Dilbert sez: Stay Away from Blacks
https://www.mediaite.com/print/not-a-difficult-decision-major-newspapers-drop-dilbert-over-creator-scott-adams-discriminatory-comments/
I post in right-wing and far-right forums, and I was kind of shocked by the reaction to what Scott Adams said. Here's one of the top-voted comments on the article at Fox News:
"Snakes: Most people have an aversion to being around snakes. Not all snakes are harmful, but enough are that most people try to avoid them. They dont hate snakes because of their skin, they just dont want to get bit and cant determine if theyve encountered a harmless one or dangerous one."
What say you all?
ETA: After re-reading that, I realize I'm not really shocked at all. It's just depressing.
I post in right-wing and far-right forums, and I was kind of shocked by the reaction to what Scott Adams said. Here's one of the top-voted comments on the article at Fox News:
"Snakes: Most people have an aversion to being around snakes. Not all snakes are harmful, but enough are that most people try to avoid them. They dont hate snakes because of their skin, they just dont want to get bit and cant determine if theyve encountered a harmless one or dangerous one."
What say you all?
ETA: After re-reading that, I realize I'm not really shocked at all. It's just depressing.
Comments (259)
At least (and I mean at very very least), the racists are now wearing full Klan regalia so we know who they are, instead of pretending to have a reasoned nuanced view that they say just coincidentally appears racist.
Also, I'm a stickler for "bitten" as the past participle of to bite, so that annoyed me too.
Don't reckon this dipshit merits a discussion unless you can flesh out some generalized thesis that you think his comments illustrate.
His was the most popular comic strip in America at one time. It comes on the heels of a general increase in attempts by some Republicans to legitimatize intolerance such as making the rainbow flag illegal on public property and restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees.
It's all just fun and games till we need to start scapegoating and the door has already been open to attacking certain groups. I think the Republicans who put up with this stuff are naive.
It's not his comments that surprise me, it's the reaction to them.
Is the idea that people are more racist than you thought? Is there anything else to it than that? What are we supposed to be debating here?
That's on the way to developing something, yes. I'd like to see more of that in OPs of this sort.
Would you really?
Well, yes, analysis, link from specific to general etc.
And this sort of censorship probably feeds the "I'm not allowed to say what I think anymore because of evil neo-Marxists, therefore for consistency sake I'm going to prohibit critical race theory, flags and "LatinX"".
Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same...
Quoting Benkei
Do you know that for the most Hispanic citizens LatinX word is offensive, right?
I agree with you about the ludicrousness of "LatinX", but the issue here is of actively preventing the use of a word, not mandating it. I think a word being silly isn't sufficient ground to prevent its use.
I understand and respect your views.
Yet, what I want to say is not related to civil rights, sexology, philosophy of mind, etc... and I respect the transsexuals citizens. If they want to switch their genders is not a topic which incumbent me.
What I try to defend is the lexicon and grammar. These "rules" are not based on oppresive behaviours. They just help us how to speak and write "correctly" in terms of serious affairs, for example when you write a book or Ph.D.
I only see the logic of the word LatinX when it is used by someone who doesn't consider himself a man or a woman. It is okay if they use it privately or for basic purposes. But changing every grammar rule for a brief percentage of the population would be reckless and crazy.
Yes. I agree. I was only making the point that they weren't actually changing grammar rules forcibly by using "LatinX", it was just silly. There was no need to ban it legally, just call it out for what it is, a daft bit of virtue signalling.
Definitely. I love Spanish. It's much more logical than most other languages. You don't swallow half the letters that the French do. Don't have horrible grammar like the Germans and the Greeks, or a million exemptions like the Dutch and the English. I used to be decent at Spanish (I could make myself understood and carry on a conversation in a loud bar) but not having practised it for ten years and now I can barely speak it any more.
I think feminists have been arguing for gender neutral language or inclusive language for decades already and Spanish does have a few ugly examples. Like the different meanings of secretaria and secretario and how the plural follows the male form most of the time. Their solutions were to avoid them, so "la plantilla de la empresa" instead of "los trabajadores".
Any way, language is in flux. I think this issue about Latinx is really niche as a lot of discussion resolves around people arguing about it rarely if ever meet people in person who deal with this. I've lived in a student house with an exchange student who was clearly born female but still wanted to be referred to as "he". I just did it because it made him happy. My confusion (or anyone's aversion) really doesn't need to factor in a lot.
Another example which is pretty controversial in Spain: Juez (judge). Some feminists want to switch the lexicon to "Jueza". It is a terrible mistake because "Juez" is already a neutral word and refers to both women and men.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, I agree with this. If they are happy when they are called as they wish to be, there are no problems. But I think this topic or debate was so badly taken by some politicians or some activists, or whatever, etc., because rather than use it in good faith, they just use those words with political aims.
I don't think you're demonstrating intolerance by that attitude, though. The American governor who has attacked the use of "Latinx" is specifically trying to normalize intolerance. It's not even a dog whistle. Everyone can hear it. I see this as a result of Trump's success.
Beyond minor cultural differences, there was no difference then with living in majority white neighborhoods. And for those who I know have an internal double take, I'll re-emphasize. There was none. Certain aspects of society play up the negative components of minority culture unfortunately, and I know what its like to be a white person from a white community first going into minority neighborhoods. I wanted to learn. I get having that initial fear and bias. Its normal. Its the same as any person who decides to venture outside of their culture. The problem is when people make judgements based on that bias and fear alone instead of trying to understand first.
If only 53% of white people polled believe it is ok to be black, would a black man be justified in saying that blacks people should stay away from whites? Or would we cancel him?
Racist polls invariably lead to racist reactions.
Race-thinking is the problem to begin with. The poll, the question, the answer, Dilberts reaction, his cancellation, is all racist. Not only that but the question Is it ok to be white? is bloody weird.
Except Dilbert never mentioned the inferiority or superiority of any race, at least according to the article.
Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. One has to racially discriminate in order to formulate the question, ask the question, record the results, etc.
That's the part I think is more damning.
Quoting NOS4A2
This doesn't tell me anything. What is this "ideology" or "idea" that you're talking about? I don't even know if you intend "race-ism" to be racism.
Race relations are strained, with many blacks having no trust in white people in looking after black people's interests, and many whites not believing blacks full contributors to societal productivity. That has existed for as long as any of us have been alive.
I would expect that polls can be utilized to expose those fault lines, and I would expect that some of those polls may not be fully accurate. But, in any event, the answer has never been that we throw in the towel, that we declare one another hateful motherfuckers, that we avoid one another, and that we figure out how to live in different corners of the country. We actually tried that and it didn't really work out so well.
What Adams did, or tried to do, was throw fuel on the fire by reporting how poorly we might be getting along, and then explaining how now it's just time to cut ties and try to live in peacful hatefulness, together, but seperated by distrust.
I don't think things are at that point, and I don't think Adams is a force of good in our world who ought be placed in a position of exerting influence. Declaring that we all inherently hate one another and that there is no hope is neither correct nor helpful, and it just serves to worsen matters by fanning flames.
