not be, or vice versa.

I don't think assuming an Asian dude likes Yoyo Ma is racist, but it's an assumption based on race. And I think there's an important distinction between that and thinking one race is superior to others or that someone is lesser because of their race...whatever word we settle on. But this is getting off topic anyway.

I do think if you have a thought that is shared by white nationalists, or some other hate group, you do have an obligation to explain how you came to the same conclusion for other reasons, but it's also important that people listen to said individual.

[Deleted User 89]

casual racism does not necessarily carry with it intent...it is manifest through ignorance or lack of compassion

[ousdahl]

Good point.

Racism comes in a lot of flavors. To say the threshold must be express intent, is whitewashing a lot of racial problems.

And re: my Bob Marley example, the only reason we suspected it was those dudes is cuz no one was quite sure who they were. Which is cool, cuz we had randos crash our parties all the time. But yeah, the only reason they were identified as possible culprits, was lack of familiarity.

[PhDhawk]

I don't think racial problems are limited to racism.

[Walrus]

So apparently BLM/antifa are still doing their thing, even though their team won.

[NewtonHawk11]

It just doesn't make sense that Antifa would do this on a day where "their guy" won. It doesn't make sense. Not saying they aren't doing it, would just seem very idiotic to do so.

But right blames Antifa for everything that is chaotic.