Ferguson unrest

[Black Dog]

Where I live, I'm the minority. I was made fun of all my life for being white. That's part of the reason I'm so happy not seeing things in colour, and the majority of why I can't buy what you're saying. Quit lecturing me when you do t have a clue who I am.

See, if this is true, it makes your stubborn ignorance and complete lack of empathy even more astonishing.

Which is a problem no matter how you want to twist things.

No it's not.

“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.”

[GostHacked]

No it's not.

Please explain how affirmative action is not institutionalized racism.

[cybercoma]

White privilege 101 right here. "I personally don't see a problem, I don't believe people who say there's a problem, so therefore, there's no problem."

This is new racism in a nutshell. It's not the overt bigotry and hatred of years past. New racism denies that race contributes to any problems.

[cybercoma]

See, if this is true, it makes your stubborn ignorance and complete lack of empathy even more astonishing.

No it's not.

“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.”

[cybercoma]

Please explain how affirmative action is not institutionalized racism.

Why don't you look up institutional racism and learn for yourself? It's nobody's responsibility to teach you, especially if you're not willing to learn.

[Black Dog]

Please explain how affirmative action is not institutionalized racism.

Because institutionalized racism is, by definition, policies and process, beliefs and attitudes that serve to reinforce the dominance of a certain group, including systematically excluding and oppressing members of subordinate groups. Affirmative action was conceived as a counter to that and offer opportunities to people who would otherwise be denied them. It's not a perfect system. It probably sucks for an individual to lose out on a job to another candidate on the basis of race (which happens occasionally to whites under affirmative action and more often to non-whites all the time). But the worst you can say about it is that it's discriminatory. It's not racism, though.

[GostHacked]

Why don't you look up institutional racism and learn for yourself? It's nobody's responsibility to teach you, especially if you're not willing to learn.

Well I guess there is no reason to post anything else here. We should all spending our time learning other things instead of posting here and conversing with one another. But Black Dog explained it, I don't have to agree or like it, but he at least made the attempt. And yes I could be wrong on everything I say. Any of you willing to take that stand?

[Smallc]

Well I guess there is no reason to post anything else here. We should all spending our time learning other things instead of posting here and conversing with one another. But Black Dog explained it, I don't have to agree or like it, but he at least made the attempt. And yes I could be wrong on everything I say. Any of you willing to take that stand?

They have nothing to say, so they ridicule and tell us to educate ourselves. Like you said, might as well shut the forum down. We should all be learning about the evils of a colour blind dream.

[Smallc]

Because institutionalized racism is, by definition, policies and process, beliefs and attitudes that serve to reinforce the dominance of a certain group, including systematically excluding and oppressing members of subordinate groups. Affirmative action was conceived as a counter to that and offer opportunities to people who would otherwise be denied them. It's not a perfect system. It probably sucks for an individual to lose out on a job to another candidate on the basis of race (which happens occasionally to whites under affirmative action and more often to non-whites all the time). But the worst you can say about it is that it's discriminatory. It's not racism, though.

Racism, as I've told you several times (and posted the link) has 3 accepted definitions. You're hung up on a definition that is not even the most widely accepted.

[GostHacked]

They have nothing to say, so they ridicule and tell us to educate ourselves. Like you said, might as well shut the forum down. We should all be learning about the evils of a colour blind dream.

Being colour blind to me is an attempt to not seem racist, or loose proof of not being racist. I see many colours, and they are all pretty awesome.

Edited December 22, 2014 by GostHacked

[Smallc]

See, if this is true, it makes your stubborn ignorance and complete lack of empathy even more ]

I have empathy when it's deserved. If it's not deserved, and in many cases it isn't, Im not goin to fake it just because someone is a certain colour. That's the difference.

[Black Dog]

Racism, as I've told you several times (and posted the link) has 3 accepted definitions. You're hung up on a definition that is not even the most widely accepted.

First: you didn't post a link, just made some vague reference to the three definitions of racism. Based on your comments about it, though, I think you're getting your info from here.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

This is all well and good, but there's whole fields of academic work that fleshes things out further. And even if you accept this ultrasimplified interpretation as the last word, there's no hierarchy there; that is, no one definition is more valid than the others.

Second: we're talking specifically about systemic or institutional racism. In that context, why would I bother with talking about individual prejudices or other manifestations of racism?

[TimG]

And even if you accept this ultrasimplified interpretation as the last word, there's no hierarchy there; that is, no one definition is more valid than the others.

Words only have meaning because people agree on what the meaning is. A group of people can invent a new meaning of a word but that meaning has no relevance outside of the group. Definitions that are only accepted by a subset of the population are less valid than those that are broadly accepted. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Well I guess there is no reason to post anything else here. We should all spending our time learning other things instead of posting here and conversing with one another. But Black Dog explained it, I don't have to agree or like it, but he at least made the attempt. And yes I could be wrong on everything I say. Any of you willing to take that stand?