The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. Race means the taxonomy of race. -ism means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism.
Does (non-violent) racism (dislike, mistrust, prejudice) in the minds of white people EQUAL the same type of racism in black people?
In other words:
(Does White racism = Black racism ? )
I think I can help out on this one. There is a vast difference between the prejudice of the empowered and that of the disempowered. The very simplest illustration of this is the racist violence perpetrated by black police officers against a black man recently.
Yes. The belief in and proliferation of bad ideas can be held by anyone, regardless of what they look like.
:up:
:roll: Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination.
To classify is to discriminate by definition.
My poor LPs!
So distinguishing an apple from an orange is fruitism? :brow:
Apples and oranges are different species.
Doesn't really tell me what doctrine is being referred to here. If it simply means acknowledging the existence of different races then that's not what most people mean by "racism".
Youre missing the point. Ive distinguished apples and oranges and therefore, according to your reasoning, Im a fruitist.
Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So its a superstition. So what exactly are you acknowledging? That it has been used to propel false theories? Thats exactly my point.
Call yourself what you want, but both apples and oranges are fruit. So applying your reasoning, discriminating between both light and dark-skinned people is humanism.
Again youre missing the point. Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination. Can you speak to the point?
Either this is sophistry or your statement is completely wrong. If you're trying to make some other point then just make it.
Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. I dont think your point approaches the issue at all.
Whats wrong with it? that most people, including yourself, believe otherwise?
Not really, but it is quite fruit-tile (futile). If Adam and Eve had eaten an orange instead of an apple, we might all still be in paradise now. :wink: (sorry)
I tend to agree with this sentiment, that the two racisms are NOT exactly equal. Of course, any racism is best avoided... all things being equal (which they rarely are).
How so? Both are discriminatory.
Going back to this...
Quoting NOS4A2
I imagine you believe that the "ideology of race" is the dogmatic belief in the "false taxonomies of human beings"? If so, this doesn't explain at all how this false taxonomy motivates every act of discrimination.
Green apples and red apples are of the same species, yet there's a deeply held dogmatic belief in this false taxonomy that distinguishes green and red apples. According to you this is appleism. Merely distinguishing green and red apples motivates people to perform discriminatory acts against apples. It is true that in order to discriminate against something you first need to identify it. Obviously though, it takes more than merely identifying a green apple or a red apple to discriminate against one or the other. The idea or identification alone is not a motivator.
The 'false taxonomies of human beings' is not what motivates every racially discriminatory act.
You should ask yourself what does motivate discrimination.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination. We can discriminate between individuals, good and evil, competent and incompetent, skilled or unskilled, and so on. But discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is, ironically, an inability to discriminate between individuals.
If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is.
Not true. A full-blown nazi white supremacist, or Scott Adams for that matter, has the ability to distinguish individuals.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's a bad question but I'm curious how false taxonomies motivate discrimination against others. I have no idea how you would try to explain that. Please try.
Because they can, and advantage can be gained from disadvantaging others.
Watching Adams respond to the Rasmusson Poll did seem like a deliberate career-ending act. [It's on YouTube -- The relevant video is in Episode 2027 of Scott Adams vlog, starting at 13:28] He's been doing Dilbert for about 34 years.
The Rasmusson Poll isn't a scam, but it isn't a highly rated polling organization either. Adams peevishness seemed like a 'put on' to me. Why fasten on to a third-rate poll result (automated telephone/internet polling)? His response doesn't seem sufficiently motivated by the poll itself.
I don't know anything about Adams and I've never been very interested in Dilbert. I can't tell whether he was being serious or merely provocative. Did he miscalculate the effect of his provocative statements? Don't know.
I don't much care, either. I don't own any stock in Adams or Dilbert. But provocations like his make it more difficult to have any sort of nuanced response because it drives people into extreme positions.
The hard-core damage of racism isn't done by people like Adams. It's done through national and corporate policies that have highly material consequences. If Adams wants to avoid living in close proximity to blacks, he would be making a choice that a good share of white people have made in the past and still make. The whole post-WWII housing program was a policy of multi-generational racial segregation: Urban core rental apartments for blacks, home ownership in the suburbs for whites. The official policy isn't in effect now, but the effect is on-going, and new instances of racial segregation are also on-going.
Adams saying he was going to live with other white people is hardly a remarkable stance. It's a choice that has been officially facilitated for what -- 50,000,000 American white families? 60,000,000? Many.
Cancelation is an easy response. Ask yourself: Where do the executives of the newspaper chains cancelling Dilbert live? In racially mixed urban cores, or in gated communities? In iffy-conflict zones between wealthy and poor communities, or solidly within wealthy communities?
I said discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is an inability to discriminate between individuals, not that individuals are unable to distinguish between individuals. Rather than let the individual inform their behaviors, they let the false taxonomy do so.
I'm assuming people are motivated by their beliefs. If you believe in racial taxonomies it gives reason to discriminate against its members on racial grounds. If you do not believe in racial taxonomies it does not give reason to discriminate on racial grounds.
Well said.
Not to mention, the country has yet to shed its systemic racism, as observed by its racial demography in the census, or the so-called "diversity, equity, and inclusion" measures now in place. The Federal government is now using race as a consideration in hiring workers under the auspices of "racial justice".
We're all guilty of that to some degree, whether it be by race, sex, age, or whatever, though we can try to change our implicit biases.
Quoting NOS4A2
A belief isn't necessarily motivating. People are influenced by their biases, if that's what you're trying to say.
Again, merely believing in a 'false taxonomy' is not itself a motivator.
Rather, claiming to not believe in racial taxonomies attempts (badly) to rationalize the status quo.
:up:
A stupid poll by a crappy right-wing institution, whipping into a frenzy other right-wing goofs like Scott Adams.
Im glad hes been canceled. Not because of what he said but because Dilbert has always sucked. Wish they did it years ago.
How do you parse out "belief" from "bias"? If I think that blacks are less intelligent than whites, is that a belief or a bias? (fact: I don't think that.). If I think that white trash make bad neighbors, is that a belief or a bias? (I kind of think so.).
How do you parse out what, exactly, is motivating?
Is the difference between being motivated by a belief or a bias a difference that matters?
Speak for yourself. I dont see how that is possible when one doesnt believe he can derive any valid information from such a vacuous concept. Better to learn from actual flesh-and-blood human beings before any judgement upon them can be made.
How?
I was attempting to make a distinction between conscious beliefs and implicit biases, in an effort to make sense of NOS's claims.
Quoting BC
Years ago I lived in a funky neighborhood for a while and once had what I would describe as white trash neighbors. They were very bad neighbors. I'm sure that that experience deepened whatever negative prejudice I might have for people like that. On the other hand, I can consciously appreciate that poor ignorant white folk could be sweet neighbors and that they're not all bad. For whatever reason, I might try to condition myself to have less of an implicit bias against white trash.
Quoting BC
Most broadly, by attraction and aversion. A bit less broadly, when competing for resources an advantage is desirable or attractive and a disadvantage is undesirable or aversive.
