Jump to content

Hope our American friends are safe


Recommended Posts

  • Admin
3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Thinking things through isn't being "tortured". 

 

Perhaps I should have said emotionally tortured. I agree that reasoning is not being tortured. And, no offemse here, but perhaps the RNP is capable of correcting me if I misunderstood his tone? Just a thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think anyone is saying murder is okay, the argument seems to be whether the issue is racism (would an overly aggressive cop have killed the criminal regardless of his skin colour?  Did he do h

If this past year has taught me anything, it's that staying sober isn't worth it. 

Two videos. First Candace Owens on the criminal record and autopsy report of George Floyd:      Everyone pretty much agrees that the cops have no right to kill people like tha

Posted Images

  • Super Moderator
15 minutes ago, webmdave said:

 

Perhaps I should have said emotionally tortured. I agree that reasoning is not being tortured. And, no offemse here, but perhaps the RNP is capable of correcting me if I misunderstood his tone? Just a thought. 

I'd say an opinion couched in sarcasm does not necessarily equate to emotional torture, though it could be misconstrued as such.  Not to worry, though; everything is impermanent. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Since this has partially evolved into a debate over racism and what form it takes I'd be curious in knowing how many people posting here are white and how many are black. 

 

I'm white myself. I hope the other white posters realize that at best, we are what you call armchair critics - we do not have lived experience as black people. Yet many white people think it's within their purview to draw conclusions concerning the lived experience of black people. 

 

Do abled people act like they have the lived experience of a disabled person? Most don't. 

 

I am also white and completely agree with you. I would say the vast majority of the white people expressing dogmatic opinions regarding the life experiences of black people are speaking out of a deep well of ignorance, hearsay, well-intentioned interpretation of available facts or other reasons.

 

Yet, a large number of white people are protesting. If white people are incapable of drawing "conclusions concerning the lived experiences of black people," are you suggesting all white people should put down their signs and remove themsleves from the discussion, since they haven't really a clue? 

 

Circumstances have made this a national and even worldwide discussion. All people, regardless of race, nationality or perspective, are now involved. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

I am white.  I don't pretend to know or understand the black experience.  However, I have two sons.  One is half-Ukrainian; the other is Vietnamese.  Every time I hear anti-Russian rhetoric, I get a catch in the back of my throat.  When Asians get targeted because of COVID, when our own president calls it the China virus, I get a catch in the back of my throat.  I worry for my boys.  I may not fully feel what a black man feels; but I feel enough to empathize. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
55 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I feel enough to empathize. 

 

Before I met and married her, my future wife (who is white) was held as a shield by her black girl-friend while the friend's black husband smashed open the front door of my future wife's apartment, raised a pistol and shot his wife in the head, firing past my future wife's head, killing his wife. Miracously, the man left without shooting my future wife, which made her the prosecution's only eye witness.  

 

Throughout the trial, the murder's relatives verbally threatened my future wife, saying she would suffer for her testimony. After the trial she left town by joining the Air Force, which is where we met. It took her over 10 years before she could endure even the sound of fireworks without bursting into tears. She still "feels" uncomfortable around black men, even though that episode happened 40 years ago.

 

All that being said, my wife realizes her unique experience and strong feelings do not actually define reality. She knows in her frontal cortex that not all or even most black men are murderous or evil. 

 

I happen to have several friends working in law enforcement. None of those officers have ever been accused of any misbehavior or abuse of power. None of those friends make much money in their regular jobs so most also work during the week as school, hospital, store, etc., security to help pay the bills. 

 

Judging an entire race or entire career group as a single entity, I believe, is a mistake. There are bad actors everywhere. In some places there may be a gang or two of bad actors. 

 

Thoughtful reasoning is needed to rationally address issues. Emotional (empathetic) beliefs based on personal experience might be natural, but....

 

Just my opinion...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

*All prior comments have been erased*

 

 

Well no wonder!!! 

 

Thanks for cluing me in. I knew there was something going on beneath our dialogue. And I'm very sorry if I've come off as too hard. I hope you'll accept my apology. Whatever the case, we've had a tough time with communication and I've been busting your balls around. You've bantered right back. And good on you!!! I hope that I haven't been too insulting with the banter. Just a few guys having fun. 

 

     I'm not sure what you're driving at here.  My point about my Tourette's (and it's not the first time I've mentioned it on the site) is that if anyone will be first in line for some sort of medical "fix" it will people like myself.  Those who are considered abnormal by pretty much everyone.  That's how it really has worked historically.  However, I tend to see so many "normal" people worry they're at the front of the line.

 

     I particularly like this FG bit:

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I'm just kidding around. Toying with the issue of these talking points having no real solution aside from full authoritarian control of what people think in their own minds. I wouldn't say that's impossible that if things continue this way, we may have people trying to force us to only think in acceptable way, which, are determined by whoever thinks they ought to be the one's deciding such a thing. All I was doing was funneling this systemic racism business down to the question of WTF do people think they are going to do about it? There's not much to do about it, aside from strip people of their rights and even their personal, internal, and often subconscious preferences, likes and dislikes. 

     Attitudes do change.  You said your wife is a lawyer.  That's a progressive attitude.  It wasn't long ago where that was simply unthinkable.  No one was forced into camps or had to take injections for this to happen.  Attitudes had to change though.  I'm sure it was very painful for those who had to live during those changes.  Maybe they thought along the same lines of authoritarians governments forcing them to think certain ways like you've said too?  But here we are.  There are still large numbers of people who will say this was a terrible thing for families.  Who would like to hit undo.  Would you like to do that to your wife?  Maybe some days? ;)  But seriously the attitude to force women back into the home still exists.  Should we consider it or leave it in the past?

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

BTW, about the waste of time thing, scratch that. I'm more than happy to discuss. 

 

Granted, if we're just going in circles than we're not doing much. So it would be preferable to move on. For whatever the reason, we are both looking at the video differently. That's ok. I was hoping that you would get what I was saying, but we have a communication barrier going on. It just is what it is. I've gone over a lot of videos on facebook with more black speakers who disagree with the systemic racism narrative going around. In my opinion, they all make a lot of sense. And I don't like seeing people trying to shout them down for speaking up and disagreeing through well thought out, intelligent discourse. It's as if black citizens can't speak out with highly intelligent responses and views without being shouted down people who don't share or don't understand their views. It could be argued that in and of itself is racist. Saying that they're too white and uncle toms and coons if they disagree with the dominant political narrative. Shameful, really. 

 

But then again, I'd be hard pressed to turn around argue that these name callers constitute systemic racism by calling smart, well spoken black conservative speakers too white. The very accusation is racist by the people making it.

 

But it doesn't reflect the entirety of the system. Not everyone thinks that well spoken, conservative blacks are too white. Not everyone thinks that they are coons. Only some people on the liberal side are saying that. Which never constitutes anything more than a minority opinion within the over all system of liberals. We couldn't even say that those people represent the entire system of the democratic party. Not all democrats think that these black conservative speakers are too white, coons, or uncle toms, etc., etc. Only some of them do. That isn't a systemic racism broad brushing the entire DNC. And it wouldn't be fair to make such an assertion. It's actually very unfair. 

 

Just like it is with any broad brushing of this kind. It's logically fallacious. With little to no objective truth behind it. 

     Just because someone is well spoken doesn't mean they're correct.  If people are going to call them names then they're going to call them names.

 

     I really don't care what the DNC/RNC do.  I'm registered NP (No Party).  My primary ballot has no parties on it.  I don't nominate anyone.  I get to vote for whoever shows up in November but otherwise I don't get to play party politics.  I opted out.

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd say an opinion couched in sarcasm does not necessarily equate to emotional torture, though it could be misconstrued as such.  Not to worry, though; everything is impermanent. 

Didn't catch the sarcasm, tone is difficult to interpret with written words, guess that's where emojis come in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webmdave said:

 

I am also white and completely agree with you. I would say the vast majority of the white people expressing dogmatic opinions regarding the life experiences of black people are speaking out of a deep well of ignorance, hearsay, well-intentioned interpretation of available facts or other reasons.

 

Yet, a large number of white people are protesting. If white people are incapable of drawing "conclusions concerning the lived experiences of black people," are you suggesting all white people should put down their signs and remove themsleves from the discussion, since they haven't really a clue? 

