Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay, so you think the delivery person was reasonably mistaken about the nature of the encounter because your friend didn't intend to be racist, right?

I said that I wouldn't call the delivery guy unreasonable, not that I thought his mistake was reasonable. There's a middle ground between the two, and also a huge gulf into which "I have no idea what the delivery guy has experienced in his life in order to make him jump to that conclusion" falls, the existence of which makes any determination of reasonableness or lack thereof dodgy at best.

I'm having trouble working out what logic you're applying to make the first half of that sentence connect to the second half. The way you've written it means that it would logically follow that had my friend intended to be racist, then the delivery guy's mistake would be unreasonable. I don't see how that even makes sense, let alone recognise it as an opinion that I hold.

My point is that your friend's intent doesn't define the delivery persons experience.

Indeed not. That's why I explicitly said as much.

You can't look to your friend's purported intent and conclude that race didn't affect the interaction.

I've not even so much as implied that it didn't. Given that the entire story is about race affecting the interaction, I have no idea how you could have come to the conclusion that I thought that it didn't.

 

[qwints]

Rather the lack of intent is being implied by race not being a factor in the instigating comment.

Since the only way you know whether or not race was a factor in the comment is Squeegee's friend's stated intent, you're just saying the lack of intent is implied by the lack of intent.

Here the racism is somehow being carried around in the brain of the "victim", no?

Yes. Since the question is whether the delivery person encountered racism or not, it's absolutely the case that the 'racism' is defined by his experience of it. More broadly, racism, as I'm using it, doesn't require a racist. It requires societal constructs that privilege or disadvantage socially constructed classes. I like Crommunist's explanation in his posts, Racism Confounds us All and Cracking the Code.

To use a very mundane example that I'm familiar with, sports announcers use different language for players of different races. For example, baseball announcers tend to use 'scrappy' to refer to white players and 'over-aggressive' to refer to non-white players. In addition, baseball journalists tend to attribute white players' success to hard work and black players' success to innate talent. These announces are probably not consciously differentiating along racial lines, but the different outcomes show up in the aggregate.

 

[qwints]

Squeegee, you've characterized the encounter as a false positive. I read that as you saying that the delivery person thought he encountered racism, but that he was wrong. That he was one of the people who thought, initially, that he'd encountered some form of prejudice when he actually hadn't.

In logical terms - if racist intent, then racist action.

I've been trying to say that the delivery person could be correct about encountering racism regardless of your friend's intent. I think this disagrees with your claim that he was mistaken.

Some of this may be getting terms confused, since you say that there were racial implications to the 'joke' although your friend wasn't consciously aware of them at the time. Can we agree that those racial implications are important and have an effect regardless of your friend's intent?

 

[Ocelot]

Since the only way you know whether or not race was a factor in the comment is Squeegee's friend's stated intent, you're just saying the lack of intent is implied by the lack of intent.

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's possible for someone to perceive racism where none exists.

I think the given example as described gives a plausible scenario where this would be possible. I make no claim as to the reality of the situation either Squeegee or his friend could be congenital liars for all I know but it makes no difference to the fact that the scenario being described demonstrates the possibility of a false positive.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can we agree that those racial implications are important and have an effect regardless of your friend's intent?

I can see how in the particular case I mentioned that someone could, in good faith, be genuinely offended. But I would still maintain that the intent, in this particular scenario, is the important factor. I don't think there's anything inherently racist about the phrase "you people", and nor do I think there's anything inherently racist about jokingly saying to someone that they should have gone round to the back entrance. I would also point out that there's a difference between an implication and an inference.

You seem to be saying that if someone from an ethnic minority perceives there to be racism that that means that there necessarily is racism, although there may be no racists involved. Is that correct?

So, what about the woman who was offended by someone's use of the word "niggardly" because it sounds a bit like "******"? The two words have no etymology in common, no definition in common, and no usage in common. They are completely different words which happen to sound similar.

Does this woman's offence at hearing the word "niggardly" mean that the word is therefore racist?

 

[recursive prophet]

What does that image conjure for you? Hey look, that person is different, I could argue about the specifics, but instead I will demean them as a person, call them poster children for failure and what have you. Neither of them is posting to you, or here in your space. Neither is seeking your attention. Yet you (specific you and general you of too many people on this thread) seek them out to point and to laugh. It is disgusting. The basest form of human nature, shy of physical violence. Your continued engagement in it diminishes everyone involved. Especially on a board that has such specific rules (read claimed ideals) about personal attacks.

You aren't being skeptical, you are not engaging their ideas. You are just languishing in a continuous ad hominem fallacy.

So how about some links to support your 'personal attacks' claim Apos? And how is anyone here "posting to" them? Are either members active on this thread? I tried "engaging their ideas" and was banned amid jokes and put downs I could no longer respond to directly. You do love to always include some strawmen in your replies. But still I don't really find you disgusting; just quite naive and close minded.

"Intellectual bullies" is figure of speech, I think meaning not physical bullies, though "emotional bullies" may fit them more accurately.

Indeed it does, and thanks for the correction. I certainly didn't mean to imply they are in any way intellectuals.

 

[Ocelot]

Qwints,

1) It is possible for people of different races to interact without racism
2) It is possible to experience some things that aren't real
3) A racist incident is one of the things that can be experienced without being real
4) It is possible for there to be a racist incident without racist intent.

3 is being asserted and you are responding by stating 4. Yet the two are not exclusive. I hold all 4 to be true.

It does not follow that racism being experienced implies that racism happened.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes. Since the question is whether the delivery person encountered racism or not, it's absolutely the case that the 'racism' is defined by his experience of it.


More broadly, racism, as I'm using it, doesn't require a racist. It requires societal constructs that privilege or disadvantage socially constructed classes. I like Crommunist's explanation in his posts, Racism Confounds us All and Cracking the Code.

I'm failing to follow... If the "victim" of the racism is disadvantaged by some kind of sociotal construct, then surely this is something that exists outside the head of the "victim" and can be discussed in absolute terms? It's orthogonal to the intent and interpretation of everybody involved.

If the "victim" believes he/she was disadvantaged in a situation in which they were not disadvantaged then what are we saying... the sitation is still racist because we believe the "victim" interpreted the sitation as they did because of societal factors external to the encounter?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's possible for someone to perceive racism where none exists.

I think the given example as described gives a plausible scenario where this would be possible. I make no claim as to the reality of the situation either Squeegee or his friend could be congenital liars for all I know but it makes no difference to the fact that the scenario being described demonstrates the possibility of a false positive.

Ah, but in the social justice echo chamber it's impossible for no racism to exist. It's much like the doctrine of original sin. If you think you aren't racist and privileged that just means you need your consciousness raised with regard to your secret racism. So anyone playing the race card is automatically in the right, regardless of anyone's actual intent, because unconscious racism means everyone is always being racist all the time.

It's completely black and white. Oops, there goes my racism again.

 

[squealpiggy]

People believing they have encountered racism where they haven't. Such as would have been the case in the example I gave, had the two people involved not sorted it out to everybody's satisfaction.

I watched a video:



Now this video specifies that the man getting into an elevator is black, therefore this woman's actions are attributed to racism. But what is her behaviour exactly? She is stood in the middle of an elevator. Someone gets on. So... she moves to the side and clutches her belongings. The first action is politeness. You make room for the newcomer. The second is a precaution against sharing a small space with a stranger.

The black man in the video attributes her behaviour to race but has not considered what this woman's actions would be if a white woman got onto the elevator instead.

Of course it may have nothing to do with race but everything to do with sex. Because a man on an elevator? Have you seen what caffeine can do to your blood pressure!?

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's possible for someone to perceive racism where none exists.

I think the given example as described gives a plausible scenario where this would be possible. I make no claim as to the reality of the situation either Squeegee or his friend could be congenital liars for all I know but it makes no difference to the fact that the scenario being described demonstrates the possibility of a false positive.

Another situation is when people are convinced that somebody speaking in a foreign language are talking about them. Let's use an example that has nothing to do with skin colour: Someone with an English accent walks into a pub in rural Wales. Notices that all of the conversations are in Welsh. Decides that they are only speaking Welsh to prevent the newcomer from understanding what they're saying. And assumes they are being discriminated against.

They perceive a xenophobic reaction to their presence. When in actuality it's just people speaking a language they don't understand.

 

[luchog]

The black man in the video attributes her behaviour to race but has not considered what this woman's actions would be if a white woman got onto the elevator instead.

Of course it may have nothing to do with race but everything to do with sex. Because a man on an elevator?

See, that's what gets me about the whole victimization olympics performed by SJWs. How do you interpret that situation? Is the women being racist? But what about the man, wouldn't he be demonstrating his own sexism against the woman by assuming racism and not allowing for the woman's justifiable reaction to a man getting on the elevator, because Schrodinger's Rapist?

But would Schrodinger's Rapist applied to a black male also be racist?

What if the black man is wearing a suit, indicating a higher social class, and the woman is from a working class/underclass environment? Isn't she being oppressed by having to make room for him, or does he deserve to expect others to make way for him, because cultural racism?

What if the black man is a police officer? What if the woman is Hispanic or Jewish (often mistaken for evil Whitey)? How does that change the dynamic? How does her white privilege compare with his male privilege? His experience of racism vs. her experience of sexism?

The sheer irrationality of the whole thing leaves me confused; and wondering how one can even begin to keep track of all that stuff even with a scorecard.

 

[Amadanb]

I consider both of them friends, and while I do not agree with either all the time, I respect both of them. Both of them have taught me things about myself, and the world, I would not have known without having met them. Both have lived through levels of persecution that I have not and so I refrain from passing judgment. Both have written thoughtful and thought provoking posts repeatedly. Both have also told those they perceived as threats off in no uncertain language. However it is only a skewed view of the latter that gets any representation off the board. Having known them about a year and talking with them on a wide variety of topics I dare say I know them better than the heckle squad here. Neither would be lining people up on a wall. Both would gladly enact a much more socialized form of government. But if I had to deal with a fraction of the excrement that gets sent their way I know I would be a damn sight more hostile.

I don't doubt that ceepolk has had to deal with a fair amount of excrement, as a black woman. But Setar?

As far as I can tell, Setar's "oppression" consists of wanting to sit in his apartment all day smoking weed and playing Skyrim, and being angry that capitalism won't let him.

So, fine, he's perfectly entitled to advocate for some form of socialism that allows able-bodied people not to work if they don't have the "spoons" (and yes, I am putting scare-quotes around the term in Setar's case) to do so. But he's only "oppressed" to the same degree that the rest of us in this society are. In other words, he is no less privileged than anyone else.

That certainly doesn't stop him from invoking "capitalist privilege" in order to try to shut down anyone who doesn't share his passion for Marxism.

When I say I think those two would put people up against a wall... okay, ceepolk I am not entirely sure about, but I do suspect that if you handed her a big red button that would make all white people magically drop dead, she'd give serious consideration to pressing it.

Setar, though? Listen to his screeds about how much he hates liberals for not being radical enough. Yeah, I absolutely believe he'd be totally down with purges and forcible "reeducation," and I would not be surprised if he actively fantasizes about it.

Those two alone are about 60% of my reason for deciding that A+ is not really for me except on a very casual basis.

 

[Stout]

Ah, but in the social justice echo chamber it's impossible for no racism to exist. It's much like the doctrine of original sin. If you think you aren't racist and privileged that just means you need your consciousness raised with regard to your secret racism. So anyone playing the race card is automatically in the right, regardless of anyone's actual intent, because unconscious racism means everyone is always being racist all the time.

It's completely black and white. Oops, there goes my racism again.

That pretty much nails it. Throw in color blind racism just to confuse things and automatically every white person living in western society is a racist by default.

Technically, white SJWs have to admit to being racist because they're members of a racist society however you'll rarely see them doing this. This is one of the reasons white SJWs go all out on the intersectionality thing and reject as much as they can about our western society so they can demonstrate that they're not members of that society that they were, unfortunately, born into.

What Squeegee's friend could* have said was. "Excuse me sir, but we usually receive our deliveries at the opposite entrance."

* Of course this could be analyzed as erasing the person by talking about the material goods rather than addressing the actions of the delivery guy and therefore racist. There's no "winning"

SJ is a rigged game and fun to play if you know the rules but what's even more fun is to watch the idealists being unable to live in their inner fantasy worlds that they conjured up for themselves. This is why they have to invent concepts like punching up/down so they can indulge in the bigotry they claim to despise in others.

 

[Stout]

As far as I can tell, Setar's "oppression" consists of wanting to sit in his apartment all day smoking weed and playing Skyrim, and being angry that capitalism won't let him.

Setar is genderqueer, I don't really know in what capacity though, had social anxiety disorder, was bullied in school, has a crappy relationship with his mother and is generally pissed off at the world because society won't let him do everything he wants all the time.

So, yea, his life wasn't like on TV, welcome to the real world.

 

[brodski]

See, that's what gets me about the whole victimization olympics performed by SJWs. How do you interpret that situation? Is the women being racist? But what about the man, wouldn't he be demonstrating his own sexism against the woman by assuming racism and not allowing for the woman's justifiable reaction to a man getting on the elevator, because Schrodinger's Rapist?

But would Schrodinger's Rapist applied to a black male also be racist?

What if the black man is wearing a suit, indicating a higher social class, and the woman is from a working class/underclass environment? Isn't she being oppressed by having to make room for him, or does he deserve to expect others to make way for him, because cultural racism?

What if the black man is a police officer? What if the woman is Hispanic or Jewish (often mistaken for evil Whitey)? How does that change the dynamic? How does her white privilege compare with his male privilege? His experience of racism vs. her experience of sexism?

The sheer irrationality of the whole thing leaves me confused; and wondering how one can even begin to keep track of all that stuff even with a scorecard.

would this scorecard help? http://aseasonedplateofmurder.tumblr.com/post/37223757218/privilege-hierarchy

 

[Empress]

would this scorecard help? http://aseasonedplateofmurder.tumblr.com/post/37223757218/privilege-hierarchy

Wow. Naturally she falls at the bottom. What a surprise. I don't know what Pan/Demi is, but apparently that's the way to go if you're an SJW. Interesting that there are no Pan/Demi Males.

I'm still puzzling over this nugget of wisdom, however:

So that means when a man rapes a woman that it is always rape.

I'm so glad she let us know.

 

[Amadanb]

would this scorecard help? http://aseasonedplateofmurder.tumblr.com/post/37223757218/privilege-hierarchy

I suspect a Poe. "Demisexual" is a giveaway if nothing else.

 

[Skiltch]

Wow. Naturally she falls at the bottom. What a surprise. I don't know what Pan/Demi is, but apparently that's the way to go if you're an SJW. Interesting that there are no Pan/Demi Males.

I'm still puzzling over this nugget of wisdom, however:



I'm so glad she let us know.

Demisexuals are people who claim that they 'do not experience sexual attraction unless they experience an emotional attraction.' They don't feel attraction to pretty bodies, they claim, but are only attracted to those with good personalities. Alternately, they might be people on tumblr who want to feel special and so invent a 'better' sexuality for themselves which also lets them pretend to be oppressed by a society that allegedly is geared towards hook-up culture, one-night stands, and lusting after people's bodies without getting to know them. Hard to say. But any speculation that this is just a way for a straight cis person to pretend to be oppressed is of course extremely offensive and erasing and all that jazz.

Pansexuals are people who are attracted to others of any gender. (Bisexual is being attracted either to male or female, pansexuals allow for other identities than just the binary).

 

[Empress]

Skitch, putting the E in JREF!!

Very insightful post on all fronts. Thank you.

 

[qwints]

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's possible for someone to perceive racism where none exists.

I think this is the crux of the discussion. What do you mean by racism not existing or not being real?

You seem to be saying that if someone from an ethnic minority perceives there to be racism that that means that there necessarily is racism, although there may be no racists involved. Is that correct?/QUOTE]

Sure.