Quoting BC
Yes, because reason has the potential to change our biases. I think that I'm prejudiced against white trash neighbors, for example, and I can take action to change that bias.
Characterising it like this is misleading (and just what he's doing on Twitter now btw as he comically tries to save his dead career) because he didn't just neutrally say he was going to live with other white people but ranted publically that white people should "get away" from black people. The mode of presentation counts here.
Granted, individual racist meltdowns like this in isolation are not the most damaging aspect of racism and the executives who are cancelling him may have similar (but hidden) views and their response may be "easy", but none of that amounts to an argument that their decision not to run his comic is a bad one. It's likely a good economic decision on their part (racism is bad for business), and what else is there to consider? Unless you think they have some moral obligation to support the guy?
No one banned Dilbert. Adams can go self-publish if he wants. All that happened was he made himself toxic. His decision, his responsibility.
Yeah, that's not how the human mind works though. We automatically make assessments about people and things. That doesn't mean that we can't put aside whatever biases we may have, given the inclination and opportunity.
Quoting NOS4A2
I think the motivation for claiming that a problem doesn't exist is to resist change, basically.
The OP was primarily shocked at rightist responses to the incident. It's in the OP.
I was curious if anyone here would defend Scott Adams.
I don't think it works both ways. There are huge numbers of blacks still alive who remember when there was legal racism used against them. I can understand how that older group would have a negative opinion of their oppressors (Southern whites). I would be shocked if they didn't.
In the real world, some people are trashy. Just personally, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to think, believe, or feel positively about them. In the real world, some problems are imposed upon people and some problems are brought on by the people themselves. One can distinguish between the two.
If you live next door to a house where irresponsible, disruptive, and highly annoying people live, why should you not have a negative bias against them?
On the other hand, if the people next door are responsible, cooperative, and polite but you are biased against them because they are lesbians, Hispanics, convicted felons, Asians, Moslems, Blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, or MAGA Republicans -- whatever they are -- then you should certainly adjust your outrageous sexual, ethnic, convict, religious and political prejudices and hatreds.
Nothing wrong with political prejudices. I assume you're prejudiced against Stalinists? Fascists? Neonazi's? MAGA Republicans believe in some pretty sketchy stuff and I have found them all to be small-minded and cruel.
Yeah, clearly there's tension in the relationship between blacks and whites. As members of the ruling majority (and historical oppressers of blacks), it's incumbent on whites to fix the relationship. Whites have the goodies in this society.
:up:
:clap: :100:
Yep, "white flight" is as baseball & apple pie as "In God We Trust" on Caesar's filthy lucre old-time "heartland" stuff. I suspect Scott Adams would, for whatever reason, rather be "canceled" abruptly by mashing PC-zeitgeist buttons than just "fuck this job!" quit. Whatever. Never a "Dilbert" reader, like you, BC, I won't miss him, though I did enjoy (and still have a copy of) his first pandeism novel God's Debris.
Quoting RogueAI
As long as scapegoating nonwhite communities is less costly psychically and economically for white commmunities than "fixing the relationship" in America, except often temporarily tweaked at the margins, the racism-tolerant status quo will prevail.
I'm not currently in any particular position to treat white trash unfairly. I don't live near or interact with any, plus I'm not an employer, landlord, civic authority, or hold any real position of power. If I were then I'd be concerned about my bias and treating individuals who appear to be of that subculture fairly.
Employing and furthering the problem doesnt only resist change, though, it compounds it. The only way to banish it is to quit using it.
It works myriad of ways to those who are just. The use of these categories are unjust, and for the same reason it was unjust to use them in the past. Justice doesnt demand that a man ought to forgive those who wronged him, but he ought not condemn with the same crime those who did not.
Merely acknowledging race or "false taxonomies" is not the problem so if it were possible to be "color-blind" it would not solve the problem. Intentionally employing and furthering biases is done in order to manipulate the ignorant (racists who may lose more than they gain) and take or maintain the advantage over the disadvantaged.
The way to banish it is to realize what's going on and stop being manipulated, or stop being an asshole if you're one of the manipulators or one of the manipulator's bootlickers.
Like Covid-19, "just stop testing" to get rid of it. :mask:
Stalinists? Check.
Fascists? Check.
Neonazis? Check.
MAGA Republicans? Check.
Neoconservatives? Check.
Neoliberals? Check.
Mafiosos? Check.
Drug cartels? Check.
Capitalists? Check.
Run of the mill crooks? Check.
Drug dealers? Check.
Drug users? Check.
Chronic Alcoholics? Check.
Southern Baptists? Check.
Book Banners? Check.
Illegal immigrants? Check.
Woke Activists? Double Check.
and more!
I am a prejudiced. I am biased, implicitly and explicitly. I love, I hate, I am coldly indifferent. I'm normal.
The 'concept' that there are people who hold no prejudices, who are free of bias, employ no stereotypes in their thinking, and approach every individual and group with an open mind is an absurd falsehood. Neither human societies nor human brains work that way.
I am not a terrible person, nor am I a bigot. What I am is cognizant that I am biased, prejudices, and I do not translate my biases into action. It is better to admit one's biases than deny them and regularly let them loose.
I don't fault Scott Adams for being biased and prejudiced. My assumption is that everyone -- even Baden -- is biased, prejudiced. I fault him for deciding to let his biases loose. (There was nothing spontaneous about his vlog entry.). People in a civil society are not obligated to be bias-free. They are obligated to maintain the membrane between their thoughts and their actions.
It's not up to black people to stop systemic racism against black people.
Well said!
The truth is that people like Trump are simply unbound by things like principles and honor and are therefore capable of doing things that, thank God, relatively few people are willing to do. It seems that Scott Adams must be like Trump in this way, otherwise he couldn't admire him as he does.
:up:
I said believing in it is the problem. Adopting it for good intentions or for whatever other reason doesnt absolve one of it. Its still false, unjust, pernicious. Saying it is implicit is simply an admission of guilt.
That's neither here nor there. Wounds heal on their own schedule. You can't force it by outlawing certain word combinations.
Its not a sin to distinguish people by race. Is this a religious thing for you?
Quoting NOS4A2
Realizing our implicit biases is self-awareness.
Outlawing certain word combinations is that how you personally stop believing in something?
Did someone say it was a sin? I said it was false, unjust, and pernicious.
Are you implicitly racist?
No. That was a cheap shot at certain Republicans. I guess I'm just frustrated with them.
Is this about banning CRT and LGBTQXN in elementary schools?
It is not unforgivable, though. IF... he would disavow his statements, and apologize SINCERELY (not a clever non-apology), perhaps we could all learn from this experience.
He refuses however. Hes cranked up the speakers playing Tom Pettys song I Wont Back Down waving a rattlesnake flag. He is a rock. He is an island.
Wonder if hell purge his music collection of anything influenced or performed by Blacks or other non-Whites. Might be slim pickings. He can keep his Schlager music albums thankfully! :cool:
Public property is state property. The state decides the flags, like you get to decide what flags go on your property.
