U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[polishgenius]

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And I agree with you that threats are not Free Speech. If you are directly threatening another human being, again all bets are off.  

Yeah, but the argument here, and the reason people push so hard on you about this, is that for many (most?) of us it is impossible to separate Nazism from threat. To be a Nazis is to be threatening someone.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Same could be said for Chamberlain, and I kind of agree with that too, and that's sort of the point. I appreciate that it's frustrating to say "I don't support violence under ANY circumstances and oppose this" but that, too, is opposition to the goal of stopping Naziism. 

I guess here's the litmus test: do you oppose doing violence to Nazis personally, or do you oppose it at all? If it's the former and it is for general pacifistic reasons (opposing all violence, everywhere) then sure, cool beans. If it's that you oppose the US going into the war (like Lindbergh did) then yeah, you're certainly complicit in enabling them. Just like Chamberlain was. 

I do see what you're saying and maybe it is just me needlessly quibbling about semantics but I think we do need room for a definition of people who allow Nazis to get away with things without placing them on the Nazis side. If only because doing so immediately makes it harder to persuade them to our side; anyone accused of Nazism who isn't one is immediately going to either shell up or lash out, almost inevitabely.
And it may be that I'm the one who's got it wrong but I'm fairly sure I'm far from the only one who reads 'Nazi sympathiser' as 'person who agrees with them on at least some of what makes a Nazi a Nazi'.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nah, I was kidding. I'll kick your ass in whatever NFL bet you'd like, even without watching anything. I'm sure that Colin Kaepernick's performance will save me.

So...you want to ban guns despite that being a right of people in the US, but you're fine with being almost 100% for speech of any kind because it's a right of people?

You do realize that the countries which ban guns and restrict speech based on Nazi thoughts are, well, kind of awesome?

Given my track record in these matters, I'd be hard pressed to argue with you. (Excepting the Kaep bit of course)

 

Yeah, I don't find that right to be as nearly as important or sensible as the 1st Amendment. Never have. Never bought into the argument that it was put in place to prevent the citizenry from being threatened by anything other than a foreign power seeking to conquer. In the absence of that threat, it doesn't make much sense to me. Never mind the fact that even if it were a reasonable right to uphold in the absence of a foreign invader, we have clearly shown at this point that we are incapable of not abusing that right. Time to take away the toys. Too many eyes have been poked out.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Except that dipshit is now in the oval office, and all of those neo nazis and klansmen that have been hiding under rocks for the past forty years now have the perception of institutional backing.

That's a fair point that I'm willing to concede. The threat is certainly more palpable when  you have an administration in power that emboldens it. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 7:59 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Why is it an issue of which one is more "harmful" and not the fact that it exists? Others before you have argued that because racism is defined as "prejudice + power," whites can't experience racism. Now, you're saying that it's not that the prejudice isn't there, but the dominant group's racism is more "harmful"?

You know I once had a minority person say to me, “you must have had a rich daddy.”

And I really didn’t appreciate the comment because in reality I didn’t even meet my father until I was in my 20s as let’s just say he was being baby sat by or was a guest of the state. And my mother was a young waitress and half the time I was being raised by other relatives.

That was prejudice and it wasn’t pleasant, nor was it right, for that person to make that judgment about me.

But, I’m willing to say, it wasn’t racism because, despite the unpleasantness of that situation, I’m willing to take the longer historical view of things. And I’m willing to acknowledge that prejudice, while it’s never right, acts in a more capricious manner when exercised by a group that has been historically dominant.

On 10/4/2017 at 7:59 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

 Okay, let's put that to the test: which is more harmful? A white man calling a black stranger a nigger as they pass by each other or a black man shooting a police officer because he's white?

And your explanation for the black/ white wage gap is what? 

And of course you know about a recent paper that has shown the atrocious effects redlining has had on the black community right?

And what about the over incarceration of African Americans.

I mean certainly any reasonable person would see that that whites have had the bulk of political and economic power in this country and that has operated against minorities on many occasions. I mean you wouldn't deny that would you?

What we are talking here is about averages and not these specific cases you bring up.

On 10/4/2017 at 7:59 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

The rationale is to attribute racism to whites alone by redefining a word with an already commonly understood definition.

I'm not saying that unfounded prejudiced against any group is right. But sometimes of can be more harmful than others, particularly when one group has historically had the bulk of the political and economic power. This isn't hard.

 

On 10/4/2017 at 7:59 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Then why not use a different term, so that racism as it commonly understood doesn't conflict with your "prejudice + power" concept?