As RNP stated, people can have degrees of empathy. Some more, some less. Some may have suffered discrimination of another sort and empathizing is a little easier. 

 

The only way we can move forward is by involving and educating white people - specifically those who are racist. White allies are important, so I'm not suggesting any such thing, but in the end it's the racists who must educate themselves and change their behavior. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I agree that there are people wanting to partially defund, but there are also those asking for the complete abolishment of Police forces: https://www.city-journal.org/abolish-police-call-to-action

Just have to be careful when you say defund, whether the person means completely or partially.

     I'm aware of them.  When I hear people call for defunding I think of President Eisenhower and this speech:



Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. 

 

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. 

 

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. 

 

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. 

 

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. 

 

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. 

 

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. 

 

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. 

 

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.


This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. 

 

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that comes with this spring of 1953. 

 

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

 

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. 

 

It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

     It was shown to me in high school to demonstrate opportunity costs.  The alternative choices that could have been made.  He also warned against the Military Industrial Complex (but not here).

 

     Anyhow, I believe that with the millions, even billions, of dollars spent on police we need to look at the opportunity costs in society.  

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
42 minutes ago, webmdave said:

Judging an entire race or entire career group as a single entity, I believe, is a mistake. There are bad actors everywhere. In some places there may be a gang or two of bad actors. 

Precisely why I worry for my sons.   Also why a black man might worry over his.

 

43 minutes ago, webmdave said:

Thoughtful reasoning is needed to rationally address issues. Emotional (empathetic) beliefs based on personal experience might be natural, but....

 

Rationally speaking, empathy feels natural because it is a major part in our evolutionary hardwiring as a social species.  I see your point; but if the goal is to build a better society for everyone, then developing empathy is one of the most rational things one can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
54 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

developing empathy is one of the most rational things one can do.

 

In the past, I would agree. Defining empathy, however, is sometimes difficult. When I am told that not my non-participation in BLM rallies shows a complete lack of empathy, I am troubled. I used to hear that same song when as a Christian I would not participate in protesting abortion clinics. I was told I had no empathy for the unborn. Since empathy is always defined by the individual "feeling" it, it is not particularly convincing to me. Empathy and hatred seem to share the same space at times. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
30 minutes ago, webmdave said:

 

In the past, I would agree. Defining empathy, however, is sometimes difficult. When I am told that not my non-participation in BLM rallies shows a complete lack of empathy, I am troubled. I used to hear that same song when as a Christian I would not participate in protesting abortion clinics. I was told I had no empathy for the unborn. Since empathy is always defined by the individual "feeling" it, it is not particularly convincing to me. Empathy and hatred seem to share the same space at times. 

 

 

That is a good point, that I'll admit I hadn't considered before.  I suppose there are layers, or degrees, of sympathy.  The Buddha taught compassion for all living things.  The idealist in me would like to think that is possible; but the realist in me understands what a Herculean effort it would require. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

White allies are important, so I'm not suggesting any such thing...

 

 

I didn't think you were suggesting any such thing. My post also was sarcasm. What I was trying to illustrate is that if as you seem to be saying, namely that white people don't have a clue about this issue, then both white allies and white detractors are equally ignorant and clueless. Therefore, regardless of where a white person stands on any of this, the white perspective is that of just another armchair critic. 

 

Just a thought...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, webmdave said:

 

I didn't think you were suggesting any such thing. My post also was sarcasm. What I was trying to illustrate is that if as you seem to be saying, namely that white people don't have a clue about this issue, then both white allies and white detractors are equally ignorant and clueless. Therefore, regardless of where a white person stands on any of this, the white perspective is that of just another armchair critic. 

 

Just a thought...

The sarcasm is hard to read for me, I tend to take written words literally and when I use it myself, sign off with /end sarcasm. Just saying. 

 

My point was not to say white people are clueless - it was that we honestly cannot speak to personal experience for black people. I think we need to listen to where they are coming from and assist as advocates against racism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin

Thanks for explaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree that the statistics show black people have worse outcomes when it comes to crime, education, employment and health. The area of disagreement is the reason for those outcomes. The BLM movement would say all of those poor outcomes point to racism, so the issues are external and the responsibility is someone else's. While black Conservatives and some celebrities (Morgan Freeman and Denzel being the two I've seen recently) have spoken up to say the issues are internal and we should get our own house in order before blaming others.