Both parties seek to ban latinx from use in official state nomenclature like they would any other offensive term.
I understand that. I don't think they're addressing an existing problem, though. They're just stretching their bigotry muscles.
Quoting NOS4A2
Why is it offensive?
You wrote:
"Adopting it [false taxonomies] for good intentions or for whatever other reason doesnt absolve one of it."
This suggests that there is something inherently wrong with what you call 'false taxonomies'. That all false taxonomies, or maybe just this particular one, have an intrinsic property of evil or whatever. I don't know the metaphysics of how inherent negative properties bind with false taxonomies.
Going back to the example of red and green apples, if you recall I pointed out earlier that they are of the same species and appear nearly identical other than color. If I'm not mistaken the categorization of red/green apples would qualify as a 'false taxonomy', according to your thinking. Now if I were to adopt this false taxonomy, say I was at a farmers market and innocently requested a green apple from a farmer, you seem to think that I would require absolution for this transgression. That can't be right, can it?
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm pretty sure that I have implicit racial biases, yes. Actually, I'm rather explicitly racist against Portagee's due to some young adult experiences.
I would avoid the equating of human races to breeds, or in your case, different cultivars of apples, because those arise through artificial selection, whereas human variation does not. Weve cultivated the varieties of apples and the taxonomy reflects those varieties. The taxonomy of plants lack the influence of social, cultural, and political factors. Comparing human phenotypical difference to differences between breeds have historically been used to justify discrimination and cruelty.
No one said anything about intrinsic properties of evil. I explicitly said they were false, unjust, and pernicious.
How do you know you have implicit racial biases if implicit bias is unconscious, and you are unaware of them?
You just pointed out that varieties of apples are cultivated by humans. :lol:
Quoting NOS4A2
One way subconscious biases are revealed is in snap judgments where there's no time for consideration.
Would you compare human races to dog breeds?
So because of this you believe you hold a racist attitude towards certain out-groups.
Dog breeds are also cultivated by humans. They're influenced by social and cultural factors, in other words, though not necessarily political as far as I can tell.
Quoting NOS4A2
You apparently consider "holding a racist attitude" and "having implicit racial biases" to be synonymous. :roll:
Quoting praxis
Comparing humans to animals is a very slippery slope as we don't treat humans as we do animals, even if many think (as I do) that humans are just intelligent animals.
If only that were true. :broken:
Anyway, NOS is still trying to explain why adopting a false taxonomy requires absolution when applied to humans but not to anything else I think. He stated that humans are special because theyre influenced by social, cultural, and political factors. I pointed out that both apple and canine varieties (also false taxonomies) are also influenced by human social, cultural, and perhaps even political factors. In fact, they wouldnt exist at all without the influence of humanity and its culture.
I agree, and that's why we ought treat humans better.
Quoting praxis
Taxonomies are good if you can answer some specific questions with using them. Otherwise they aren't so important.
And other animals have affected other species and the environment too. Besides, if it wasn't for one freaking asteroid, dinosaurs would likely roam here and humans wouldn't have inherited this planet (if perhaps not even evolved).
The philosophical problem is that as we are intelligent animals, we can harness our environment and other species to lengths that hasn't happened earlier on this planet, however when we are animals, we are part of the environment too. So, why the difference between us and the biosphere, when we don't make such with other animals?
And you were trying to explain why apple varieties and dog breeds were false taxonomies, and how they relate to anything were talking about. In so doing youve dug yourself into a racist hole, like Scott Adams.
Right, apparently according to your thinking Im both an appleist and a canineist.
No, a racist, because you think the taxonomy of races is as valid as the taxonomy of apples and dog breeds, and you admit you hold racial biases.
Where have I stated that the taxonomy of homo sapiens, canines, or apples is valid? Ive explicitly stated that each are varieties of their respective species.
Also, it appears to be intentionally misleading to say hold racial biases because it implies that I embrace racial biases.
Your troll game is weak this morning.
If thats not rhetorical could you rephrase the question?
I dont know what youre stating, to be honest, besides that you harbour racial biases. Thats probably the clearest thing youve come up with. We can leave it there.
Again your trollish phrasing with harbor, suggesting that I welcome biases.
From your last couple of posts it now looks like you think that adopting the false taxonomy of race is racist because it could only be adopted by someone who believes that different races are actually different species. Thats plain stupid, quite frankly.
I bet you do not welcome racist biases at all and that it must pain you to have them. You have my pity.
I dont really care how you think things look because you havent been able to portray with any accuracy what Ive been saying and Ive had to correct and clarify too many times to mention. A futile exercise apparently. Have fun.
:sweat:
No, Im afraid that I got it right in the last post. :grimace:
Everything I say suggests something for you except what I actually suggest. I love being told what I think.
I would suggest that you do more than suggest and actually explain but that is clearly too much to ask of you. One thing is certain, your unwillingness to explain yourself, as well as your trolling behavior, further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that you somehow become more intellectually honest. It will benefit everyone, including yourself.
So intellectually honest are you that you like to lie about what I said. But at least you were honest enough to admit your racism. So kudos for that.
Where exactly did I lie?
Quoting NOS4A2
Racial biases are pretty much ubiquitous. They're built into the structure of our societies and therefore into the structure of our minds. The best we can do is recognize their reality, not feed them in our behavior but analyse and resist them.
You're conflating those who recognize their biases and potential prejudices (as we all should) with racists who embrace them and act them out.
I could be wrong, but I think this is what NOS is on about. If this link doesn't work for you, just google "Race Social Construct".
:100:
Their concern is with its adoption in genetic research and medicine. NOS's concern seems to be with its social adoption, claiming that it is somehow inherently naughty and requiring absolution if ever socially applied.
They utilize and further the same superstitions, nomenclature, and taxonomies born of pseudoscience to guide their thoughts and behaviors. It invariably leads to hasty generalizations, racial affinity, and guilt by association where none ought to exist. It creates hierarchies or pits one false category against another. In the case of praxis here it creates implicit racial biases.
When I start looking at their actual effects, these "spontaneous" movements for "the betterment of society" seem to me premeditated attempts at spreading division, probably for the betterment of less than altruistic political agendas.
Hard to work out what you're saying here. Biologically, the categories are false; socially, they're true. Being a social animal is a double-edged sword; we look for reasons to unite in groups and divide against other groups and find the stupidest ways of doing that. That those ways are stupid and unjustified doesn't make them any less real.
Quoting Tzeentch
?
I know race is a social construct and not a biological reality. I don't think NOS even recognizes social facts though.
Yet if it's biologically false, it's false. If it's socially true, it's a social construct. As you said above.
And that makes it different.
Thus you might then argue that some women being witches is true because a lot of people believed that some females would use black magic and witchcraft and thus should be burnt as a danger to the society. Wasn't witchcraft then a social construct? You can easily see that this was a way to put into line women, especially those that didn't live under the eyes of their husband.
There's your answer right there? The right-wing, globally, in western nations, has moved further away from low-tax, capitalist politics and gone fully into racist eugenic ideologies the last couple of years.
I think that what's happened is that a majority of people have woken up to the fact that such racial divides are bullshit, that free-market capitalism has created a new extreme class-divide and that the actual problems of society can't be solved with lowering taxes.
As more and more people realize these things, the more they realize that the economic elite lives off the labor of poor people and that the "poor" class is growing into the middle class. This ends up being a major threat to the right-wing elites because soon there won't be any majority able to gain actual democratic power, and more socialist political movements gain momentum.
So the right-wing and far right has been changing strategy, going full into internet-meme Trumpist bullshit to gain attention from the often uneducated people who are most likely to be affected the worst by right-wing policies. And they do this by gathering these people around a common enemy, be it Qanon conspiracies about pedos, or plain racism about immigrant and minorities.
So, essentially, they play the racist cards to keep the people affected the worst from gathering around more left-leaning opinions.
Of course this can only go two ways, either there will be a massive movement towards the left as the right gets left in the gutter, if only for a decade or two. Or we will see a rise in racism and fascism on national scales everywhere, which is almost what we've got today with far-right extremist groups and parties all over the world gaining power.
The major solution is to plainly call these people out and get the far-right voters to realize that these right-wing racists try to keep them in the dark to fool them into voting for them. We can laugh at the gullible average Qanon Maga-Trumpster all day long, but they're essentially the cannon fodder for the extreme right trying to do everything to keep themselves in power.
Hopefully people will wake up to these things and dismantle the racist ideologies flowing through parliaments and governments globally. Otherwise we will have new Nazis to go into war against.
Not at all. He was saying that he tried to help the black community in the past and he's extremely frustrated that all he gets in return is the sentiment that there's something wrong with being white.
It's like: "I cared about you, but you just hated me in return."
He actually wasn't expressing racism. Anyone who thinks so apparently doesn't know what racism is.
Maybe, but that ship has pretty much sailed since the Civil Rights Act.
Im only trying to argue that we ought not to use racial categories and to quit thinking with our epidermis. For me the fact that people use racial categories to divide human beings doesnt entail that races themselves are true in any way, social or otherwise.
:100:
You don't seem to understand how a bias develops. Not sure how many times I've pointed it out in this topic but mere categorization does not create a bias.
If you were on board with current right-wing media you might say that my bias was created by 'legacy media' or whatever.
Generally speaking, I think a bias develops through culture or personal experience. I've actually had little personal experience with black people in my life because of where I've lived but all the experiences I have had were positive. I can only attribute whatever bias I have to media and perhaps some influences in early life from my parents who were a bit racist, though not in a mean-spirited way, if that makes sense. Culture, in other words, rather than personal experience. That's why I'm always pleased to see minorities portrayed positively in the media and culture in general. I think it serves to counteract all the negative.
Jesus, someone please pull the hook out of your mouth.
"It's okay to be white" is an slogan that's been around for years and used by alt-right trolls to spark media backlash. You don't think that Adams knew that?
As I said, Quoting Tzeentch
What we're seeing today is the angry, radical, self-loathing Malcolm X approach.
I wish there were more Martin Luther Kings around.
Racial categorization predisposes one to racial bias. Its a collectivist impulse; we end up responding to people more as members of a social group than as individual people. In so doing youve immediately placed them into an out-group instead of integrating them into your in-group, predisposing yourself to bias against the former and preference towards the latter. Simply changing the categories can reduce the bias.
Travelling and exposure to others would surely help, no doubt, but once you alter your social categories the effects are almost immediate.
'Liberal' is just the label it inherited from the last wave of progressives, which had some right to call themselves liberals. Woke is just wearing it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core.
In any way? What about as social constructs?
Start with the US Census Bureau. Are you against what they say?
The naivety of some posters here re this is surprising. The way Adams chose and spun that poll (even on the basis of which three quarters of respondents showed no animus to the troll slogan) as proof that black people hated whites and therefore whites should "get away" from them is transparent in its racist intent. The idea that he just got his feelings hurt because he tried so hard to help black people and they just won't appreciate him is mind-numbingly silly given the context.
:100:
Quoting NOS4A2
This just shows an ignorance of what social facts are. As above, if people in society self-identity in a particular way socially and mutually recognize such identifications, these are social facts by definition. I agree we ought to get beyond such identifications eventually but conflating this with racism is unhelpful at best.
I don't think you can mix the issues of systemic racism and overt racism in the way you have here.
Obviously, overt racism isn't going to go away by ignoring it, but overt racism is marginalised these days, we no longer live in the world which produced MLK or Rosa Parks. Its patently absurd to suggest we do, when many of the most famous rock stars, actors, sportsmen, politicians and presidents are black. What overt racism there is is much more of a mixed picture and as likely to involve the interaction of multiple groups (not just white>black).
Systemic racism, which is still very much an issue, has nowhere near so clear a solution, and I don't think you can simply claim that a continuation of MLK's approach to overt racism is the best, or even a good, way to tackle it. It's much more economic at root and solutions are more reparatory than awareness-raising.
Regardless of the nature of the initial complaint, anyone who can't see that a homeless white, ex-con has a legitimate grievance against the rich black lawyer railing against 'white privilege' has lost all sense of human empathy.
I would add that the present tribalism and polarization works by those who oppose an ideology (left or right etc.) picking the worst, most fatuous examples there exists. Which usually is some odd extremist, who usually hasn't got anything in common with moderate views.
Also, I guess for politics it's the normal that centrist, moderate and consensus seeking views are attacked by those that we say to be on the far (left or right). The algorithms in the net / social media just exacerbate this. After all, a fight is more enjoyment to watch than people generally agreeing and having differences about the nuances.
It's actually not transparent. I think you recognize that at face value, his rant wasn't racist. You're saying your dog whistling receptors are picking up covert ill intent.
Just curious, had you ever heard of this guy before this thread?
This is getting very tedious. What you call a collectivist impulse is simply how our associative minds work. There is no way to get around this, even if it were a good idea to do so. My mind automatically identifies and categorizes people, at a mere glance and beneath conscious awareness. Whether my groupings are positive or negative depends, as I just previously mentioned, on personal and/or cultural experience. Is that really news or are you just playing dumb for some reason?
I hear it enough from people like Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, and now fresh off the assembly line, Scott Adams, so you dont need to parrot it further on my account, but thanks for asking.
No, at face value describing black people as a "hate group" that whites should "get the hell away from" is racist. He made racist statements. Period. His excuse, that a quarter of black people dared disagree with a slogan associated with white supremacists, is stupid, which is why I choose to disbelieve it.
It's actually not. Saying that black people are not fit company for whites is racist. Saying that black people hate whites, so whites should stay away from them is not racist. Sorry, it's just not.
So, if someone were to say black people are stupid and then come up with some fatuous data point to support that, that wouldn't be racist either? That's not the way it works, frank. I mean you're welcome to your own idiosyncratic definitions of whatever you like but this is racism:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
https://www.google.com/search?q=racism&oq=racism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.1608j0j7&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&cs=0
And the characterization of blacks as a "hate group", whites should "get the hell away from" is clearly antagonistic at least.
You are just plain wrong here.
