Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black man

[Emily's Cat]

Self reflection can be difficult sometimes.

This seems like a snarky sneaky way of trying to insinuate that I want to maintain my own privilege relative to others.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The flowery words and declarations are all very nice but I have two questions:

1. Who will be in charge of distributing out privilege more fairly?
2. Who will decide the criteria of who qualifies for the endowment of more privilege?

Enquiring minds need to know as it hasn't happened yet after all this time.

Who is in charge of distributing privilege right now?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Historically, ensuring that black Americans remain in poverty is been the chief tool of oppressing these people, especially after the more explicit tools of slavery, and later disenfranchisement, had been eliminated.

Taking measures to reduce poverty would not exclusively benefit black Americans, but it would disproportionately help black Americans exactly because of way that this community has been the victims of oppressive economic policy rooted in racism.

True. Address not just current poverty, but the underlying issues that perpetuate it. I'd like to see focus on making pre-school and day care widely and freely available, and a focus on childhood nutrition. There's a challenge with family dynamics that I really don't know how to even begin tackling. Generally speaking, there is less parental support for homework and schooling in impoverished homes. In part, it's because the parents don't have the luxury of the time needed to provide that support, but there also tends to be a lack of value placed on education. Maybe some kind of after-school support, tutoring, an assistance? I don't know.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, that is either ignorance; or else it is irony; or else the "again" is silent -- call it poetic license!

It's a line from the chorus of "Rule, Britannia!". If "God Saves The Queen" is ever retired as the national anthem, "Rule, Britannia!" will almost certainly replace it.

 

[wareyin]

This seems like a snarky sneaky way of trying to insinuate that I want to maintain my own privilege relative to others.

Wait, are you saying that you did understand the comment in relation to this thread now? Good.

 

[Chanakya]

It's a line from the chorus of "Rule, Britannia!".

That's what I was (jokingly) referring to.

If "God Saves The Queen" is ever retired as the national anthem, "Rule, Britannia!" will almost certainly replace it.

She isn't retiring, ever. No matter how much her increasingly impatient desperate son wants her to.

(Nor should she. Sweet old lady, she's the one good thing about an otherwise despicable institution -- or at least, the still living vestige of a despicable institution.)

---

How does that work, by the way? Once the queen is replaced with a king -- or, earlier, when there had been a king -- do/did people sing "God save the king" instead of "God save the queen"? Or will they (did they) carry on with "God save the queen" regardless?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wait, are you saying that you did understand the comment in relation to this thread now? Good.

My default is to NOT assume malice from other posters.

It's also completely off base and wrong... as well as being pretty clear evidence that you didn't bother to actually read my posts. I mean, sure, it's a lot easier if you just assume that another poster who doesn't fully agree with you is a PoS and deserving of insult and ridicule... but it's seldom an accurate assumption.

 

[Thermal]

My default is to NOT assume malice from other posters... I mean, sure, it's a lot easier if you just assume that another poster who doesn't fully agree with you is a PoS and deserving of insult and ridicule... but it's seldom an accurate assumption.

Bravo. This sentiment should appear at the page heading every time a poster hits 'quote'

(Mr Darat sir, please excuse the brief off-topic)

 

[wareyin]

My default is to NOT assume malice from other posters.

It's also completely off base and wrong... as well as being pretty clear evidence that you didn't bother to actually read my posts. I mean, sure, it's a lot easier if you just assume that another poster who doesn't fully agree with you is a PoS and deserving of insult and ridicule... but it's seldom an accurate assumption.

I also don't assume malice from other posters. Whee! Didn't patting ourselves on the back feel good?

I do read other posters posts and form an opinion of what they are saying based on their actual years long participation in these types of threads. I understand that this upsets some posters, but I assure you it is not an attempt at insult or ridicule.

 

[blutoski]

My default is to NOT assume malice from other posters.

And this is Critical Thinking 101. Philosophy term is [Principle of Charity]." Sadly thin on the ground on this forum.

One of the reasons I drifted away from organized skepticism is that it turned out Skeptics were just as ****** at critical thinking as everybody else, if not actually slightly worse.