 

When you hear about drug problems, gang problems, thug life culture, black on black murder statistics and tall poppy syndrome I struggle to see racism as the sole or even main cause of those outcomes. 

In 2016 there were 2800 blacks murdered out of which 2500 were black on black homicide. This really points to internal issues being the issue in most urgent need of attention and assistance. 

From a practical view it is much easier to tackle such issues than vague notions of bias. Invest in programs that work to combat these issues. When you have limited resources you need to focus them on where they can do the most good. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Body cams cost less than $200

The hardware cost is only part of the expense. Service contracts, data storage, teams to sort footage for use, data security etc. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18196097/police-body-cameras-storage-cost-washington-post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
20 hours ago, mwc said:

Attitudes do change.  You said your wife is a lawyer.  That's a progressive attitude.  It wasn't long ago where that was simply unthinkable. 

 

Yes, and I would readily attribute that to the overall system. And point out that the system itself isn't stacked against women, any more than it's stacked against black citizens when you look at it closely. The subjective opinions tend to rely on looking from a ways off. Generalizing everything tremendously. Broad brushing as wide as possible. And turning what appears to be a blind eye to contrary numbers, stats, and information in general. 

 

I mentioned going through a ton of black speakers who disagree with the bandwagon fallacy going around about systemic racism. Morgan Freeman has some interesting commentary of his own on the matter. And so does Denzel Washington. It was a facebook video so I'm not sure where it is or where to find it.

 

But another interesting rebuttal popped up, which is a critique of the viral video about systemic racism that you cited earlier. I had my own concerns about it. Here's another detailed analysis of each claim made in the video for further consideration: 

 

 

20 hours ago, mwc said:

Just because someone is well spoken doesn't mean they're correct.  If people are going to call them names then they're going to call them names.

 

     I really don't care what the DNC/RNC do.  I'm registered NP (No Party).  My primary ballot has no parties on it.  I don't nominate anyone.  I get to vote for whoever shows up in November but otherwise I don't get to play party politics.  I opted out.

 

So, just to try and fine tune our communication better, I am not saying to you that being well spoken is WHY they are correct. What I am saying is that they are correct with respect to the merit of their position taking, based on the objective, rather than subjective opinion view.

 

They are contrasting an objective fact based position on an issue versus a clearly subjective opinion based view, which, doesn't have the same merit when investigated for content. I stand along side Rubin, Elder, Freeman, Washington, Owens, and many, many more people from all sides of the racial isle on this issue. And I'm saying that they are well spoken and intelligent about it, which has brought them accusations of being too white, basically. The name calling further degrades the issue. And makes it appear as though well spoken, well thought out intelligence is being frowned upon, rather than respected as such whether someone agrees or disagrees with the well spoken and intelligent approach. Their approaches are objective rather than just emotional. 

 

I love Dave's handle about being an independent skeptic. Rather than GOP, or DNC or libertarian party, I would more rightfully fit in as an independent skeptic in politics. I could vote any three of the above directions, dependent on the positions and concerns. I would not strictly vote or side on an purely partisan basis. It sounds like you and I share that in common too, even to the extent that we have a sharp disagreement on this issue for some reason. We share similar in view in terms of being non-partisan, but we're both obviously thinking in different ways and not always understanding one another at the same time. I'm trying, though. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
54 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Morgan Freeman has some interesting commentary of his own on that matter. And so does Denzel Washington. It was a facebook video so I'm not sure where it is or where to find it

 

Here you go: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, and I would readily attribute that to the overall system. And point out that the system itself isn't stacked against women, any more than it's stacked against black citizens when you look at it closely. The subjective opinions tend to rely on looking from a ways off. Generalizing everything tremendously. Broad brushing as wide as possible. And turning what appears to be a blind eye to contrary numbers, stats, and information in general. 

 

I mentioned going through a ton of black speakers who disagree with the bandwagon fallacy going around about systemic racism. Morgan Freeman has some interesting commentary of his own on the matter. And so does Denzel Washington. It was a facebook video so I'm not sure where it is or where to find it.

