Cont: President Trump: Part 3

[Belz...]

The real hinge of Emilies argument is about white fragility. Being called a racist is a huge insult way more than playing to racial stereotypes and basing your whole world view on those stereotypes could ever justify.

Well, here you're assuming that the people being called racists are actual racists. I don't know about you, but being called a racist is slightly irksome when you're not.

 

[3point14]

So you can't call someone a racist merely for all the racist acts they commit. Because the insult in now warranted merely by the nature of their actions.

I find it really, really odd. Possibly because I'm not in the US.

it seems to go something like this:

- Dave (cos we've moved on from Steve) says something that reveals him to be a mssive racist, what do you do?

- I call Dave a racist

- What are you insulting Dave for?



I wonder, does it work like this too:

- Dave (cos we've moved on from Steve) says something that reveals him to be a mssive sexist, what do you do?

- I call Dave a sexist

- What are you insulting Dave for?

 

[3point14]

Well, here you're assuming that the people being called racists are actual racists. I don't know about you, but being called a racist is slightly irksome when you're not.

Yeah, but the premise was a man saying something racist in a meeting. We weren't dealing with guesses or speculation, the hypothetical was pretty specific.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, here you're assuming that the people being called racists are actual racists. I don't know about you, but being called a racist is slightly irksome when you're not.

And of course it is quite irksome when you are really racist, don't admit it to yourself and so think you are not racist.

You can't be labeled as a racist merely for the few racist acts you have done.

Most racist do not self identify as racists, and so are highly insulted by being called racists because it is most irksome to be called racist when you know you are not. That is the whole problem, that it is treated as such a huge insult that you can not point out someones racism ever, it just shuts down the conversation.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, but the premise was a man saying something racist in a meeting. We weren't dealing with guesses or speculation, the hypothetical was pretty specific.

Ok I thought Turtle was refering to her general argument.

 

[Belz...]

And of course it is quite irksome when you are really racist, don't admit it to yourself and so think you are not racist.

You can't be labeled as a racist merely for the few racist acts you have done.

I'm talking about people being called racists who are NOT racist. Now you're assuming that they are by the simple fact of them being called racist. I know I've been called racist in the past even though I'm not racist. Do you think I'm racist?

 

[3point14]

Ok I thought Turtle was refering to her general argument.

Er, might have been. I'll admit that I've lost the tread a little. Not for the first time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, but the premise was a man saying something racist in a meeting. We weren't dealing with guesses or speculation, the hypothetical was pretty specific.

And the person just telling it like it is self identifies as a racist. Otherwise no matter how racist they are, being called a racist is highly insulting. That is exactly my point about white fragility.

 

[wareyin]

Well, here you're assuming that the people being called racists are actual racists. I don't know about you, but being called a racist is slightly irksome when you're not.

You know that the core complaint Emily's Cat brings up (over and over again) was that Clinton stated that those who do and say racist (and sexist, and bigoted, and xenophobic, and Islamophobic) things are deplorable. The statement itself was limited to only racists (and sexists and bigots and xenophobes and Islamophobic), so there is no reason to assume that it applied to non-racists (and others not specifically mentioned).

 

[Belz...]

You know that the core complaint Emily's Cat brings up (over and over again) was that Clinton stated that those who do and say racist (and sexist, and bigoted, and xenophobic, and Islamophobic) things are deplorable. The statement itself was limited to only racists (and sexists and bigots and xenophobes and Islamophobic), so there is no reason to assume that it applied to non-racists (and others not specifically mentioned).

Yeah, well it got lost in Cat's repetition, because let's be honest; she seems to waver between that and the more general complaint that the left's attitude towards middle America is the problem.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm talking about people being called racists who are NOT racist. Now you're assuming that they are by the simple fact of them being called racist. I know I've been called racist in the past even though I'm not racist. Do you think I'm racist?

How do you know you are really not racist, as opposed to the people who are really racist but do not think they are?

Are people only racist if they self identify as racist?

Racism is not a binary state but a spectrum and in reality everyone is on it. Everyone has preconceived notions based on societal stereotypes and personal history. This leads them to judge people differently.

By holding racism as a huge insult it makes it impossible to talk about the acts of racism, many of which are unconscious to the individual involved, and do anything about it.

You have at the very start made unconscious racism impossible to talk about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, well it got lost in Cat's repetition, because let's be honest; she seems to waver between that and the more general complaint that the left's attitude towards middle America is the problem.

She certainly never addressed issues of judging someone by the company they keep.

 

[Belz...]

How do you know you are really not racist, as opposed to the people who are really racist but do not think they are?

Are people only racist if they self identify as racist?

Racism is not a binary state but a spectrum and in reality everyone is on it. Everyone has preconceived notions based on societal stereotypes and personal history. This leads them to judge people differently.

By holding racism as a huge insult it makes it impossible to talk about the acts of racism, many of which are unconscious to the individual involved, and do anything about it.

You have at the very start made unconscious racism impossible to talk about.

And you've made racism inherent to everybody by broadening its definition beyond any use. In fact, your claim is getting close to Skeptic Tank's, because he also argues that everybody's a racist. He just happens to embrace it explicitly.

Meanwhile, I don't agree with the idea of "unconscious racism". I think it's a cop-out; a means to retreat from clear, evidence-based discussion and maintain one's claims. Racism is a view. A belief. It's conscious alright, and by making it so that everybody's a racist, they just don't know it, distracts from discussing actual racism.

 

[pgwenthold]

You know that the core complaint Emily's Cat brings up (over and over again) was that Clinton stated that those who do and say racist (and sexist, and bigoted, and xenophobic, and Islamophobic) things are deplorable. The statement itself was limited to only racists (and sexists and bigots and xenophobes and Islamophobic), so there is no reason to assume that it applied to non-racists (and others not specifically mentioned).

But here is the problem: Clinton said there are two baskets. One side are the deplorables, and the other side are those that have very legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do based on their circumstances.

Perhaps what is getting everyone in a tizzy is that they don't feel that they can relate to the latter, and therefore Clinton must consider them deplorable?

Of course, if that is true, it calls into question how many of those actual thoughtful supporters with legitimate concerns there are.

I don't get it. If you actually read Clinton's statement, why wouldn't you want to be associated with the second group? It sounds to me like she describes them in very sympathetic terms. If you can't relate to that, then I seriously can't understand you. And if you can relate to that, why are you so damn concerned about her description of others, who are not you, and exactly how many there are?

I think the reason everyone is so bothered is because it hit too damn close to home. All this stuff about how the populace is upset with their situation and want to do better is way overstated. There are undoubtedly some like that, but it is far less than the half that Clinton gave them credit for.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you've made racism inherent to everybody by broadening its definition beyond any use. In fact, your claim is getting close to Skeptic Tank's, because he also argues that everybody's a racist. He just happens to embrace it explicitly.

Meanwhile, I don't agree with the idea of "unconscious racism". I think it's a cop-out; a means to retreat from clear, evidence-based discussion and maintain one's claims. Racism is a view. A belief. It's conscious alright, and by making it so that everybody's a racist, they just don't know it, distracts from discussing actual racism.

That means the cop who pulls over black people more often than white people but doesn't realize he is doing it is not racist. Then what is it? This definition means that institutional racism exists while none of the people involved are racist. Calling the police because you see a black person in your neighborhood and don't realize they are your neighbor isn't racist.

It means that almost no racist act is the act of a racist. How many people sharing racist jokes think of themselves as racists?

 

[Belz...]

That means the cop who pulls over black people more often than white people but doesn't realize he is doing it is not racist. Then what is it?

Bias. See, we already have a word for that.

It means that almost no racist act is the act of a racist.

What are you talking about? There's plenty of racism to go around. Your comment here assumes that almost nobody consciously considers another race inferior or treats them badly because they're different. That's nonsense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bias.

So racial bias is not racism? And sexual bias is not sexism clearly as well. Being biased against women does not make one a sexist anymore than being biased against blacks make

What are you talking about? There's plenty of racism to go around. Your comment here assumes that almost nobody consciously considers another race inferior or treats them badly because they're different. That's nonsense.

No there isn't the vast majority of it is just bais. It is buying into stereotypes. For example an event brought back into mind by recent events. When Bill O'Reilly was shocked that a black restaurant in Harlem could possibly be civilized that was just bais not racism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/nyregion/27oreilly.html

His expecting of a black restaurant to be loud and lots of swearing and being surprised it was just like any other restaurant. Clearly not racist just bias.

When does it become real racism and not just racial bias?

 

[phiwum]

And you've made racism inherent to everybody by broadening its definition beyond any use. In fact, your claim is getting close to Skeptic Tank's, because he also argues that everybody's a racist. He just happens to embrace it explicitly.

Meanwhile, I don't agree with the idea of "unconscious racism". I think it's a cop-out; a means to retreat from clear, evidence-based discussion and maintain one's claims. Racism is a view. A belief. It's conscious alright, and by making it so that everybody's a racist, they just don't know it, distracts from discussing actual racism.

Well, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point.

On the one hand, I don't think that I'm racist. I don't think you are either.

But on the other hand, I exhibit some signs of racism when it comes to certain tests. I have no explicit beliefs that, say, black people are inferior to white people, but if these tests are accurate, then I have an implicit bias.

Which is a shame, obviously.I don't know how to fix it, but it's a problem.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hell with Argumemnon's definition is it right to call Trump a racist? Couldn't all his statements be just the results of racial bias?

When can someone be called a racist then?

 

[Mumbles]

I find it really, really odd. Possibly because I'm not in the US.

it seems to go something like this:

- Dave (cos we've moved on from Steve) says something that reveals him to be a mssive racist, what do you do?

- I call Dave a racist

- What are you insulting Dave for?



I wonder, does it work like this too:

- Dave (cos we've moved on from Steve) says something that reveals him to be a mssive sexist, what do you do?

- I call Dave a sexist

- What are you insulting Dave for?

Yeah, there's this thing in the US where noting that someone is obviously a raging bigot is, somehow, much worse than actually being a raging bigot. I think it's because many white people in the US associate, say, being a racist with being a lower-class white Southerner, who many of them also like to stereotype and look down on.