This man has such-and-such phenotypes, therefor he has this-or-that experience, behavior, beliefs, and so on”, is the logic of racism and other forms of prejudice, and I see no reason to continue using it. — NOS4A2

Black men are telling you about their experiences on an almost daily basis. Describing the world as it is through the eyes of another as a result of listening is not reinforcing racism or prejudice at all, it's learning to understand what the world is like "as a black person" through empathy. If you don't understand what they're going through, you can't help them.

Your ignoring the reality of racism as it exists today does nothing to change it.

Yeah, you just have a history of allying yourself with those who welcome racists with open arms. It makes it hard to take anything you say about race seriously. One suspects an ulterior motive, but one isn't interested enough to follow up on the suspicion.

If all you can do is concern yourself with your own suspicions, it says more about you than it does about me or my views.

Black men are telling you about their experiences on an almost daily basis. Describing the world as it is through the eyes of another as a result of listening is not reinforcing racism or prejudice at all, it's learning to understand what the world is like "as a black person" through empathy. If you don't understand what they're going through, you can't help them.

Your ignoring the reality of racism as it exists today does nothing to change it.

Some individuals are, sure, and others are not. The only way to get around the inductive fallacy inherent in your thinking is to make unwarranted, and, as I have argued, racist assumptions.

I haven’t ignored racism at all. What I ignore is the race-consciousness and it’s perversions.

This is what I've been saying for awhile now and is the foundation of the problem as stated by ↪frank - politics - dividing people based on identity and then making people think that everyone else that doesn't share your identity is out to get you. It's no different than religion. — Harry Hindu

Well, it works well for those in power wanting to hold on to the status quo.

Why have Americans getting truly together under banners like "We are the 99%" or so when you can make a basically a class issue a race issue? Even if race and povetry do go hand in hand in the US, it goes even more with class. Yet talking about "White privilege" goes so well with poor white people literally called "White trash" in the US that the Republicans will surely say about "the other side" saying how privileged they are. No wonder there are so many Trump supporters. Who cares about what actually people really try to say when strawman arguments rule the discourse?

Anyway, if you have so much discontent towards how things are in the country, both from the left and the right, make sure that the opposition will be divided and incapable of unifying. Has worked in other countries, actually.

I've come to the conclusion that the polarization of American politics is an active if not openly declared strategy (or policy) implemented by the two ruling parties to stay in power. They only ease the tension if some nutcase comes along and starts shooting politicians of one or the other party (as has already happened). Otherwise, make the other side as evil as possible in the "culture war".

I genuinely hope this political strategy isn't mimicked by political parties in my country. Unfortunately the media copies everything, so I don't have my hopes up.

Yeah, but I think that saysmoreaboutyou thanit doesaboutme.

That there is systemic racism still allows for individual experience to deviate from the norm. This is not really the point of the debate. This is a social problem, not an individual one. You're confusing observing those social facts with prejudice and race consciousness and mistakenly believe articulating those observations contribute to said racism.

I'll get back to my original point: not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.

EDIT: how would you go about resolving the systemic racism that many (most) black us citizens claim they are experiencing?

"There are so many ways of being despicable it quite makes one’s head spin. But the way to be really despicable is to be contemptuous of other people’s pain." ~James Baldwin, Giovanni's Room

NOS, your doublespeak is some vile, racist, shit.

I haven’t ignored racism at all. What I ignore is the race-consciousness and it’s perversions. — NOS4A2

I get it though, like @Harry Hindu et al, you're on the victor's ... conquistador's ... crusader's ... exploiter-discriminator's "team". Denying the accumulated historical and systemically adverse effects on those "other teams" is par for the course, part of the strategy for how y'all play this millennium-old game. I for one am more pleased than not, NOS, you've not been banned yet since your post history (certainly the last couple of years) is an exemplary archival specimen of what Baldwin calls being "really despicable".

I don’t have the habit of identifying myself with specious classifications, and like Orwell, “placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests”. That’s your bag, and the habit of racists throughout history.

STFD.

There's two sides to the coin. — frank

But you were talking about string theory. Can you make up your mind which analogy you're going to use? By narrowing it down to only two (views), limits the possible options or solutions you can think of or understand.

Emotion traps people. We want there to be recognition of racial bias in society so that DAs can't get away with just ignoring the murders of black men like Ahmaud Arbery.

But emotion clicks in and says that all white people are complicit, which isn't true, but it satisfies a bruised, frustrated heart to say it, and we just forget the more abysmal truth. — frank

The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery are in jail. Who else has killed a black person and isn't in jail, or isn't being hunted down to put in jail? The knee-jerk reaction to label every altercation between a black person and a white person as racist just makes the word, "racist" meaningless and makes it more difficult to fight real racism. Blacks and whites can disagree and it not be racist.

Labeling all white people as complicit is fighting racism with racism. In what ways are whites complicit, that blacks aren't? Don't blacks keep voting for the same Democrats for 50+ years that are part of this system of racism?

WHO is racist? Point them out so that we can fight them together. Calling everyone racist doesn't make anyone want to help you fight racism.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas?

the foundation of the problem...
— Harry Hindu

... isn't identity politics, it's politicizing some issue, and that can be done with practically anything. Currently popular is vaccination vs antivaccination. Many Trumpian antivac supporters are themselves vaccinated, though they may decline to admit it, inanely claiming HIPAA rights violations or whatever, and apparently could care less if a portion of their followers die from not being vaccinated.

Even if there were a significant risk with getting vaccinated, shouldn't Trumpian "conservatives" be willing to take a health risk in order to get the economy going full-steam? Isn't that what a brave patriot would do for their nation's economy? That seemed to be their courageous logic at the beginning of the pandemic. How did it get turned around? If you have no actual principles and are merely a group-thinking follower, the Trumps of the world can make you dance like a mindless puppet on strings. — praxis

Yes, it's politicizing identity. What do you think anti-vac and vaccinated are, if not identities? It's using labels as weapons against your political opponents.

A large percentage of unvaccinated are blacks. Why aren't they getting vaccinated? Maybe we should ask people why they aren't getting vaccinated instead of demonizing them when you have no idea what their reasoning is? What gives you the right to determine the medical decisions of others? Should others make medical decisions for you?

Well, it works well for those in power wanting to hold on to the status quo. — ssu

As such, essentially every government in the world is an oligarchy where the elite few rule the many and limit and strictly control the new members to their club. Just think if you or I were able to become president - what they did to Trump would be nothing compared to what they would do to people like us looking to really change things.

Anyway, if you have so much discontent towards how things are in the country, both from the left and the right, make sure that the opposition will be divided and incapable of unifying. Has worked in other countries, actually. — ssu

Dividing is just practicing what they are doing. You divide people by labeling them. Stop labeling. No more Democrats or Republicans.

I've come to the conclusion that the polarization of American politics is an active if not openly declared strategy (or policy) implemented by the two ruling parties to stay in power. They only ease the tension if some nutcase comes along and starts shooting politicians of one or the other party (as has already happened). Otherwise, make the other side as evil as possible in the "culture war". — ssu

I agree. The argument that voting for a third party is a vote for the other party is part of this strategy to scare you into voting for one of the two. But when you see both as equally evil, then voting third, fourth, fifth, etc. party (or just no parties) is the only reasonable option.

As such, essentially every government in the world is an oligarchy where the elite few rule the many and limit and strictly control the new members to their club. — Harry Hindu

Yes, essentially it is like that. (I think that Monaco as a tiny city state can have basically the monarch as head of state as every Monegasque can go and visit him if they have a problem.)

Just think if you or I were able to become president - what they did to Trump would be nothing compared to what they would do to people like us looking to really change things. — Harry Hindu

Ummm....what did they do to Trump, actually?

The GOP utterly failed to do the choreographed selection of the party nominee (unlike the Democrats, who can rely on the ever loyal Bernie to lure in progressives and social democrats) and got a wild card with Trump. And the party is now in a state of disarray, but still holding on two the duopoly.

And let's face it: many in both parties would likely want to change things, but once the dance is going on with a certain tune, you cannot start to tango when everybody else is doing a square dance. There is no evil solid entity lurking in the shadows, no Illuminati. There are just people who think they can control the dance. Yes, there is a power elite in every country. But don't think they agree on things and can act in an uniform fashion. It's more like things happen and the elite accepts it or tries to manage somehow the process.

The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery are in jail. — Harry Hindu

Ok stop. He's in jail because a reporter deemed the facts suspicious, looked into it, and raised a stink, THEN they investigated the murder like they were supposed to.

The knee-jerk reaction to label every altercation between a black person and a white person as racist just makes the word, "racist" meaningless and makes it more difficult to fight real racism. Blacks and whites can disagree and it not be racist.

Labeling all white people as complicit is fighting racism with racism. In what ways are whites complicit, that blacks aren't? Don't blacks keep voting for the same Democrats for 50+ years that are part of this system of racism?

WHO is racist? Point them out so that we can fight them together. Calling everyone racist doesn't make anyone want to help you fight racism.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas? — Harry Hindu

I don't know what this diatribe is about. Sounds like you're taking something personally.

What do you think anti-vac and vaccinated are, if not identities? — Harry Hindu

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions often taken to express tribal solidarity. I agree that the foundation of this is like religion and the value it places on social solidarity over truth or actual principles.

Maybe we should ask people why they aren't getting vaccinated instead of demonizing them when you have no idea what their reasoning is? — Harry Hindu

I don't think that it's particularly controversial to claim that the economic recovery would be aided by as many people getting vaccinated as quickly as possible. I've heard people claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the cure, even for the elderly. I have yet to hear what I think is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated. Do you know of any?

What gives you the right to determine the medical decisions of others? — Harry Hindu

Not exactly sure what you're talking about, the Food & Drug Administration, for example, consistently makes this sort of determination. Prior to the existence of the FDA all sorts of toxins were sold to the public without their knowledge.

More relevant to this topic, I assume that you believe employers should have the right to make hiring decisions based on race, sex, age, or any other criteria.

Should others make medical decisions for you? — Harry Hindu

No one is forced to get vaccinated, though the choice to not get vaccinated has an impact on society. Judging by the evidence I think it's irresponsible to not get vaccinated. Also judging by the evidence, I think it's irresponsible to deny climate change or systemic racism.

I have yet to hear what I think is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated. Do you know of any? — praxis

That some of the vaccines in use are of very new technology and different from classic vaccinations and we don't know what the long term effects of these are? Or that the person is a young child? Especially if the two times vaccinated still can spread new variants, I still think there opening on having a frank discussion about vaccinations, just as with medicine and health care in general. I'm personally not an anti-vaxxer, but I do value a public debate about vaccinations.

You see, the thing you portrayed well is the way we can also stop a discussion:

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions taken to express tribal solidarity. — praxis

I do know who you are talking about, but that categorization can be used quickly to squelch any debate of quite valid issues. There is obviously a reason that we need an open discussion about these issues. For starters, we shouldn't respond like an internet computer algorithm that if we see the words "taxation", "deficits", "vaccination", "white privilege", "multiculturalism", we instantly assume what the person thinks and believes and categorize him or her.

:up:

(Caveat: so far, none of the big pharma (mRNA) Covid-19 vaccines have been given full approval by the US FDA or any its international counterparts – they are to high degrees (so far) symptomatically effective yet with undetermined long-term side-effects (re: safety?). Scientifically, rather than politically, it makes more sense to wait for an approved vaccine – I'm a long hauler by the way – conscientiously caught between a rock and hard place. Yes, it's a tradeoff of risk vs uncertainty (N.N.Taleb))

Harry is a racist apologist and MAGA-moron, that's what he's about. Read his post history on this thread alone (if you're bored enough and can stomach it). Harry & NOS are just like the buddy movie Hate & Hater. Systemic racism-denial is the quintessential version of Holocaust-denial (much more insidious than naively vapid anti-vaxxers or flat earthers).

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions taken to express tribal solidarity.
— praxis

I do know who you are talking about, but that categorization can be used quickly to squelch any debate of quite valid issues. — ssu

I edited what you quoted to say “positions often taken…” The telltale sign is a lack of evidence or reasonable argument.

Color-blindness didn't work. It became a denial of separate experiences under the false promise of equity.

(Caveat: so far, none of the big pharma (mRNA) Covid-19 vaccines have been given full approval by the US FDA or any its international counterparts – they are to high degrees (so far) symptomatically effective yet with undetermined long-term side-effects (re: safety?). Scientifically, rather than politically, it makes more sense to wait for an approved vaccine – I'm a long hauler by the way – conscientiously caught between a rock and hard place. Yes, it's a tradeoff of risk vs uncertainty (N.N.Taleb)) — 180 Proof

Might there not be long-term side-effects from contracting COVID? In any case, the point I was trying to make by bringing this up is that at the beginning of the pandemic Trumpers were saying that Americans should be willing to make sacrifices and take health risks in order to protect the economy. Theoretically, if everyone got vaccinated the pandemic would be greatly reduced if not eliminated and the economy would no longer be affected by it. What happened to their brave capitalistic patriotism? I’m suggesting that positions are often based in social solidarity and following a perceived authority rather than facts or principles.

I take your point but, as I suspect you know, tr45h and his MAGA-zombies bloviate bullshit as a point of partisan pride in order to be 'chaos agents', consistent only in their (anti-evidence, anti-science, anti-democratic, anti-economic, anti-guvmint) populist inconsistencies.

As far Covid-19, vaccinated or not there's no evidence (yet) I'm aware of that the long-term effects of being infected are avoidable. The vaccines only suppress symptoms and neither prevent becoming infected nor infecting others. Masks, distancing, hand washing alone overwhelmingly reduce transmissibility. Pathetically, my libido got me infected four months back and yes I damn well regret those hook-ups with an "ex" who is twenty odd years younger (thus, in a different risk pool!) and was asymptomatic. At my age, still thinking with my ****?! :sad:

The vaccines only suppress symptoms and neither prevent becoming infected nor infecting others. — 180 Proof

Yes, I was wrong to theorize that it could be eliminated through vaccination, though it would all but eliminate fear of severe symptoms and no longer cripple the economy, perhaps. The way things are going, it looks like we’re headed towards limited lockdowns again.

So, looking back to the OP and what hs been said, has any conclusions been made so far?

IMO, until transmission is completely stopped by shutting down nations for weeks or months at a time simultaneously, the pandemic will continue on in waves in whack-a-mole fashion mutating potentially into more virulant and lethal strains the longer it is transmissible. We are watching human stupidity at its height as we fatally deepen this self-inflicted wound on a global scale. Periodic shutdowns are here to stay. Vaccine boosters (big pharma revenue streams) are here to stay. Socioeconomic instability in most, if not all, G20 nations will rise to crisis levels. And climate change runs amok because our heads are so far up each other's colons due to this rolling pandemic. :mask:

Interesting twitter post I saw a few days back. Not sure how to post the image so I'll just re-write it here:

"due to my autism and OCD, I actually do feel uncomfortable around black people. i have always felt extremely sad, uncomfortable, anxious, and sometimes I feel really scared of the fact that some of them are kind of creepy and the men are really really scary."

I'm very confused as to who the oppressed group is here and would welcome thoughts on this.

I suppose you could say that this person is oppressed by their mental disorders and maladaptive perceptions.

Socialized bigotry reinforced, even amplified, by (untreated?) cognitive disabilities. It's the first part that's the threat to (danger for) Black people.

My own conclusion remains the same. The criticism of color-blindness remains unproven and unprovoked. The idea that one will ignore racism by refusing to include racial taxonomies into his thinking is false on its face, because racializing people, viewing them as a member of this or that racial group and deriving assumptions thereby, is the problem to begin with. In short, one cannot banish racism by evoking it.

I agree.



It's the author's mental disorders plus the presence of black people that triggers the oppression.

The idea that one will ignore racism by refusing to include racial taxonomies into his thinking is false on its face, because racializing people, viewing them as a member of this or that racial group and deriving assumptions thereby, is the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

No, the problem is taking advantage of a marginalized group. Ignoring an advantage allows the privileged group to keep whatever advantage they have.

It's the author's mental disorders plus the presence of black people that triggers the oppression. — K Turner

Their emotional reactions are maladaptive (not appropriate to the circumstances). Maladaptive triggers can be inexplicable and literally anything. I developed panic disorder at one point in my youth so I have some firsthand experience in the matter.