Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

You made a demonstratively false claim.

Your plethoric penchant for circumlocutory sophistry will not change that.

You're conflating "speak about" with "mention". That's not sophistry. Speaking is a specific formal term. Had I used "talk", that would be another matter.

My penchant is for purposefully pedantic presentation of prose in order to preserve and promote precision of portrayal, perchance presenting as prolixity. The irony that this still often results in misunderstanding is, I can assure you, not lost on me.

There were too many quotes, and it was clear what I meant. If possible, I'd rather not hear racist talk. If I do hear it, I don't want to get into an argument about free speech when I tell the racist to stfu. I'm not exercising prior restraint, and I can't make them stfu. Telling them to do that makes the point that I object, and if they do stfu so much the better.

There's actually a good explanation for the way that some highly educated and experienced people deal with their implicit racism. They are sort of aware of it and overcompensate. I don't think it's falsifiable, but it's plausible.

You're still entirely misunderstanding the other side of the debate. Unless that changes, we're not going to get anywhere.

I thought that was what is described as political correctness is essentially about - confronting open racism.

I learned it a little differently. A person is being politically correct if she can express herself in ways that don't cause other people unnecessary discomfort. We do want to keep discussing uncomfortable topics, but we want to have as much sensitivity as possible. It's more difficult, which is one of the things I like about it.

It does discriminate against people who only know problematic language and refuse to learn better language, like people who refer to the blacks or the evangelicals. AFAIK, black people prefer that term, and evangelical christians prefer that term. They like it capitalized, but I refuse to accommodate them on that one point.

I never expected people to get the idea that there were going to be Language Death Panels who would decide which words people get to use, but I guess I should have expected it. Ain't nobody owns language.

What about Black Lives Matter? Care to address their calling it a "diversion tactic", as much of the left in general does? Care to address the many, many more articles being pumped out every day that are about f**k white police, and f**k whites in general? Finding some articles that barely address the specific issues I've brought up in this thread is hardly a sufficient counter to what I said.

But whatever. Clearly there are very few people here interested in having a real discussion about the facts surrounding these issues, and you are not one of them. I'm beginning to lose interest in this myself.

I guess I thought Aspies might be more likely to be logical, but I can see very clearly now that this is not the case. Most of you are just as irrational as anyone else, and just as tribal.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a liberal, but I do not strongly identify with this label, because I don't want to get caught up in the political tribalism that is so common in the US. But if you want to conform to a group rather than think for yourselves, by all means, do so. Just don't come crying when someone even worse than Donald Trump gets elected, because if and when that happens, it will be the result of the hateful people on the left who are giving credibility to right-wing extremists.

You need to learn the difference between misunderstanding and disagreeing.

Incorrect. As I have pointed out already, you have repeatedly mischaracterised opposing arguments and argued against the resultant strawman.

I see it more as people being interested in the subject but being incapable of leaving their baggage at the door.

Either way, it's starting to seem pointless. Perhaps I'll take my controversial views somewhere with a wider and more diverse audience, because there isn't much that I haven't already said here. At this point I'm just restating myself over and over to find that people still do not understand what my argument even is.

Yes, there is black-on-black crime, and the prevalence is high.

Yes, BLM should address this fact, in addition to police/institutional racism.

Yes, black-on-black crime is definitely addressed in the black community--particularly by the black church, black neighborhood watch groups, black tenants organizations, etc. Blame is not hoisted upon "white people" by these folks.

Yes, it does seem as if BLM likes to incite things.

However, yes, there remains subtle (and at times not-so-subtle) racism within an American context. This needs to be addressed. It doesn't justify rioting---but to deny its existence is an example of "black-and-white" thinking.

To agree with 90% of what someone says, and disagree with 10%--yet emphasize the 10%--is ridiculous.

Why would you emphasise the 90% you agree with past recognition of the fact? That's how echo-chambers are formed.

Yes, your problem is that you are smarter than everyone here. All the various high-IQ and highly educated types here on WP just aren't up to matching your arguments intellectually. Perhaps you should move on to a place where your superior abilities will be properly recognised and appreciated.

Black on black crime is also the result of prevalent racism that denies blacks the same opportunities as whites. So they turn to crime , allowing the system to victimize them twice.

To buttress the previous point, good evidence of that is the fact that there has never been a far-reaching public works program for the ghetto or for black Americans. The promised "40 acres and a mule" never arrived due to Reconstruction being cut short. As we've moved past an agriculture-based economy, that probably would be less than ideal and very costly today anyway. A better model is investment-stimulating, partly self-paying infrastructure projects and similar. For that, the New Deal programs and WWII-era industrial build-up that built America's white middle-class didn't really trickle down to the lowest rung of society, they were targeted specifically at the assimilating descendants of Catholic immigrants and white Appalachian Southerners.

It's hard to escape black-on-black crime if it's hard to get out from the impoverished circumstances that produce it.