So what are we left with? Do you think some people are just born racist? Are we theorising Adams grew up in a little known community of Klan remnants? Because absent either of those, it strikes me as dangerously indifferent to just ignore the causes of such attitudes.
It's not like the 50s, people are not growing up in racist households and a racist culture anymore. They're growing up in a culture where racism is largely abhorred with virtually every mainstream source of culture studiously avoiding even the hint of it. If people are repeating racist tropes these days, its something worth working out the cause of... Assuming there's any genuine interest in remedying the problem.
The OP was about people making excuses for Adam's comments. If you want to expand the conversation, feel free.
I was responding directly to your comment.
But if you want to constrain the conversation, feel free.
:up:
If only that were true.
Your questions appeared rhetorical. His statements were racist. I don't know why he's a racist or what you're driving at. Just spit it out if you want to.
I guess. It's not racism, though. Being that I am black, it's fairly important to me to keep the word meaningful.
I know you're black. That's not relevant to the argument about the definition.
Your definition doesn't mean anything to me. If it helps you in some way, great.
I think he means that its gone out of style. It used to be all the rage back in the 50s. You know, back when America was great. :wink:
:yawn: It's a standard dictionary definition, not mine. You, on the other hand, are just making things up. If that helps you in some way, great. Reality is not on your side.
It's not as accepted in polite society, but there are still plenty of kids being raised in racist households. The culture itself is still very racist.
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/press-release/poll-7-in-10-black-americans-say-they-have-experienced-incidents-of-discrimination-or-police-mistreatment-in-lifetime-including-nearly-half-who-felt-lives-were-in-danger/
And tolerant of racism, which is why the likes of Adams ought to be called out instead of being painted as some kind of a misunderstood victim. He's not. Read his Twitter, look at some of his past statements. He has plenty of confidence in his bad behaviour.
It actually does, thanks. You didn't answer if you'd heard of Adams before this incident. Had you?
I didn't answer that because I don't see the relevance.
Quoting frank
You're welcome. :up:
I take it you hadn't then.
I can't remember if I had. I read the comic years ago, so maybe. What's the relevance of whether I had heard of him to whether what he said was racist?
I am against what they say. I would call them social impositions because they were born of pseudoscience and imposed upon entire peoples. Besides, the pseudo-scientific justifications for applying these labels have long been discredited.
Quoting RogueAI
Yeah, that's right. Some self reported feelings of fear are just like not even being allowed in the same fucking building. Things are basically the same, I don't know why MLK even bothered.
Of all the grossly offensive things reported on this thread I think Adams's stupid comments pail into insignificance behind you attempting to belittle the horrors of Jim Crow era to score a fucking brownie point with your chattering class gang.
From my point of view, you're a voice from the outside. It's both outside and with no context in this case.
The story here is what extremists said in response to Adams. Now that is racism.
Get a grip. He did nothing of the sort. You're embarrassing yourself.
Same old from you, frank. You lose the argument and then come up with some weird personal comment of no relevance whatsoever. You have no special status re defining words or understanding concepts. You're just going to have to get your ego under control and get used to that. You're wrong on the facts. The comments were racist. If you have no rational arguments on substance, you have nothing, period.
It is a fact that people identify themselves and others with this nomenclature, and no one is saying otherwise. Im only saying people ought not to. Race is not only the root word of racism, it is the conceptual and logical grounds for it. This isn't really novel or radical thinking, either, according to a brief look.
Principles of Social Psychology 1st International Edition
An integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict
Therefore, ridding ourselves of these concepts is necessary, and relatively simple.
Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization | JSTOR
None of this entails that we need to ignore racism, its history, and the atrocities committed in its name.
Did you think his comments (at face value) were racist?
My mistake then. So we can assume things have massively improved since then, society is, in fact, no longer as overtly racist as it was in those times, thanks, largely to the Herculean efforts of the civil rights campaign.
So we can assume that Adams's exposure in childhood was not to segregation, abusive language, no role-models and a poor public image...
So why's he a racist? Nothing whatsoever to do with anything we could do anything about? Completely wash our hands of it? Perhaps he had a bump on the head eh? Nothing for us to worry about.
Back to business as usual.
OK, thanks for the clarification on that.
No one's saying we can't talk about that. I don't understand the defensiveness here. Obviously, establishing he is racist comes before talking about why he is, right? We're only just getting there.
Social constructs are a good way to think about these issues. Let's first define it:"A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event."
Someone defining himself as "American", meaning being a citizen of the US, or "British", is a clear social construct. We can easily understand that if history wouldn't have gone the way it did, those definitions would be different. And obviously they carry a lot legally in our societies and citizenship and the nation which people belong to means a lot to many. The naively stupid view is that when these are "just" social constructs and "invented", they are either false, irrelevant and don't matter.
Just talking about classes can get some angry as they either understand the term as castes, or then think it's just leftist nonsense. The juxtaposition between "white-collar" and "blue-collar" workers isn't so politically motivated, but basically again it's a social construct.
For me it seems that race relations have become a similar issue to Americans like Hitler and nazism to the Germans. It's obvious that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and lynchings aren't the brightest side of American history. As the old saying goes, if you are losing a debate to a German, you can always go for the "Hitler-card". And if you have a Hitler-card, well, it comes to be so easy. And some do use them..
The comment I initially responded to was...
Quoting Baden
Does "period" mean something different where you come from?
The discussion was (at that point) about the effect of 'woke' culture. Pretty much everything said since then has been directed exclusively at avoiding any discussion of even the possibility that it might have negative consequences exacerbating negative responses.
What? The "period" was in response to frank's claims the statements weren't racist and was limited to that. It had nothing to do with @Tzeentch's tangential comments about woke culture. I wasn't in that conversation, partly because nothing intelligent was being said. It was just "Woke = progressive = bad". So what? Maybe there's something there. But let's have some nuanced analysis.
Frank can argue any kind of nonsense and then claim that because you come from a different country (or whatever) you are wrong and he is right. It's a tiresome and boring way to avoid rational engagement.
It doesn't appear racist to me. The responses of right extremists did, though. What in particular seemed racist to you?
I think there are instances of people being unfairly canceled.
Im not sure how much wokeness may be too restrictive or if the claims that its too restrictive are merely politically motivated.
Those are two aspects that come to mind. Are there others?
My understanding is that the original idea of being "woke" was a reaction to the general historical and cultural ignorance in the U.S. of racial and other minority issues. That's clearly a good thing that right wingers and racists are likely to hate. And on the fringes of wokeness no doubt they have been given ammo for that.
Stop replying to me if you're not going to make an effort at understanding my position.
I cant help thinking something like this is behind Adams stunt. He fancies himself as a trickster, after all.
I believe I do understand what you're trying to do.
Quoting Tzeentch
There's where with some odd jumps of logic, unsupported assertion, and random colourful rhetoric, you conflate wokeness with progressivism.
Here's the Merriam Webster definition of a progressive:
"one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive
And, no, wokeness has not suddenly morphed this into some mad Orwellian movement. You don't know what a progressive is or, more likely imo, you are attempting poisoning the well, guilt by association etc.
