479 replies to this topic

[drdredel]

I'm starting this thread - unless you guys think the Trump thread already (tacitly) implies this title?

Great article at the Atlantic that takes aim at another article in the NYT.
https://www.theatlan...rticle-comments

The original (linked to in the satire) is worth reading - as is the commentary therein.

[D. C. Sessions]

Works for me. Here's a very thoughtful perspective on the past, present, and (perhaps) future of white supremacy in the USA -- including the reason why "identity politics" is not remotely peripheral to America, but the existential issue that has always haunted us and always will until we put it to rest.

[golden_valley]

One thing is clear. People equate racism with hating someone. That's why they say they aren't racist because they don't hate African Americans, it's just that African Americans aren't smart or clean or whatever. Applies to Latinos too.

[Progressive whisperer]

Both articles were mentioned in the Nazi Fluffing New York Times thread, but probably worth mentioning again.

[drdredel]

golden_valley, on 28 November 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

One thing is clear. People equate racism with hating someone. That's why they say they aren't racist because they don't hate African Americans, it's just that African Americans aren't smart or clean or whatever. Applies to Latinos too.

But at least Latinos are hard workers!

(sorry couldn't resist)...

Seriously however, the problem as I've always seen it is that when this pendulum swings in the other direction you get a bizarre denial of reality in which we are meant to believe (and vociferously defend) the notion that all people are basically the same and any preconceived notions that you might have about someone based on their ethnic or cultural heritage is disgusting.

The problem with this is that it flies in the face of all our biological programming. Human brains are designed to recognize patterns and quickly catalog everyone into friend and foe (I'm oversimplifying but that's not too far from the truth).

So a person who sees someone dressed as a hoodlum is told that they're being a bigot for not giving this individual the benefit of the doubt. Nevermind that at this point it's entirely irrelevant what their ethnicity might be - they're actively signaling hostility with their choice of garb, and yet it's not P.C.to react to this choice with additional caution.

Or consider the rare instance where I agree with Trump. Back when his case was going to be adjudicated by someone of Mexican descent and Trump had just been accused of basically insulting all Mexicans. He was entirely right to suggest that a judge whose parents were Mexican immigrants might be biased against him (yes yes... he's insulted everyone, so there's no one left who's not biased against him, but that's beside the point).
Everyone went bonkers with feigned outrage at this concern, labeling him a racist and saying "This judge was born in INDIANA!" as if that fact alone would somehow make him immune to any sort of ethnic or cultural pride and/or bias against someone who hates Mexicans.

Where was I going with this... I have no idea.

[D. C. Sessions]

drdredel, on 29 November 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

Or consider the rare instance where I agree with Trump. Back when his case was going to be adjudicated by someone of Mexican descent and Trump had just been accused of basically insulting all Mexicans.

As long as they're consistent and support a defendant rejecting an Anglo judge because they're not Anglo. Or a male judge in a rape trial. Or ...

[LFC]

drdredel, on 29 November 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

But at least Latinos are hard workers!

And they "weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert." Just sayin'.

[LFC]

Things got testy when a White House Correspondent from Gateway Pundit came to UConn to give his "It's OK to be White" talk. Poor oppressed white people. It's like they we simply can't catch a break.

[AnBr]

LFC, on 29 November 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

And they "weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert." Just sayin'.

Changing your name to King?

[J-CA]

drdredel, on 29 November 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

Seriously however, the problem as I've always seen it is that when this pendulum swings in the other direction you get a bizarre denial of reality in which we are meant to believe (and vociferously defend) the notion that all people are basically the same and any preconceived notions that you might have about someone based on their ethnic or cultural heritage is disgusting.

I believe and will vociferously defend the notion that all people are basically the same and any preconceived notions that you might have about someone based on their ethnic or cultural heritage is disgusting.
Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their ethnicity are based on a lack of information about that particular person.
Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their cultural heritage are based on a lack of information about that particular person because until you actually know what cultural heritage they have you don't actually know anything about their particular culture.
This seems self-evident.

drdredel, on 29 November 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

The problem with this is that it flies in the face of all our biological programming. Human brains are designed to recognize patterns and quickly catalog everyone into friend and foe (I'm oversimplifying but that's not too far from the truth).