Cause I really don't care what term we use, so long as we are on the same page about what the term means. Saying that racism has the specific meaning of prejudice + power isn't the same thing as saying unfounded prejudice against any group is okay.

[Darth Richard II]

5 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Except that dipshit is now in the oval office, and all of those neo nazis and klansmen that have been hiding under rocks for the past forty years now have the perception of institutional backing.

Fixed it for ya.

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's a fair point that I'm willing to concede. The threat is certainly more palatable when you have an administration in power that emboldens it. 

If I'm spending this topic complaining about people's definitions of things, I definitely have to call you on this one. Given that I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that the threat is more acceptable.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh Trump has a long history of antisemitism and racism and all sorts of terrible shit, I don't believe for a second he isn't one of them.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Let's Get Kraken said:

Trump panders to neo nazis, but idk if he really supports them gaining real power in anything other than making liberals eat shit.

Up until about a month ago he had a person who worked for him who also previously worked for the Nazi party in Hungary. Openly.

So...yeah.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

1.The words have become synonymous at this point, both here and in general. I don't expect you to remember, but during the campaign I kept saying that Trump is clearly a bigot, but it's unclear if he's truly a racist (we sure know that he is now) and literally everyone on this forum said I was splitting hairs and that he is a racist. And yes, a white person can be the victim of racism, it's just significantly less common and impactful on the white person's life.

2.As to your line about all white people benefit from white supremacy, I agree, but with one small caveat. All white people don't benefit to the same degree. Take @Mexal and I for example. We're both white and Jewish. So yes, we and are families have benefited from white supremacy, but at the same time it's negatively impacted us in other ways. 

3.Lastly, we've seen several people make claims that white people can't experience racism and/or that all white people are racists. If your goal is to decrease racism in the United States, why would you want to start your argument with such hostile and controversial statements? You have to know that it's going to hurt your ability to persuade white people who struggle with understanding racial issues. 

1. We're basically having a quibble with semantics here, and I think Terra Prime answered it well, in that we

2. Being white doesn't mean that you don't also belong to another group that experiences institutionalized discrimination.  Hello white queer folks.  And I absolutely would never deny the bigotry that Jews experience.  

3. I don't know what you're trying to argue here.  It's not harmful to you if a black woman doesn't want to marry a white man.  It's not creating a harmful situation that will negatively impact whites as a whole.  Yes, I want to decrease racism, and I probably also want kinder people in general, but I don't really care if a black person is mean to a white person on the subway.  I could never classify that racism.  

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don’t really have a problem with the term “racism” meaning “prejuidice + power”. It seems like a sound enough concept to me because it seems likely that a dominant group would be able to enact it’s prejudice more severely than a group that is not dominant. 

What I do have a bit of a problem with is that sometimes I see some people on the left simply saying “well, that can’t be racism...”  and then not explaining very well why they are using that term in a particular way or why there is a need to have a very specific term which captures the essence of the prejudice + power concept.

I’m not a sociologist by training, so somebody, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my general understanding that the “prejudice + power” definition of the term racism started around the 1990s and has been generally accepted within the field of sociology since then.

But, it would seem, that the dictionary definition of that term seems to be mainly the one of just prejudice. And it would seem to me that many people, particularly those who may not have attended college, may often think of the term “racism” by its dictionary meaning. And that seems to me what causes the confusion and angst about that term.

It also seems to me that if you know lots of people think of the term “racism” by it’s usual dictionary meaning, then it might behoove you to slow down a bit and explain why the term should have a meaning beyond the way it’s usually defined in the dictionary and why it should have the “prejuidice + power” connotation, rather than just saying, “well, there can’t be racism against white people….”. 

And keep in mind, that some of the folks, who only know the dictionary meaning of racism and not its sociological meaning have not gone to college or maybe don’t have the best educations. So simply telling them that white people can’t be affected by racism, without explaining why we need a particular term that captures the prejuidice + power combination, comes off perhaps just slightly cl assist.

So, in sum, I’m fine with racism being defined as “prejuidice + power”, but realize there are some folks who have never heard that definition, and are thinking in terms of the dictionary definition, when you go to explain it.

Some of us just aren't good explainers or eloquent speakers.  I don't think one needs to have attended college to understand some of these things.  The major issue probably has a lot to do with lived experience and capacity for empathy.  One who has lived this experience just understands it intuitively, it's part of them and something so intensely part of your own narrative becomes difficult to explain.  

23 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It is under the proper context. Some dipshit standing on a milk crate in a subway yelling "death to all Jews" is not a direct threat. It's some dipshit on a milk crate yelling vile shit. 

This is where you have to start discerning intent and impact.  If someone is on a milk crate and everyone is ignoring him and he's just babbling, then this probably isn't harmful.  A rally is something different altogether.  It's effectively a recruitment event and will reach a massive audience, which is incredibly harmful.  There are significant differences in impact with an individual milk crate screaming and organized rally.

Current political climate also has much to do with things.  A milk carton nazi screamer during this administration is different than at other times in our recent history, mostly because we've been shown that the cops will react differently to this individual than they would for one standing on a crate screaming about equality.  

 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

And I've been around the block enough to know, you're not always going to change somebody's mind during the first argument. But, you might, just might, get the wheels turning in their head a bit.

Apologies for picking on you here OGE, but I've seen this come up a few times. Why on earth should we be treating each set of interactions as a blank slate? I can't speak for any of the others, but I certainly gave plenty of slack and a lot of time before I decided it was utterly clear that ME systematically defends the rights of nazis with significantly more vigour than he does the rights of minority groups. Other conclusions about where sympathies lie swiftly followed. I mean, yeah I do write people off on the first interaction plenty of times, for example another poster in this thread was very clearly someone whom was never going to be convinced from their first word on the subject and I don't see any point in treating them as a reasonable neutral party. Instead arguments with those individuals become about what the argument says to those who are reading it but not involved, and yeah - I'm sure sometimes missteps are made there too.

I'll just point out that where whining about racism against white men merely got ridicule as the dog whistle it is, Seli (I think it was Seli?) got a very different response from me when looking to genuinely engage in the discussion.

But the guy that thinks you can't use violence against Nazis until they're personally collecting you for the camps? Fuck that noise. Just look at how he tries to play it down, dismissing it as a crazy guy on a milk crate in the subway. They have taken positions of power throughout your entire government, and are engaged in dismantling your democracy - including having put a guy on the SCOTUS that is now campaigning for the GOP. They are very effectively destroying the supports of democracy like trust in the press, trust in reality itself for that matter. They are arming up the police again, because they know the police are on their side - the military is not looking so certain. They have formed a highly cooperative international network across the western world to share people and intel, and are engaged in growing their movements across the board. Its not the US, but for fucks sake there are Nazis in the Reichstag again.

If you can take a look at the world right now, at the start of October 2017, and think the imminent threat that Nazis are posing not just to minorities but to the continued existence of humanity - through the POTUS they have the largest stockpile of nukes in the world and that unstable asshole is threatening to wipe a country off the map with them - is equivalent to a doomsday prophet in the subway, then you have a fucking agenda you're advancing.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Apologies for picking on you here OGE, but I've seen this come up a few times. Why on earth should we be treating each set of interactions as a blank slate? I can't speak for any of the others, but I certainly gave plenty of slack and a lot of time before I decided it was utterly clear that ME systematically defends the rights of nazis with significantly more vigour than he does the rights of minority groups. Other conclusions about where sympathies lie swiftly followed. I mean, yeah I do write people off on the first interaction plenty of times, for example another poster in this thread was very clearly someone whom was never going to be convinced from their first word on the subject and I don't see any point in treating them as a reasonable neutral party. Instead arguments with those individuals become about what the argument says to those who are reading it but not involved, and yeah - I'm sure sometimes missteps are made there too.

I'll just point out that where whining about racism against white men merely got ridicule as the dog whistle it is, Seli (I think it was Seli?) got a very different response from me when looking to genuinely engage in the discussion.

But the guy that thinks you can't use violence against Nazis until they're personally collecting you for the camps? Fuck that noise. Just look at how he tries to play it down, dismissing it as a crazy guy on a milk crate in the subway. They have taken positions of power throughout your entire government, and are engaged in dismantling your democracy - including having put a guy on the SCOTUS that is now campaigning for the GOP. They are very effectively destroying the supports of democracy like trust in the press, trust in reality itself for that matter. They are arming up the police again, because they know the police are on their side - the military is not looking so certain. They have formed a highly cooperative international network across the western world to share people and intel, and are engaged in growing their movements across the board. Its not the US, but for fucks sake there are Nazis in the Reichstag again.

If you can take a look at the world right now, at the start of October 2017, and think the imminent threat that Nazis are posing not just to minorities but to the continued existence of humanity - through the POTUS they have the largest stockpile of nukes in the world and that unstable asshole is threatening to wipe a country off the map with them - is equivalent to a doomsday prophet in the subway, then you have a fucking agenda you're advancing.

I'm sort of in love with you right now.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:47 PM, karaddin said:

snip

Because in lots of cases, with a lot of people, if you bring up the sociological definition of racism you are basically starting with a clean or blank slate. And you might not want to screw that up by just stating the sociological definition of racism, without a good explanation why you are using it. As they say, first impressions are hard to shake.

And I’m not so naive, as to think, I’m going to change every mind, every time I argue. But, I might, just might get the wheels turning in their head. Obviously there are some people you are not going to reach. But, there are some you can. It may take awhile. But, even if it takes awhile, its worth it. 

[karaddin]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm sort of in love with you right now.

ETA

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because in lots of cases, with a lot of people, if you bring up the sociological definition of racism you are basically starting with a clean or blank slate. And you might not want to screw that up by just stating the sociological definition of racism, without a good explanation why you are using it. As they say, first impressions are hard to shake.

And I’m not so naive, as to think, I’m going to change every mind, every time I argue. But, I might, just might get the wheels turning in their head. Obviously there are some people you are not going to reach. But, there are some you can. It may take awhile. But, even if it takes awhile, its worth it. 

My point was that this discussion started with a specific poster that we all have, at this point, a very extended history with. We have made the arguments and explained that definition before. Sure, your critique may apply to 3rd parties reading the thread (so a criticism of tactics), but in respect to that poster we aren't arguing from a point of ignorance as to whether this has been explained before.

Your point about tactics is probably right to be honest, but last night I didn't care. I saw that dog whistle shit and I wanted to ridicule it the way it deserved. I engaged sincerely with those that showed an interest in doing so (Seli with the stats on shooters, JA and others when I started talking toxic masculinity).

[Mother Cocanuts]

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know I once had a minority person say to me, “you must have had a rich daddy.”

And I really didn’t appreciate the comment because in reality I didn’t even meet my father until I was in my 20s as let’s just say he was being baby sat by or was a guest of the state. And my mother was a young waitress and half the time I was being raised by other relatives.

That was prejudice and it wasn’t pleasant, nor was it right, for that person to make that judgment about me.

But, I’m willing to say, it wasn’t racism because, despite the unpleasantness of that situation, I’m willing to take the longer historical view of things. And I’m willing to acknowledge that prejudice, while it’s never right, acts in a more capricious manner when exercised by a group that has been historically dominant.

Have you been "dominant?" I'm not talking about your group. I'm talking about you specifically?

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And your explanation for the black/ white wage gap is what? 

And of course you know about a recent paper that has shown the atrocious effects redlining has had on the black community right?

And what about the over incarceration of African Americans.

I mean certainly any reasonable person would see that that whites have had the bulk of political and economic power in this country and that has operated against minorities on many occasions. I mean you wouldn't deny that would you?

What we are talking here is about averages and not these specific cases you bring up.

Because what's typical for the black household is not the same as that of white households. You have to control for education, job selection, geography, demographic differences, etc. As for incarceration rates, well.. black people on average make a huge portion of the populace in poor, downtrodden, and crime-ridden areas. It would stand to reason that the representation of criminal perpetrators would reflect that as well.

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm not saying that unfounded prejudiced against any group is right. But sometimes of can be more harmful than others, particularly when one group has historically had the bulk of the political and economic power. This isn't hard.

So let me ask you this: is unfounded prejudice against a racial group racist?

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Cause I really don't care what term we use, so long as we are on the same page about what the term means. Saying that racism has the specific meaning of prejudice + power isn't the same thing as saying unfounded prejudice against any group is okay.

No. What it does say is that only white people can be racist.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:44 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

Some of us just aren't good explainers or eloquent speakers.  I don't think one needs to have attended college to understand some of these things.  The major issue probably has a lot to do with lived experience and capacity for empathy.  One who has lived this experience just understands it intuitively, it's part of them and something so intensely part of your own narrative becomes difficult to explain.  

Understanding the sociological definition of racism isn’t hard. But, some folks may not have encountered it before. And may not understand the rationale behind it, particularly if they haven’t had a chance to get a higher education. As I indicated earlier, I’m pretty sure the prejuidice + power definition of racism started in the sociology departments in the 1990s.

I think it’s worth taking the time to explain it. The racism is obviously a very loaded term for many and if you don’t explain the rationale for the sociological definition you might lose the person.

I think somebody once said that most of the arguments among philosophers was over the meaning of terms.

Also, I’m a 40yish white male midwesterner. You know, somebody that looks like he’s a Trump supporter basically.

I have no lived experience to speak of. And the people I speak to, at times, have no lived experience either.

But, I do know the general history of this country. And I can look at data, understand the impact of studies, like say the impact of Redlining practices on the African American community and be troubled by it and know we have to address these issues.