Typical tactics. This is why I said nothing intelligent was being said.
"Typical tactics", "I understand what you're trying to do", "poisoning the well" - get a grip, mate.
I said you "conflated" the two. Which you did. The type of thing Fox News does daily. Zero analysis, just grievances against wokism clumsily pasted onto progressivism. Won't work on a philosophy forum.
Yes, and oranges are fruit. So, all fruit are orange, right? Wow! You went from saying woke is progressive to condemning progressives in general "these days" as all the bad things you attach to wokism---Orwellian blah de blah. The conflation is blindingly obvious.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not really.
Wokism is just a more racially-oriented, extreme version of the same ideals progressives hold today, and those ideals are a reaction to actual liberalism. To call oneself an anti-liberal however doesn't look very good, so the modern progressives kept the tag "liberal" while pursuing ideals which are profoundly anti-liberal.
Sort of. Democrats became fairly passive, so it was a call for vigilance.
Quoting Tzeentch
What ideals are you talking about?
Wokism is not one thing; it's a spectrum of attitudes, some of which are more justifiable than others. And progressives are not only under no obligation to embrace wokism; they are certainly under no obligation to embrace the extremes of wokism which are the ones focused on by the right and used as a cudgel against them, particularly because progressivism encompasses economic as well as social views.
So, I identify as a progressive. Please tell me what "profoundly anti-liberal" views I necessarily hold. Time to get down to specifics.
It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative.
Those are relevant. There's also the dismissal of the white working class, the demonisation of dissent...
None of this has to be true. The point isn't what's true. It's how it's perceived. People aren't going to change because a load of latte-sipping HR consultants think their grievances are stupid.
Quoting Baden
I'm not seeing any analysis or evidence supporting the movement either. Yours is not the default position. It's not "accept 'woke' politics unless you have a 'nuanced' and solidly evidenced argument to the contrary".
This is a discussion (in the wider community) about the direction our society is headed. If you can flag-waive for one approach with nothing but a few eye-rolls and wry insinuations, then so can others. If you want to discuss how we move forward you need to advocate for your version no less than you ask others to advocate for theirs.
That sounds more like Communism. Progressives are represented by the Democrat party in the states. You don't get much more capitalist than that. As for "extreme" equality, what is that?
Progressives are for higher taxes for the rich, government healthcare insurance, abortion rights and minority rights. There's not a lot more in general terms that you can say about them as they're such a diverse group. Unless you can come up with specific policies that can both be said to be generally held by progressives and can be said to be in polar opposition to liberalism, to be Orwellian etc, your argument is exposed for the bunch of empty hand-waving rhetoric it is.
And that's anti-liberal?
Just saw the edit. Now you're conflating progressivism and Marxism. I'm not going to explain the difference this time.
Liberty requires responsibility and modern liberalism pursues that responsibility.
I dont know what you mean.
Quoting frank
Naturally. Wherever man is free, there exists inequality. The only way to make people more equal is to make them less free. The more equal people are made, the less free they are.
Moreover, the way governments make people equal is through the use of force. The more equal people are to be made, the more far-reaching governmental powers will have to be, and the more extreme their measures.
The question that never seems to be asked is what happens to all that power accumulation at the top.
Quoting praxis
As for the first part, maybe so.
However, I don't think pursuing responsibility is what "modern liberalism" does. It simply tries to force people into acting in ways it considers "responsible" - that is not liberal. That is authoritarian.
I'm not sure social constructs are a good way to think these issues, personally, because there are members of the society that had little to no input on how they ought to be categorized. Social constructs suggest a consensus and a collaboration, and I doubt such a thing has occurred.
One can understand the self-identification with a race, though, especially in America, where these distinctions have been pounded into our heads our whole lives, even after the unspooling of the human genome has discredited them. For many it was a matter of life and death. But nowadays it's just de rigueur.
Affordable healthcare isnt responsible? Regulations arent responsible? Etc.
Civil Rights means the government is divided against itself. One part tries to protect equal opportunity, equality under the law, etc. from the other part.
You could accuse Adams of covert racism. What he said wasn't racist on its face. Just saying.
A tricksters job is only to show us whats important. So whats more important, freedom or responsibility? A libertarian will scream like a blue faced antisemitic berserker
[hide]
I think they go hand in hand. I may have missed your point.
That apparently not everyone thinks they go hand in hand.
Still not following. Adults are responsible. Children are dependent on responsible adults. The slave mentality lurks there. It's insidious and dangerous.
But that's not what's really disappointing to me about the degree to which many blacks hate whites. It's that they're doing the very thing they condemn. They're caught in a trap. The only way to freedom is to forgive.
First time that I heard the expression white trash was when I was around 11 years old. Some cranky old Hawaiian woman had stepped into the bus at school for some reason, I dont recall everything about the incident, and called me and the only other haole (white person) on the bus white trash. Later I had to ask my mom what it meant. Anyway, can you imagine the level of hostility you must have to feel in order to randomly insult children? Another oddity is that my family was middle class and the other haoles family was quite affluent.
The backstory is that the Hawaiians got fucked over good by people who had the choice to not fuck them over. The old lady also had a choice but wasnt doing what they did and what they continue to do.
The old lady let the bastards win. She let them mold her into a bastard just like themselves. That's the trap.
You have to figure out that you're not helpless. You can take responsibility for who you are. At the very least you own that.
No, you're not getting my meaning.
Forcing people to act in ways that you perceive as benefitting the common good has nothing to do with responsibility. Responsibility is taken (up voluntarily by the individual), not imposed (through governmental threat of violence).
Quoting frank
Sure, and I'm not saying that all equality bad.
But the pursuit of equality is anti-liberal by definition, so it makes no sense that those who campaign for ever more equality should call themselves liberal.
Ironically, both these cases remind me of Orwellian double-speak.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
These are the words of a 19th Century liberal. A 20th Century liberal sounds like this:
"This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."
I don't know of any definition of "liberal" that isn't essentially about equality of some kind.
I don't know of any that is.
But that's besides the point.
Most societies seek some sort of medium between liberty and equality. That doesn't change anything about the pursuit of equality being anti-liberal in nature.
Pursuers of equality calling themselves liberal are deceiving themselves and others. It's as simple as that.
It's not anti-liberal.
Whereas this happens, you see how fast Asian community is growing in the US and you might learn that the biggest minority in the USA are not blacks, but Hispanics (who prefer to identify mostly as "other" or "mixed" race).
Blacks, like whites, I think will see their numbers shrinking. While all this happens in this country, you keep hearing about white and black all the time, just because Republicans and Democrats want to play the political game in that way.
If you go and ask Hispanics and Asians how they feel, they will probably tell you that they are discriminated by both whites and blacks. Nonetheless, liberal media will not bother to educate you on daily basis about Hispanics and Asians. They will educate you only when something really bad happens on Asians or when there is some election going on.