 

But another interesting rebuttal popped up, which is a critique of the viral video about systemic racism that you cited earlier. I had my own concerns about it. Here's another detailed analysis of each claim made in the video for further consideration: 

 

 

 

So, just to try and fine tune our communication better, I am not saying to you that being well spoken is WHY they are correct. What I am saying is that they are correct with respect to the merit of their position taking, based on the objective, rather than subjective opinion view.

 

They are contrasting an objective fact based position on an issue versus a clearly subjective opinion based view, which, doesn't have the same merit when investigated for content. I stand along side Rubin, Elder, Freeman, Washington, Owens, and many, many more people from all sides of the racial isle on this issue. And I'm saying that they are well spoken and intelligent about it, which has brought them accusations of being too white, basically. The name calling further degrades the issue. And makes it appear as though well spoken, well thought out intelligence is being frowned upon, rather than respected as such whether someone agrees or disagrees with the well spoken and intelligent approach. Their approaches are objective rather than just emotional. 

 

I love Dave's handle about being an independent skeptic. Rather than GOP, or DNC or libertarian party, I would more rightfully fit in as an independent skeptic in politics. I could vote any three of the above directions, dependent on the positions and concerns. I would not strictly vote or side on an purely partisan basis. It sounds like you and I share that in common too, even to the extent that we have a sharp disagreement on this issue for some reason. We share similar in view in terms of being non-partisan, but we're both obviously thinking in different ways and not always understanding one another at the same time. I'm trying, though. 

 

 

So you're saying that those people who claim systemic racism exists, are bandwagoning, using a subjective, overly emotional approach? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting conversation thread, in which some people have indicated willingness to listen to the racialized experience of people and learn from them about what they can do on an individual level. Whereas others are more interested in actually claiming truth and knowledge about how whole systems work, and therefore, how minorities and even women are treated in those systems. 

 

Which kind of goes back to my point: white people do not hold the personal experience of black people. They cannot claim to know what black people experience, individually, or in systems. They can extrapolate all they want and try to present themselves as the experts but in the end, they aren't black people. 

 

When you make claims that systemic issues do not exist in society you essentially make the claim that humans aren't tribal. Which is a laugh, if you consider human evolution. Our tribal tendencies haven't gone anywhere and they affect our behavior. 

 

That's my observation on reading this thread. I'm not going to engage further as a respectfully disagree with the positions some are taking and am not interested in further debate. I'm posting so that readers can see a variety of perspective, not only the positions that have been presented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, and I would readily attribute that to the overall system. And point out that the system itself isn't stacked against women, any more than it's stacked against black citizens when you look at it closely. The subjective opinions tend to rely on looking from a ways off. Generalizing everything tremendously. Broad brushing as wide as possible. And turning what appears to be a blind eye to contrary numbers, stats, and information in general. 

     "Isn't" is rather present tense.  I could ask you the impossible to answer question of would you have allowed (not simply wanted) your wife to become a lawyer some 150 years back?  Few had to deal with the problem then but over the years, as more women wanted to be lawyers, it became an issue.  Something someone else had to wrestle with so we don't have to.  It's just largely done with (for most folks).  There is still some work to be done but this hurdle, of being able to work, is not one of those things.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But another interesting rebuttal popped up, which is a critique of the viral video about systemic racism that you cited earlier. I had my own concerns about it. Here's another detailed analysis of each claim made in the video for further consideration: 

 

     I had no idea who the video I posted was from (I'd have to check but I think I even mentioned it at the time...I chose it because it was short and simple...my goal was to not post long or complex videos to not burden people who wish to watch them).

 

     So he argues for school vouchers instead of improving schools.  He claims that systemic racism is a racist institution and so everyone would oppose it or all inequality is explainable by racism which he says is not sustainable.  He goes on to explain history does play a role, history has consequences, and that has to do with single motherhood.  He cites a 1992 mortgage study to show that claim things really aren't all that bad when that study says things are as bad as a 1990 study says but they're not good.  The Harvard study he cites mentions a number of things but it also says that less racial bias in an area made for more success.  It also said that a father helped black men, not women, but clarified that it didn't have to be paternal but merely a paternal figure in the neighborhood.

 

     I'm only about 7 minutes in but I'm becoming convinced that he's not using the whole truth from his own sources.  I'll have to look at the rest later on since I've got other things to do.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So, just to try and fine tune our communication better, I am not saying to you that being well spoken is WHY they are correct. What I am saying is that they are correct with respect to the merit of their position taking, based on the objective, rather than subjective opinion view.

 

They are contrasting an objective fact based position on an issue versus a clearly subjective opinion based view, which, doesn't have the same merit when investigated for content. I stand along side Rubin, Elder, Freeman, Washington, Owens, and many, many more people from all sides of the racial isle on this issue. And I'm saying that they are well spoken and intelligent about it, which has brought them accusations of being too white, basically. The name calling further degrades the issue. And makes it appear as though well spoken, well thought out intelligence is being frowned upon, rather than respected as such whether someone agrees or disagrees with the well spoken and intelligent approach. Their approaches are objective rather than just emotional. 

     Where you're seeing objective I see reductionist.  While reductionism is helpful in some situations I see systems thinking for, well, systems.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I love Dave's handle about being an independent skeptic. Rather than GOP, or DNC or libertarian party, I would more rightfully fit in as an independent skeptic in politics. I could vote any three of the above directions, dependent on the positions and concerns. I would not strictly vote or side on an purely partisan basis. It sounds like you and I share that in common too, even to the extent that we have a sharp disagreement on this issue for some reason. We share similar in view in terms of being non-partisan, but we're both obviously thinking in different ways and not always understanding one another at the same time. I'm trying, though. 

     Alright.

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
12 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

So you're saying that those people who claim systemic racism exists, are bandwagoning, using a subjective, overly emotional approach? 

 

Yes. It's a long reach when trying to broad brush it to large scale systemic territory. And that's what happens when challenged. Like were Rubin backed way down and dumped the systemic angle, but insisted on trying to keep going. He didn't realize or understand how fragile the claim actually is. And then he dumped it and moved on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
7 hours ago, mwc said:

"Isn't" is rather present tense.  I could ask you the impossible to answer question of would you have allowed (not simply wanted) your wife to become a lawyer some 150 years back?  Few had to deal with the problem then but over the years, as more women wanted to be lawyers, it became an issue.  Something someone else had to wrestle with so we don't have to.  It's just largely done with (for most folks).  There is still some work to be done but this hurdle, of being able to work, is not one of those things.

 

Again, this doesn't quite make sense with respect to my post. We are talking about the present, not the past. Both in terms of racism now and feminism now. We know that it was different in the past. No one is arguing that it wasn't different. There was systemic racism. There was basically systemic misogyny as well. Our discussion has to do with how people tackled those issues over the last 50 years. Things have changed, on a systemic level, big time. And people are acting as though none of this has happened, and nothing changed. The nation is racist and the police are racist and all of these broad brushing logical fallacies that will never hold up when challenged. This is the impression that is being given off. And it's a logically fallacious impression, a bangwagon fallacy among others. It's true, because a bunch of people think it's true and have made it popular and fashionable to agree. Even though they can't seem to hammer it down with solid evidence and compelling arguments. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
12 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Which kind of goes back to my point: white people do not hold the personal experience of black people. They cannot claim to know what black people experience, individually, or in systems. They can extrapolate all they want and try to present themselves as the experts but in the end, they aren't black people. 

 

You have taken up a position of disagreement with the black experience of everyone in the cited videos. And you've done this as a white person, have you not? 

 

To address truthseeker0's concern, that's what the videos full of black people, who live black experiences, and also disagree with the political narrative make clear. Not all black people have the same opinions about black experience. The black experience for some people is that they see very little racism in America. That was Lil' Wayne's position. Role tape and listen to how they perceive it. Freeman doesn't think it's systemic anymore. There's a difference of opinion among black Americans, many of which are speaking out about it.

 

This actually has very little to do with white people, in fact. We're listening to their arguments for the most part in this discussion. Taking note. And either agreeing or disagreeing with them. No one's trying to interject our experience onto theirs or pretending to know their experience. We don't have to. We can listen to them tell us about their own experiences, which, was the context of the discussion before you posted. Some have had good experiences, some bad. Like everyone else in the world. Just like every other race. Perception plays a large role. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.