And I can figure out that the idea that some types of prejudice can be more damaging than others because of who has held power historically and because there is data and studies out there that are very troubling.

If somebody is willing to engage me on the issue, I think its important to lay out my definitions, arguments, and data as best as I can.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 9:16 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Have you been "dominant?" I'm not talking about your group. I'm talking about you specifically?

In some cases yes, in other cases no. I’m not sure what relevance this has though.

On 10/4/2017 at 9:16 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Have you been "dominant?" I'm not talking about your group. I'm talking about you specifically?

Because what's typical for the black household is not the same as that of white households. You have to control for education, job selection, geography, demographic differences, etc.

Interesting you say that. A recent study just came out of the Federal Reserve. The authors state:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/september/disappointing-facts-about-black-white-wage-gap/

Quote

The most important fact highlighted by our decomposition is that a significant portion of the wage gap between blacks and whites is not traceable to differences in easily measured characteristics, but rather is unexplained within our model (red bars). Perhaps more troubling is the fact that the growth in this unexplained portion accounts for almost all of the growth in the gaps over time. For example, in 1979 about 8 percentage points of the earnings gap for men was unexplained by readily measurable factors, accounting for over a third of the gap. By 2016, this portion had risen to almost 13 percentage points, just under half of the total earnings gap. A similar pattern holds for black women, who saw the gaps between their wages and those of their white counterparts more than triple over this time to 18 percentage points in 2016, largely due to factors outside of our model. This implies that factors that are harder to measure—such as discrimination, differences in school quality, or differences in career opportunities—are likely to be playing a role in the persistence and widening of these gaps over time. Notably, our results are similar to those of Cajner et al. (2017), who use a similar approach to break down the components of unemployment rate gaps and also find a large unexplained portion.

 

On 10/4/2017 at 9:16 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

As for incarceration rates, well.. black people on average make a huge portion of the populace in poor, downtrodden, and crime-ridden areas. It would stand to reason that the representation of criminal perpetrators would reflect that as well.

Now this kind of begs the question, now doesn't it?

On 10/4/2017 at 9:16 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

So let me ask you this: is unfounded prejudice against a racial group racist?

Come on. Given the definition of racism we are using here, the answer would be no. It's like you're not even trying.

On 10/4/2017 at 9:16 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. What it does say is that only white people can be racist.

Yes, given, the sociological definition of racism that would be correct.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, given, the sociological definition of racism that would be correct.

It may seem a minor distinction, but I'd argue this is wrong. It's not "only white people can be racist" its that "white people cannot be the targets of racism". Black people can still be racist against other black people, eg holding a bias towards 'white' coded names in hiring practices. Implicit racial bias impacts people of colour as well and is especially harmful for them, since the negative messages it imparts are applied to themselves.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I don't think you realize what you're saying here.

I fixed it before you posted this I think. I'm slightly dyslexic methinks.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

 I can't speak for any of the others, but I certainly gave plenty of slack and a lot of time before I decided it was utterly clear that ME systematically defends the rights of nazis with significantly more vigour than he does the rights of minority groups. a fucking agenda you're advancing.

This is abject bullshit. The only reason it would appear that I defend the rights of nazis moreso than any other group is because they're the only group that has had violence porn videos posted of them in this thread and the reaction from much of the peanut gallery is FUCK YEAH! I would call out any poster that celebrates that sort of violence against any group.

 I agree that having characters like Gorka, Bannon and Miller in the White House holding down positions of various importance is troubling. Outside of that, you're stacking cow-patties here. Show me one post that I wrote that you can reasonably say equates to "violence is not acceptable until they start rounding us into camps". This is hyperbolic bullshit.

And as a bit of punctuation, perhaps you can explain to me how this brand of violence is going to help the problem, short of a Final Solution scenario? That mentally challenged looking individual in Seattle wearing the swastika on the bus, you know, the star of our featured violence porn that was posted here a couple of weeks ago, do you think that viral brain bouncing cured him? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

That's why, @Manhole Eunuchsbane, the nutcase standing on a soap box yelling vile shit is a threat. Is he going to throw somebody into a gas chamber? Probably not. Could enough of them unchecked tip that balance of "palatability" to the point where those ideals seem safe to act on? Abso-fucking-lutely.

But it's not probably in the case of the lone batshit crazy milk crate preacher. He can't throw anyone in a camp. Now when you get a large crowd coming out to listen to the dipshit's ideas, then it becomes actionable, obviously.

The word I was grasping for was palpable. Please forgive my dyslexia or formerly drug addicted brain cells for misfiring, or whatever it was that happened there.