I presume my biological programming also encourages me to assault my neighbour if I find him a competitor for reproduction and gene propagation.

drdredel, on 29 November 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

So a person who sees someone dressed as a hoodlum is told that they're being a bigot for not giving this individual the benefit of the doubt. Nevermind that at this point it's entirely irrelevant what their ethnicity might be - they're actively signaling hostility with their choice of garb, and yet it's not P.C.to react to this choice with additional caution.

I am trying to think of all the stories in the news about white kids getting shot because they were wearing hoodies..

[baw1064]

J-CA, on 29 November 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

I am trying to think of all the stories in the news about white kids getting shot because they were wearing hoodies..

I'm sure the right wing media will be happy to fabricateuncover some for you.

[LFC]

J-CA, on 29 November 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

I believe and will vociferously defend the notion that all people are basically the same and any preconceived notions that you might have about someone based on their ethnic or cultural heritage is disgusting.
Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their ethnicity are based on a lack of information about that particular person.
Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their cultural heritage are based on a lack of information about that particular person because until you actually know what cultural heritage they have you don't actually know anything about their particular culture.
This seems self-evident.

F***ing uppity Canadians.

[Progressive whisperer]

Right, generally being distrustful of those not of your “tribe” has some utility in surviving. Viewing them as automatically inferior does not - Germany and Japan both have some relatively recent (if we are talking genetics) experience with that...

[nuser]

We are not born equal but with equal rights !
Mental retardation epilepsy sickle cell etc.
Fear is a major factor in a human being and
Especially of the unknown. I feel apprehensive
When a group of people approaching wearing
full attire with only eyes showing.That is not a pre conceived
Notion but crucial in a criminal court of law.

[LFC]

I believe I posted this before even though it just came up on RawStory. Still it's worth the repeat because it lays out what drives rural fundamentalists as somebody who grew up immersed in that culture. Here's a part on racism.

Quote

Another problem with rural, Christian, white Americans is they are racists. I’m not talking about white hood-wearing, cross-burning, lynching racists (though some are). I’m talking about people who deep down in their heart of hearts truly believe they are superior because they are white. Their white God made them in his image and everyone else is a less-than-perfect version, flawed and cursed.

The religion in which I was raised taught this. Even though they’ve backtracked on some of their more racist declarations, many still believe the original claims. Non-whites are the color they are because of their sins, or at least the sins of their ancestors. Blacks don’t have dark skin because of where they lived and evolution; they have dark skin because they are cursed. God cursed them for a reason. If God cursed them, treating them as equals would be going against God’s will. It is really easy to justify treating people differently if they are cursed by God and will never be as good as you no matter what they do because of some predetermined status.

Once you have this view, it is easy to lower the outside group’s standing and acceptable level of treatment. Again, there are varying levels of racism at play in rural, Christian, white America. I know people who are ardent racists. I know a lot more whose racism is much more subtle but nonetheless racist. It wouldn’t take sodium pentothal to get most of these people to admit they believe they are fundamentally better and superior to minorities. They are white supremacists who dress up in white dress shirts, ties, and gingham dresses. They carry a Bible and tell you, “everyone’s a child of God” but forget to mention that some of God’s children are more favored than others and skin tone is the criterion by which we know who is and who isn’t at the top of God’s list of most favored children.

For us “coastal elites” who understand evolution, genetics, science…nothing we say to those in fly-over country is going to be listened to because not only are we fighting against an anti-education belief system, we are arguing against God. You aren’t winning a battle of beliefs with these people if you are on one side of the argument and God is on the other. No degree of understanding this is going to suddenly make them less racist, more open to reason and facts. Telling “urban elites” they need to understand rural Americans isn’t going to lead to a damn thing because it misses the causes of the problem.

Because rural, Christian, white Americans will not listen to educated arguments, supported by facts that go against their fundamentalist belief systems from “outsiders,” any change must come from within. Internal change in these systems does happen, but it happens infrequently and it always lags far behind reality. This is why they fear change so much. They aren’t used to it. Of course, it really doesn’t matter whether they like it or not, it, like the evolution and climate change even though they don’t believe it, it is going to happen whether they believe in it or not.