Some of the reasons why this happens might be that Hispanics and Asians are considered newcomers, Hispanics might be considered a threat to American culture as well (for blacks you can't say that), and also Hispanics and Asians seems to be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, whereas blacks are predominantly Democrats (they are definitely an electoral power to consider).
To conclude, much of the racial debate in the US is politically motivated. In 2016 this country spent 6 billions for electoral campaigns only, and a lot of that money went to conservative and liberal media. The obsession of liberals with identity politics is not going to be beneficial in the future. Hispanics and Asians are not buying that (they don't seem to want to be labelled as minorities). Blacks are buying it and you have blacks leaders and Democrats behaving like advocacy groups, instead of pushing for other things: like better elementary education for all, better mental care, war on political corruption, etc. If people keep going on with the mentality that they should be treated specially because of their identity and they should be protected by Democrats and advocacy groups, it is a matter of time when they see their position getting even worse, since demographics are working against whites and blacks in this country. The 35% of people born in CA and NY have immigrant mothers and when these children will grow up, I guess they will not care too much about the colonial past of the US or about civil rights movement. They will have so many other things to worry about in the near future and they will mostly focus on having things done than on protecting all kinds of identities, histories and cultures.
You know thats silly. If you actually believed that, I could go to where you live and take all your liberty by force, make you my slave, and because youre philosophically opposed to forcing others to be responsible or whatever your hands would be self-tied and you would be a compliant slave.
So whats your address?
To stop someone from assaulting another is not a matter of "forcing someone to be responsible". What kind of mental gymnastics is that?
Enslaving people has nothing to do with responsibility?
Then you are opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation?
The Emancipation Proclamation and the civil war is an instance of responsibility being imposed by force isnt it?
:lol: Ironic.
That suggest that you believe the Southern slave owners were being responsible in the way they conducted their businesses.
What if a business dumped toxic chemicals into a nearby river in order to avoid the cost of proper disposal and the pollution had a negative effect on the environment and the health of nearby residents, would that be responsible or irresponsible?
How so?
It doesn't suggest that at all.
Quoting praxis
That would be irresponsible.
So you feel that is their right? What about the rights of the nearby residents who are getting poisoned? They can leave? Or they can legally sue the industry? You have to admit it wouldnt be a fair fight if the residents were poor.
It seems like it comes down to you favoring those with wealth and power. It does make sense to align yourself with wealth and power in a self interested sort of way.
If you're in favor of using coercion in order to make people change their behavior that's fine. But don't sugar coat it by making appeals to 'responsibility'. As I said, responsibility can only be taken up voluntarily. "Imposing responsibility" is just a euphemism for coercion.
And Im not disagreeing. We (as a people) can chose to be responsible.
Well, I think for many today, to be a citizen of their country doesn't mean so much if anything. You can see it from the comments even here. But there is enough consensus about citizenship around: just try to go to another country that you need a visa without one (or passport). Outside of your country, you will be looked as an US Citizen, irrelevant how much you relate to being one.
Quoting NOS4A2
Even if it's a bit different in Latin America, it's the same problem in the continent. Class division has become a race division, which makes the issue so toxic. The correlation with poverty and races shows this. In Latin America it's quite obvious with the divide between the Native American (Indian) population and those that have European ancestry. And the Spanish caste system has made it as bad in Latin America.
I dont think you can claim to value liberty if you deny it to others.
I agree. I was asking how the EP imposed responsibility by force.
The nation professes to value liberty and is therefore duty-bound to uphold it. Slavery isn't in accord with that duty so force must be used to stop it. The United States has never forced another nation to free its people because it's not duty-bound to do so. It's not responsible for the people of other nations. It's responsible for people who live within the nation.
What are you thinking?
I think when you said the EP imposed responsibility, you meant the government was taking responsibility for securing liberty.
In a way, that's true. :up:
I still don't know what that means
Quoting praxis
The EP was issued per the constitutional war power of the president. It was Lincoln's call. The rest of the government wasn't involved.
The only people who believed, like you, that the government was responsible for securing the freedom of slaves were abolitionists, about 3-5% of the white population.
Just prior to issuing the EP, Lincoln had taken a carriage ride with a prominent abolitionist named Charles Sumner. It's believed that the conversation they had convinced Lincoln to go ahead and issue the EP. It had been drawn up, waiting in his desk for two years.
Granted it's unlikely the South would have ever won but if they did I don't think that Lincoln would have remained in power. But I see your point about the people.
? My point was that the opinion that the US government was responsible for freeing slaves was a rare one. A tiny minority believed that.
All I'm saying is that the country was divided. Can we agree on that?
There was Lincoln up in Washington all by his lonely self and down south there was 'govament' also involved.
Am I really speaking in riddles? Nevermind.
I like donuts
I was just reading DeSanctimonious's new book and this seemed to click into place. In it he claims with emphatic repetition how the woke progressive elite ruling class that now dominates the nation (with the exception of Florida of course) looks down their nose at anyone who fails to uphold their pseudo-religious ideology.
Part of me hopes that he runs against Trump because the shitshow could be spectacular.
Exactly. And he might well gain a fair bit of support from it. Because the white working class do have a legitimate grievance if they're referred to as 'privileged' by folk with significantly more opportunity than they could even dream of.
So what could we do to prevent the nightmare of DeSantis? Or the next Trump?
We could actually address those grievances. Actually tackle poverty and in doing so alleviate both the white working class struggle, and a huge proportion of systemic racism (which is little more than that blacks are far more likely to be poor than whites)...
Or...
We could carry on trying to out-woke each other with the latest cause de jour and hope DeSantis goes away if we roll our eyes enough and sneeringly dismiss anyone who agrees with literally anything he says because we're too stupid to get past a brutish tribalism.
Which do you think will best serves the oppressed?
Im no political analyst but one of DeSantis tactics seems to be redefining elite to mean anyone, anyone with a pulse, who merely upholds the tyrannical woke progressive pseudo religious ideology in some way.
For the rest, I dont see how either of your choices could prevent a DeSantis from gaining more power, if Im honest. Trump and DeSantis dont appeal to facts or reason. For politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who just want power and wealth its not in their interests to actually tackle the problems of the people.
Yep, that's certainly true.
Quoting praxis
I didn't say anything about facts or reason. Nor anything about Trump/DeSantis tackling poverty.
I'm asking you what you think is most likely to prevent either getting into power (which would undoubtedly be devastating). Who is most likely to carry another Republican victory (or centre right Democrat victory - there's barely a hair's breadth between them)? Is it workers with jobs, decent pay, secure homes and prospects? Or is it workers with none of that, but who are in no doubt how privileged they are to be white?
I dont know how to answer that because the problems or grievances you mention wont be solved any time soon. In fact I think theyre likely to only deepen. I cant decipher what youre trying to say about wokeness. That it only distracts or leads to complacency? Why not just say what you mean?
I'm only replying out of courtesy. I see the mods have moved this thread to the Lounge. It's clearly not the place for laying out anything operose. I thought I'd been clear, but if not, we'll let it be now the discussion is a non-serious one.
Ive exhausted my courtesy allotment, in other words. Fine, be that way. :lol: