Fair enough. I'll be the Lenin to your Trotsky. — StreetlightX

They don't have an emoji of someone nodding with resigned assent and an ice pick in their head, just imagine one for me!

I'm not sure it's selfish. I doubt most people know about it — Benkei

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Who doesn't know about the riots in Minneapolis. Air time matters.

the really poor can't afford either the Pixel 3 or the fairphone 3. — Benkei

True, I should be clear that I'm talking mainly about the people responsible for the prevailing discourse, most of whom could probably afford both. The actual poor might well buy second hand which doesn't harm anyone, but even there, social group pressure pushes for new crap rather than second-hand quality. There's still a small amount of responsibility (even a second hand Nike t-shirt does their advertising for them) but I don't think the extent to which the choices of the really poor might exacerbate their own situation is really a fair discussion, so I'm not going to go there.

From what I understand, the poor are so consumed with money problems that they actually don't have time to think about much else. Which is why they are often notoriously bad in making decision that will benefit them in the long run. — Benkei

Have you read a book called Scarcity by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir? If not I highly recommend it. It talks about this exact thing, plus goes into all the limited bandwidth stuff I've been talking about.

I’m curious your thoughts on my phone buying habits. I’ve discovered that when a model of iPhone gets discontinued, I can get one of those just-discontinued models for a dollar from my carrier. I presume because they were otherwise going to dispose of them. So when I find myself in need of a new phone, which is usually only when my existing one stops working for some reason that can’t be repaired, I get whatever just-discontinued thing that was probably about to be trash.

Responsible enough?

Probably not the place for a long discussion on this, but I tend to think the social acceptability of exploitation is the elephant in the room of most discussions about strategies to address it. I really wouldn't be seen dead with an Apple phone, not because of the actual suffering involved in their manufacture (as you say, that can be avoided by buying second hand, end-of-line etc), but because they, as a company, knowingly exploited 6 year old children for profit, I don't want to be associated with them.

Obviously the cost of the alternatives is part of the decision and many options will be out reach, but we'd be foolish to think that fact is the main determinant of people's purchasing choices. The second-hand Nike's are still chosen above the second-hand Ethletic because they are considered much cooler. Why is a brand which exploits children considered cool? That's the problem, I think, basic human decency seems to take second place to group identity.

"... my initial response is one of cynicism that a hashtag negates responsibility and achieves nothing other than virtue-signalling your woke credentials whilst continuing to wear your Nike trainers that were sewn together by tiny black fingers for a dollar a day in, as the President of the United States would put it, some "shithole country'" ...

~Jonathan Pie ("our man in London")

Black Lives Matter too. (video)

If the racist white person - I don’t mean the person who is examining his consciousness and so on - doesn’t understand that he or she is also a ‘race’: it’s also constructed, it’s also made, and it also has some kind of serviceability; but when you take it away - if I take your ‘race’ away - and there you are, all strung out, and all you’ve got is your little self - and what is that? What are you without racism? Are you any good? Are you still strong? Still smart? You still like yourself? …

If you can only be tall because somebody is on their knees, then you have a serious problem. And my feeling is: white people have a very, very serious problem. And they should start thinking about what they can do about it. Take me out of it … — Toni Morrison, interview (2002)

Your 'race' problem ... "I'm not a victim!" (video)

Black Lives Matter too. — 180 Proof

To the point and funny at the same time. Also why I watch the Daily Show.

In general I think artful commentary is usually ahead of the curve. Even "mainstream" art like tv shows. Here's family matters from 1994 that I came across:



EDIT: not to say that it wasn't highlighted often before. But it's difficult to find commentary like this in "mainstream" tv shows. And it shows the lack of progress in 25 years.

I never ever heard of the Tulsa and Rosewood massacres until last week. This is one of the shorter clips taking into account people's attention spans nowadays:


In 1990, when I was in primary school, the focus on the Dutch slavery past was on how violent the slave revolts were and how many Dutch people were killed in them. Not cool.

So here's all the academic work from the Leiden University by the African Studies Centre for anyone who is interested in Dutch slave history:

https://www.ascleiden.nl/content/webdossiers/dutch-involvement-transatlantic-slave-trade-and-abolition

A life condition where race has been made to matter is itself a form of injustice against the truth of our common nature — fdrake

It's pleasing to hear you say this. However, in the past and now, I have felt that a major issue with you is that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter. How am I to react to someone who favours language that highlights race and then also says that this is an injustice. Is it a necessary evil for you then?

Racism is a word that gets thrown around meaninglessly, the word has become quite political. So, what is real modern-day racism? I think this is the heart of it, "calling a spade a spade" as you put it. A narrative on race differences that assigns attributes, intentions and actions to races. Which elicits, promotes and validates opinions on races - and racism.

That's why people like Benkei are rather unforgivable, this kind of attitude can only lead to discrimination. We can justify hatred towards a race if what the race is, isn't just a skin colour. So what if what's said is true? That doesn't justify bringing it up in the wrong context or emphasising it as something important and especially not using it in your arguments. Modern-day racism is pointing out that white civilisation has done better than others, it's about judging Muslims as potential terrorists or being distrustful of black people due to crime rates and poverty.

So what if white people benefited from past and current injustices? Aren't they just people? The perpetuation of this is unacceptable, systemic racism is bad for everyone and immoral. Anger towards the inequity, which is the result of past injustices of which nothing can be done, only leads to an increase in the significance of race. It is not conducive to helping people and only hurting people. Undoing the inequity necessitates further the act of the government and the people to distinguish between the races, to acknowledge racial history and continue the injustice of race as a significance.

As I said previously, we can identify an existing problem and identify a practical solution. That's not what this is about, it's about the narrative, the framing and the dramatisation of race differences and race histories. Luckily, the best political option is also the moral one, which is invalidating interpretations on race.

This is the modern-day left, they complain about race being of significance to people in some contexts but in many contexts, they take it to be extremely important. Can't really have it both ways. Any conversation with someone like StreetlightX or Banno is like that, "oh no black writers" but then they have no reservations blaming either the whole West or an entire country for the actions of a handful of people or less.

It's pleasing to hear you say this. However, in the past and now, I have felt that a major issue with you is that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter. How am I to react to someone who favours language that highlights race and then also says that this is an injustice. Is it a necessary evil for you then? — Judaka

Highlighting that race matters when it shouldn't is much different from making race matter when it shouldn't. It's not my rhetoric that's causing systemic discrimination, is it?

You've used a lot of words to say "he who smelt it dealt it". How would you prefer the issues to be talked about?

Anyone who doesn't understand the significance of what 'systemic racism' is and why race matters in the US (and elsewhere) in the present context ought to watch this - which, notably, largely discusses the state of affairs before George Floyd's murder. Everything Mexie discusses here becomes analytically invisible were race to be artificially removed from the picture.

I'm sure you do that but I meant that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter and not that you highlight that race matters. You deny this? Calling a spade a spade, isn't that what you call it?

I can find common ground with lefties on some issues but as for identity politics and emphasising race differences, you alone might not do anything but these ideas will have devastating consequences in the future.

I'm sure you do that but I meant that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter and not that you highlight that race matters. You deny this? Calling a spade a spade, isn't that what you call it? — Judaka

I don't really know what you're talking about. Give me an example of something I've said that has done more harm than silence and ignorance on the issues.

I don't really know what you're talking about. — fdrake

He’s trying to tell you that by making race an issue you make the idea of race important. When it would be better, as everyone keeps saying, that there was no issue of race, that it shouldn’t exist. But you perpetuate the idea of race by making it an issue.

That's completely absurd. You think a social shut in who spends his time arguing on the internet is making race important to the extent you're criticising me for speaking about it rather than criticising the racist state of affairs. Like all this shit that's been going on would be so much better if I just shut up about it.

I’m not criticising you, I’m just clarifying what Judaka said. I might be wrong of course.

You can't talk about the poor, man. Because that makes the idea of poverty important and that's really what causes poverty. What a fucking joke.

Actually if you talk about bad things at all, that too causes bad things to happen. Because that's how reality works and is totally not how babies are placated.

In fact, just talking about sex probably is how babies are made!

Good luck with your new child.

You know you really are a couple of thugs.

I've been called sleazy, a racist, dishonest, stupid, unforgivable and a moron for asking questions and then I make a joke and I'm a "thug". Fuck you Brett for the hypocritical bullshit. That's hypocritical.

Stahp.

Heh, I'm not sure what you say does any good or any harm, you aren't in a position of power. I'm not sure what you want me to compare you to. All I can say is that your insistence on proactively bringing up race and gender is not conducive to making these things less relevant. You've even said you see identity politics as a start to something useful, what do you think identity politics is and what does it do? You read Benkei's essay and thought... he's calling a spade a spade?

I'm arguing about ideas on a philosophy forum, your impact on the world is a complete irrelevance.

I think he is talking about the lense of identity politics, where race is always a huge factor in any interaction with different races involved. (Especially with white and black people in the states). It adds to the problem because its creates a race issue where there isnt one (potentially, obviously race can still be a large factor it just shouldnt be assumed just because different races are involved).
Also, I think that Judaka means is talking about your personal impact on the world in the first quoted portion and talking about the identity politics Idealogy in the second quote.
Im not sure if you subscribe to identity politics in the way Judaka indicates but Im pretty sure thats what hes accusing you of.

You've misunderstood me, I didn't address "your" narrative, I spoke generally about how racism can be a narrative. A story that gives life to race and makes it more than an aesthetic.

The second quote isn't talking about you. Even if I disagree with some things, you quite obviously are not racist and you've already gone to some lengths with your language to show that.

As for your words, I don't know how this needs to be said but this philosophy forum isn't active enough for me to think you can have an impact here. Unless there's something I don't know about and you're involved in politics, I only discuss ideas and if there's a discussion about their greater impact it's because your ideas aren't just held by you. As is the case with identity politics and the continued emphasising on race and gender.

I don't need to care about race to oppose racism, discrimination, unfairness, bad policy or to consider solutions to problems that disproportionately impact a race of people. It's not that if you don't care about race then all those issues go away, it's that you don't create resistance to solutions by angering people. Not only white people who get angry because they feel attacked but people also get angry about the issues surrounding race and racial histories and they become angry and hateful rather than helpful. Then they further create resistance by being angry and aggressive. It's a sensitive topic.

Being angry and disgusted with racism isn't necessarily helpful at all, it depends on where that anger is channelled.

What brought this whole discussion about was the actions of a few police officers. — Harry Hindu

No! What made this boil over and explode were the actions of a few - as it is every time it happens. To get it to that point took the actions of damn near all over almost forever. And what weaves them all together into badness is complicity and lies.

The time for fixing it was a long, long time ago. So the question to you is, are you a fixer? Or are you a dissembler, a liar, a vicious apologist for vicious practices? And if you cannot lead or follow - not everyone can - have the decency to acknowledge history and fact, and be supportive from the sideline.

The idea of educational opportunity in the OP (from a thread merged into this one @Nuke) is a good one, imo. But it should be for all, again in my opinion. And the need for it is clear as day to anyone with eyes to see. Begrudge/deprive a person the resources/education to support themselves and you have even explicitly made a choice to either kill them or support them yourself. Your choice. No other options.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." When written it meant roughly you were free to go off and do your own thing. 340,000,000 million Americans later and it cannot mean that. Now, in a very real - and increasingly substantive - sense, his, your, and my - our - lives, liberties, and happinesses are all bound together.

Most folks have no - zero - grasp of how rich the rich are. What's coming, whether anyone likes it or not, is major readjustment. The only real questions are, how difficult and for whom. And how violent. Smart people like us philosophers and thinkers, however threadbare the claim may be, can anticipate the future - not that that will save us from the present, or should!

Y'know - even if it were entirely true that the mention of race "scares off" potential allies - what the fuck kind of "allies" are so pathetically self-involved that issues of racism end up being about their own hurt snowflake feelings? Exactly why is that not the problem, rather than the demand that everyone has to tip-toe around these self-absorbed pricks who, when faced with the overwhelming phenomenon of systemic racism 'discrimination', need to have their stupid fucking feelings placated? What even kind of argument is that supposed to be?

What kind of allies are so pathetically self-involved and care about their snowflake feelings? That sounds like most people to me.

idk maybe you need to meet less trash people.

I never ever heard of the Tulsa and Rosewood massacres until last week. — Benkei

The first I heard of them was in the opening of the first episode of the Watchmen TV show. At first I assumed it was a historical difference in the alternate timeline of that franchise, but then I looked up what “really” happened in Tulsa as I figured there must have been something significant if that was a point of historical divergence they chose to highlight... but nope, that’s what actually happened, holy shit, why didn’t we learn about this in school.