[AnBr]

LFC, on 30 November 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

F***ing uppity Canadians.

[LFC]

Talk about lame road rage. Not a gun to be seen anywhere much less fired.

[drdredel]

 J-CA, on 29 November 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

I believe and will vociferously defend the notion that all people are basically the same and any preconceived notions that you might have about someone based on their ethnic or cultural heritage is disgusting.

Either you're misunderstanding me or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm not saying anything controversial nor anything that you can rationally argue is wrong. What I'm saying is that cultures vary. Different cultures have different traditions. Different traditions create different kinds of personalities. Are there really boisterous Japanese women? Possibly. Are there really reserved Italian women, indeed. But it's not incorrect to observe that Japanese culture expects women to be very reserved and Italian culture celebrates a lot of emotional expressions. It is neither racist nor bigoted to make this observation. I can even make value judgments about them if I so chose, and that too would be perfectly in line with both common sense and decency. It's what anthropologists and sociologists do all day.

So, when you meet an Italian woman you are entirely within your rational rights to expect that she has a better than average chance of being very expressive. This is true across all of humanity no matter how much you'd prefer to think (or assert) something different. And I'm sorry if that disgusts you, but it's actually something really worth celebrating - it's what makes going to Italy and Japan worthwhile (in my opinion cause I don't give a shit about ancient buildings).

Quote

Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their ethnicity are based on a lack of information about that particular person.

That depends on the qualities. If you pull your average Amazonian cannibal who has never met a modern human before (they exist) you can probably safely assume she's unqualified for any position on Monster.com without asking a single question. And if you agree with this assertion then you have to accept that one's upbringing and culture definitely gives them various strengths and weaknesses. Also, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to eliminate these biases entirely. We can keep them in check and we can remind people in positions of authority that they should avoid making any decisions based on population and treat everyone as individuals, but you're hard-wired to make some assessment about everyone you lay your eyes on (or maybe you're not - but everyone else is).

Quote

Any preconceived notions you have about any particular person's personal qualities based on their cultural heritage are based on a lack of information about that particular person because until you actually know what cultural heritage they have you don't actually know anything about their particular culture.

You want to suggest that until you speak to someone you have *no idea who they are? My understanding is that you don't live in Iceland (where this statement may land well to the population who have basically never seen anyone from anywhere else) but here in Canada and in the States I can tell a LOT about people I look at before a single word is uttered and after 5 or 6 words are uttered I can tell a whole lot more. Is she wearing jewelry? What kind? Does it match her age? Are her clothes expensive or do they fit well (or not), how does he smell? How is he groomed? Is he wearing garb signaling a religious proclivity or a sports team affiliation or a Led Zeppelin t-shirt... I mean, seriously dude - how often do you size someone up and then to go talk to them and get smacked with some sort of surprise about what you expected to hear and what you wound up hearing? Maybe I'm the most perceptive person on the planet (I'm not) but for me that happens REALLY rarely. Maybe it's because I grew up in NYC and have a better than average radar for what people are like - or maybe you're just plain wrong.

Also, it's really important to note that for the vast majority of these assessments, there is no value judgment. It's simply a categorization mechanism to know who you're dealing with.

Quote

This seems self-evident.

My rebuttal certainly does have that character for me

Quote

I presume my biological programming also encourages me to assault my neighbor if I find him a competitor for reproduction and gene propagation.

I'm not sure if that's rhetorical, but yes, of course it does. You're designed to try and reproduce with as many women (whom you find desireable) as you can. We have done a pretty bang-up job over the last couple of thousand years in teaching men how not to act on these impulses, but you don't have to read TOO much news these days to see just how bad an effect this socialization is having on the male population. We're just taking our dicks out, out of frustration at the idea that we can't just force women to accept us as mates. It's pretty nutty.

Quote

I am trying to think of all the stories in the news about white kids getting shot because they were wearing hoodies...

I grew up in a less than ideal neighborhood and dressed the part of a "tough guy" to fit in with my buddies in school. I had multiple run-ins with police. In today's day and age I could easily have gotten shot. But I knew that I was dressing the part of someone not to be messed with. I'm not defending police misbehavior - I'm only saying that when people put on their pants a certain way (we all know what I mean) they are signaling a very specific thing to the world and it's naive (and possibly detrimental to your health) to disregard this signaling and pretend that someone who appears this way is identical to someone who does not.

[J-CA]

 drdredel, on 30 November 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

Either you're misunderstanding me or you're being intentionally obtuse...

You are free to make generalizations about people based on their skin colour all you want, you can't argue that those generalizations are morally defensible.

If you know someone is from a tribe in the Amazon that has never had contact with the modern world then you know a lot about that person, because that fact provides a lot of context - that is what applying that example to anything in this context is a category error.

If you are walking down the street in Montreal and you see a person of evidently african descent based on their skin colour you quite literally have no idea about that person, you don't know how many generations they have lived in your neighbourhood, what languages they speak, or literally what culture they were brought up in or the proximity of that culture to yours. The burden is on you to restrain your basest impulses to assume anything about them, likewise they have the same burden to do the same for you.

If someone signals something to you with the clothes they wear they are choosing that signal in some cases, in other cases they are obliged by factors you might not be aware of to wear those clothes. It is not unreasonable to make some inferences from those signals but we still have to acknowledge that in the absence of complete context you can't really know what they mean. It is silly an naive to pretend that a white guy sending the exact same signals as a non-white guy gets the same treatment.

[drdredel]

 J-CA, on 30 November 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

You are free to make generalizations about people based on their skin colour all you want, you can't argue that those generalizations are morally defensible.

I don't know what morality has to do with anything but you're beating at the strawman pretty aggressively here. I quite explicitly (and not by accident) made no mention of skin color in anything that I said because I think adding that component necessarily introduces biases that only confuse the topic. Skin color does matter, but only tangentially and definitely not without all the other factors. Also - I'm not talking about "making generalizations". I'm talking about having context borne of outward appearances for an interaction. Obviously that context might be 100% wrong and it would behoove one to be prepared to pivot in their assumptions once those assumptions have been challenged but to pretend that every person you walk up to is equally capable of anything at all and to eschew all expectations, in the name of some sort of egalitarian hope for human equality is just silly.

Quote

If you know someone is from a tribe in the Amazon that has never had contact with the modern world then you know a lot about that person, because that fact provides a lot of context - that is what applying that example to anything in this context is a category error.

If you are walking down the street in Montreal and you see a person of evidently african descent based on their skin colour you quite literally have no idea about that person, you don't know how many generations they have lived in your neighbourhood, what languages they speak, or literally what culture they were brought up in or the proximity of that culture to yours. The burden is on you to restrain your basest impulses to assume anything about them, likewise they have the same burden to do the same for you.

Last time I was in Montreal all the people I saw (including the ones of African descent) were clothed and engaged in some activity which helped me sort them into some category. They also appeared to be male or female and had an age. I take all these parameters and run them through this pattern recognition thing I have called my "brain" and come up with a pretty general (but not entirely arbitrary) archetype which I am prepared to be wrong about, but which serves as a pretty good "start" for a template of what sort of individual I'm dealing with.

I'm being snarky (sorry) but I can't believe we're seriously arguing about how humans are designed to size one another up for various engagements.

Quote

If someone signals something to you with the clothes they wear they are choosing that signal in some cases, in other cases they are obliged by factors you might not be aware of to wear those clothes. It is not unreasonable to make some inferences from those signals but we still have to acknowledge that in the absence of complete context you can't really know what they mean. It is silly an naive to pretend that a white guy sending the exact same signals as a non-white guy gets the same treatment.

No, a white guy sending the same signals as a black guy (assuming we're talking about the same sort of inner-city signals here) has their own sort of category (which is VERY informative!). They get treated (at least initially) based on that (rational) assumption.
I want to be 100% clear that I'm not talking about a white guy with jerry-curl or smoking Newports but something a lot more specific (and emblematic of a kind of subculture associated with poverty and crime).