The thing is you've already commented extensively about it, but now you want people to teach you what it is. That's the problem. If you want to know more about racism, it has been written about thousands of times by people far more intelligent than any of us here. The information is out there. You have the proper phrases for the concepts. Take some time to read the experts on the subject instead of expecting others to hand you the knowledge. You should have done that before being dismissive about the concept.

[cybercoma]

They have nothing to say, so they ridicule and tell us to educate ourselves. Like you said, might as well shut the forum down. We should all be learning about the evils of a colour blind dream.

Ridicule? Hardly. I'm telling you that you should know what the hell it is you're dismissing before dismissing it. Perhaps that does deserve ridicule, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm asking you to educate yourself, so people can have some common understanding of the terminology that has been used here. You don't get to be completely dismissive of the idea then turn around and ask people to teach you. It's nobody's responsibility to teach you, especially not after you sit here and argue that it doesn't exist and you don't believe in it, despite actually having no idea what has been written about it or what the terms mean.

[cybercoma]

Racism, as I've told you several times (and posted the link) has 3 accepted definitions. You're hung up on a definition that is not even the most widely accepted.

Racism most certainly does not have "only 3 accepted definitions." Appealing to the dictionary is a logical fallacy. Dictionary definitions are concise and lack the depth required to understand what is being discussed here, which is particularly convenient for someone who wants to pretend these things don't exist or build strawman arguments out of others' positionts. What you're discussing sociological concepts that have been expanded upon and debated. There are entire books written to attempt to define racism. People write dissertations on racism. Have some depth of thought for crying out loud. Meriam-Webster isn't the authority on racism.

[GostHacked]

The thing is you've already commented extensively about it, but now you want people to teach you what it is. That's the problem.

Sometimes in order to know exactly what the other person is talking about, questions need to be asked. Otherwise we simply assume what another is saying. And we know how that usually goes down around here.

If you want to know more about racism, it has been written about thousands of times by people far more intelligent than any of us here. The information is out there. You have the proper phrases for the concepts. Take some time to read the experts on the subject instead of expecting others to hand you the knowledge. You should have done that before being dismissive about the concept.

Am I not being handed the information if I am reading an expert's words on the matter? Should I really take their word for it? It was actually BD who was dismissive about my notion that affirmative action is institutionalized racism. And he explained why. I don't have to agree with what he said. This is how these boards work. Let's move on shall we? I am curious as to why I am getting more flack from you than BD about this specific matter.

Edited December 22, 2014 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

Words only have meaning because people agree on what the meaning is. A group of people can invent a new meaning of a word but that meaning has no relevance outside of the group. Definitions that are only accepted by a subset of the population are less valid than those that are broadly accepted.

We're not talking about the denotation of words. We're talking about concepts and theories that have been fleshed out through rigorous discourse for generations. Appealing to the dictionary is simply a ploy used by those who want to be dismissive of complex social relationships by boiling them down into strawmen, namely concise dictionary definitions used for denotation rather than explanation.

[cybercoma]

Sometimes in order to know exactly what the other person is talking about, questions need to be asked. Otherwise we simply assume what another is saying. And we know how that usually goes down around here.

Am I not being handed the information if I am reading an expert's words on the matter? Should I really take their word for it? It was actually BD who was dismissive about my notion that affirmative action is institutionalized racism. And he explained why. I don't have to agree with what he said. This is how these boards work. Let's move on shall we? I am curious as to why I am getting more flack from you than BD about this specific matter.

I didn't say go read THE expert's opinion. I said read the experts' opinions. No. You shouldn't take one person's word for it. You should educate yourself on the concept of institutional and systemic racisms, then draw your conclusions. If you want to exactly what people are talking about, they're using very precise words with a history of academic debate behind them.

[cybercoma]

Here's an article that explains why "colorblindness" is racism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

[snip] At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.

However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism. [snip]

[Black Dog]

Words only have meaning because people agree on what the meaning is. A group of people can invent a new meaning of a word but that meaning has no relevance outside of the group. Definitions that are only accepted by a subset of the population are less valid than those that are broadly accepted.

That's pretty nonsensical. Any specialized group will have it's own terminology or definitions of terms that might differ somewhat from those used by laymen. Doesn't make those terms or definition less valid, just less known or broadly understood.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

I didn't say go read THE expert's opinion. I said read the experts' opinions.

Please explain why we should care about what some self-appointed expert says on this topic? Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

That's pretty nonsensical. Any specialized group will have it's own terminology or definitions of terms that might differ somewhat from those used by layment. Doesn't make them less valid, just less known or broadly understood.

In this case we are talking about where the greater population explicitly rejects the definition used by the subgroup. This rejection means the sub-group's definition is less valid. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

In this case we are talking about where the greater population explicitly rejects the definition used by the subgroup. This rejection means the sub-group's definition is less valid.

So basically: the popularity of an idea determines its validity.

That's real dumb.

[TimG]

So basically: the popularity of an idea determines its validity.

We are talking about the definition of words. And yes, popularity DOES determine the validity of a word definition. There is no other metric that can be used. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG