let's talk about the dangerous white culture

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not sure what you're asking for from Obama. According to TNC, he hits this theme whenever he addresses mostly-black audiences, like graduation at historically black colleges. If you're not seeing coverage, I'd say that's a fault in the mainstream media for not covering it more, or perhaps your own media consumption doesn't bring you to places where you read about these things. I've known about this critique of Obama for years. It's not a new critique.

The thing is that it really doesn't do much good if it is limited to college graduations. I mean, are those really the kids who need to hear that stuff? They're the ones graduating from colleges.

You want him to be more pointed on crime in black neighborhoods? He's been saying plenty, to the degree that people further along the spectrum than TNC have been calling him a sellout, saying he's done nothing for black America. You want him to go off about it during a State of the Union?

That would be nice. Or maybe some other speech in a venue or of importance to get more coverage. Do you think maybe the fact that "calling out the black community" gets a negative reaction from some is one reason he doesn't do this in a manner calculated to get more media coverage?

Or is he that mystical (half) black man that's responsible for how all black people behave?

Look, don't get me wrong on this. I know that what I'm looking for is probably unfair. It's just that I'm sick and tired of seeing photos of 5 year old little boys shot by a stray bullet in some drive-by. Or some kid killed while he's just walking to school. It is absolutely heartbreaking, and I don't think there are any easy answers. And I think that's almost been accepted as the norm, or something that we cannot do anything about. And when someone like Cosby does talk about it, he gets blasted.

It's depressing.

[Exa Inova]

I didn't quite follow that. Sorry.

Ill try to explain.

Since Im sure white teenage boys could/would/have reacted in the same way and havent been shot (apparently) I ask myself why havent they been shot? Were they not threatening? And if so, why are black teen boys threatening (because they do get shot)

If the shooter feels threatened by young blacks why is that so? Young whites do the same thing. Is the shooter a racist or just made scared by media images of young blacks?

These elements coupled with the stand your ground law where one is allowed to use deadly force even if there is only perceived danger could lead to more death black youths

How come when a black American appears to be wronged, there will be all sorts of people coming out of the woodwork to identify with the victim in the name of racial solidarity?

If what i wrote above is true then the only difference between a death and living teenage boy is his skin color. Logically people of the same color as the death teenager will say 'damn, that couldve been me'.

[DanteGabriel]

That would be nice. Or maybe some other speech in a venue or of importance to get more coverage.

Like maybe about three weeks ago, right after the Zimmerman trial wrapped?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/obama-gives-unexpected-speech-race-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me-35-years-ago/67391/#transcript

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

[Kolantero]

If you don't think "overly political correct" has been a slogan for conservatives since the 90s then I just don't think you've read enough material from the conservatives. That's pretty much the go-to response they have for anything to do with issues ranging from feminism to homophobia.

So, what, no one can complain about "political correctness" because the "evil conservatives" has turned it into a slogan? Or is it that "political correctness" doesn't exist? (spoiler: it does). There are no occasions of a full-of-shit hypersensitivity, especially in certain selected subjects? (spoiler: there are)

Gotta love the "progessives"/feminists. They whine about how people dismiss their arguments with labels like "politically correct" and then they dismiss what other people are saying simply by labeling them as "conservative" (while somehow also trying to pass "conservatism" as something inherently wrong, somehow) because they used the phrase. They whine about how people of opposite ideologies generalize their issues by putting them all under the "politically correct" umbrella to undermine them and then they do the exact same thing by generalizing to the same group anyone who mentions political correctness.

So, yeah, "political correctness" exists and no you cannot group together everyone saying the phrase under the same category based on how some people are using the phrase because it suits you. That's borderline propaganda.

[DanteGabriel]

Wow, when did this become about feminists? Or is it (judging by your title) you just like to shit-talk "feminists" whenever given a halfway natural opening?

ETA: But see, here's the thing. No one is forcing you to be "politically correct." Essentially, political correctness is an agreed-upon set of words for discourse so that people know you're not trying to be offensive. You can go ahead and ignore it if you want, but don't be surprised if people think you're a bigoted jerk when you use those words. You are free to use whatever words you want! And other people are similarly free to draw conclusions about you based on the words you choose, and treat you accordingly.

And yes, usually the only time I hear people bring up "political correctness" is in the form of the lost-privilege brigade getting angry that they get called bigoted jerks for using bigoted words.

[Kolantero]

Wow, when did this become about feminists? Or is it (judging by your title) you just like to shit-talk "feminists" whenever given a halfway natural opening?

Terra Prime made the link about it earlier and "political correctness" is usually used against feminism rather than anything else. As he says himself, his opinion on the "political correct" phrase stems from its use against feminism and "homophobia" (which are both represented by modern feminism) Anyway let me change my post then to something more appropriate.

[Glaurung]

I would agree with Dante that Obama has done a pretty good job at addressing your concerns FLOW. There's times he's probably been a bit too vocal when he should be neutral on some things, but he's tried to play it fair on both sides.

As for Terra criticizing Ninja, if you don't agree with her then try to reason with her rather than dismiss her post as conservative hogwash. I tend to be in the middle on the issue. A lot of what she said in her post is true. We do have a generation of over privileged people who don't know the meaning of hard work and expect things to be handed to them. On the other hand we have a generation that is more tolerant of homosexuals & other races, more pro-peace, tolerant to differing religious beliefs, etc. I don't know why stances on these things always have to take a conservative side or a liberal side to everything. In many cases the newer generations are better previous generations with wonderful progress being made, but that's not to say that all values held by preceding generations(or opposing political parties) were bad ones either. Just because something has a conservative stance doesn't make it a bad one or an untrue one.

Unfortunately in today's world there is such a division of political views that people become so loyal to a party that they are simply incapable of viewing an issue with an unbiased perspective. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you either Terra. This is a complaint about most people, myself included.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ill try to explain.

Since Im sure white teenage boys could/would/have reacted in the same way and havent been shot (apparently) I ask myself why havent they been shot? Were they not threatening? And if so, why are black teen boys threatening (because they do get shot)

This is why the specifics of a case are important. According to Zimmerman, and at least some physical evidence, Martin ended up attacking Zimmerman, broke his nose, and was on top of him doing a "ground and pound" as one witness described it, with Zimmerman screaming for help and eventually shooting Martin while Martin was on top of him. Now, if that version of facts is correct, then I'd say a white who did that very well may get shot. In my city, there are reports of both black and white people being killed.

If the shooter feels threatened by young blacks why is that so? Young whites do the same thing. Is the shooter a racist or just made scared by media images of young blacks?

Again, it all depends on the specifics, and that's why trying to applied broad social trends to a specific situation is dicey. The truth is that a young black man is more likely to be viewed as a potential threat that a young white man. And it's not just racism or media images -- it's true statistically, unfortunately. As I said, there was a quote from civil rights activist Jesse Jackson that he was relieved to find out that it was someone white behind him.

That's horrible, and makes everyone uncomfortable. And there clearly is a fair bit of racism on that point by people who draw broad conclusions about "them". But...look, a lot of black Americans feel more comfortable and safer around other blacks. Not many people call that racism, but if a white person admits to feeling anything similar, they'll likely be considered racist. And yes, there's a history of discrimination and persecution against blacks by some whites, just as there are current statistics that show young black men are more likely to commit more violent crimes. The whole thing is a shit sandwich, so to speak, that makes everyone uncomfortable to talk about.

[DanteGabriel]

Terra Prime made the link about it earlier and "political correctness" is usually used against feminism rather than anything else. As he says himself, his opinion on the "political correct" phrase stems from its use against feminism and "homophobia" (which are both represented by modern feminism) Anyway let me change my post then to something more appropriate.

Well, okay, but your post doesn't make any more sense. So now "progressives" get to be tarred with some vague accusations of poor argumentation? All I see in your post is a word salad of angry resentment.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Like maybe about three weeks ago, right after the Zimmerman trial wrapped?

Sure. But that's kind of the point. That speech was overwhelmingly focused on discrimination against young black Americans, and very little on the disproportionate amount of crime being commited. Given the circumstances of that particular speech, I understand why. But for whatever reason, whatever speeches he gives on the disproportionate amount of crime just aren't picked up or given emphasis. I'm not sure if that's because of the venues in which he chooses to give them, whether his words are couched too carefully to garner mauch attention, or what.

[DanteGabriel]

Sure. But that's kind of the point. That speech was overwhelmingly focused on discrimination against young black Americans, and very little on the disproportionate amount of crime being commited. Given the circumstances of that particular speech, I understand why. But for whatever reason, whatever speeches he gives on the disproportionate amount of crime just aren't picked up or given emphasis. I'm not sure if that's because of the venues in which he chooses to give them, whether his words are couched too carefully to garner mauch attention, or what.

Are you saying that the media doesn't talk enough about crime rates in poor black communities, and it's this President's job, because of his race, to shine more of a spotlight on it?

[Kolantero]

ETA: But see, here's the thing. No one is forcing you to be "politically correct." [...]You can go ahead and ignore it if you want, but don't be surprised if people think you're a bigoted jerk when you use those words.

Actually, yeah if it will allow people to draw faulty conclusions about me (see TP post calling the other user a conservative when she wasn't) and if these conclusions are passed off as correct because they are politically correct, it does force me to not use those words, or issue irrational clarifications and apologies to go with these words when I shouldn't have to.

You are free to use whatever words you want! And other people are similarly free to draw conclusions about you based on the words you choose, and treat you accordingly.

Ofcourse they are free to judge me (or anyone) however they want based on what I (or anyone) say(s) and I am free to point out when some of these judgments are simply BS and judge them back based on what they said, which is what i did.

Essentially, political correctness is an agreed-upon set of words for discourse so that people know you're not trying to be offensive.

No, its not an agreed-upon set of words (agreed by who exactly?), political correctness its nothing more some overt social "rules", resulting from the battle of different ideologies on different subjects, with which each person can agree or disagree with.

And yes, usually the only time I hear people bring up "political correctness" is in the form of the lost-privilege brigade getting angry that they get called bigoted jerks for using bigoted words.

Funny thing, I usually hear the words "bigot" and "lost-privilege" from bullshitting "progressives" but I still don't somehow thing that it is some sort of ground to dismiss their opinions without examining them or claim that the use of those words can be used as an argument in my favor.

[DanteGabriel]

Funny thing, I usually hear the words "bigot" and "lost-privilege" from bullshitting "progressives" but I still don't somehow thing that it is some sort of ground to dismiss their opinions without examining them or claim that the use of those words can be used as an argument in my favor.

Right, I can see that you are totally open to the arguments of "progressives."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA: But see, here's the thing. No one is forcing you to be "politically correct." Essentially, political correctness is an agreed-upon set of words for discourse so that people know you're not trying to be offensive.

There is an element of political correctness that rightly steers people away from the use of offensive words. I don't think anyone is saying that "ni**er" or "fag" are appropriate. But I think there is also an element that involves suppression of unpleasant truths, or suppression of purely descriptive words that someone has decided are offensive just because they are.. There's nothing wrong with "fat". For that matter, I'm still not sure what was wrong with "blind".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Are you saying that the media doesn't talk enough about crime rates in poor black communities, and it's this President's job, because of his race, to shine more of a spotlight on it?

No. There's a fair bit of discussion of crime rates. What there is a relative lack of is the willingness to assign publicly responsibility to the people who commit them.

I'm biased because of a military background. But I can tell you that one thing recruits were told -- and the message never stops -- is that you are responsible for your own actions, and your own future. Don't blame society, or the way you were raised, or how tough you had it, because nobody is going to accept those things as excuses. You're going to be judged on what you do, not who you are or where you came from. And for a fairly high percentage of kids from shitty backgrounds, that is message they actually get. It's like a light bulb goes off, and they're glad for it.

Now, are someone's chances for success affected by the environment in which they were raised? Of course. But it doesn't do anyone any good to let that become an excuse.

[DanteGabriel]

There is an element of political correctness that rightly steers people away from the use of offensive words. I don't think anyone is saying that "ni**er" or "fag" are appropriate. But I think there is also an element that involves suppression of unpleasant truths, or suppression of purely descriptive words that someone has decided are offensive just because they are.. There's nothing wrong with "fat". For that matter, I'm still not sure what was wrong with "blind".

We can quibble about which words require intervention. To be honest, I don't care if someone calls me "Filipino" or "Asian" or "Asian American." But I know it's not just my offense threshhold that matters.

I don't know who gets to decide what's offensive, but if I'm not a member of the affected group, I think it's basic consideration to let someone of the affected group decide for themselves, and not use words they don't like if they express a preference.

I'm also not sure if what you and I are talking about here, FLOW, is what has got Ninja and Kolantero so worked up.

[DanteGabriel]

No. There's a fair bit of discussion of crime rates. What there is a relative lack of is the willingness to assign publicly responsibility to the people who commit them.

What, have people been excusing crimes committed by black people? Saying that people who kill other people shouldn't be punished? Not exactly sure what's going on. Could you cite some examples of this lack of willingness to assign responsibility? I'm not trolling or fishing here, I swear.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We can quibble about which words require intervention. To be honest, I don't care if someone calls me "Filipino" or "Asian" or "Asian American." But I know it's not just my offense threshhold that matters. I don't know who gets to decide what's offensive, but if I'm not a member of the affected group, I think it's basic consideration to let someone of the affected group decide for themselves, and not use words they don't like if they express a preference.

Well, one problem with that is whether one person can speak for everyone in the group.

I'm also not sure if what you and I are talking about here, FLOW, is what has got Ninja and Kolantero so worked up.

I mentioned the point about PC being used to suppress not just offensive words, but ideas as well. That's what I think those guys are discussing, and I'm just not up for that today. I think there is some truth in it but I don't care to hash it out here, especially because I like the issue being discussed more. It's just been bugging me for awhile since all the Detroit stuff hit. The big news is over the bankruptcy, and the pensions for all the city workers. Rather ignored are all the Americans who are left in a city with high crime, and no hope. And mostly black, FWIW.

[DanteGabriel]

Well, one problem with that is whether one person can speak for everyone in the group.

But since you don't know what members of a group are going to find something offensive, political correctness provides theoretical guidelines for words that stand the best chance of not offending people. It's not a perfect system by any means and sometimes I roll my eyes when I discover new words that I shouldn't use, but again, I'm fairly privileged so I try not to get too worked up about it, and go along with it.

I mentioned the point about PC being used to suppress not just offensive words, but ideas as well. That's what I think those guys are discussing, and I'm just not up for that today. I think there is some truth in it but I don't care to hash it out here, especially because I like the issue being discussed more. It's just been bugging me for awhile since all the Detroit stuff hit. The big news is over the bankruptcy, and the pensions for all the city workers. Rather ignored are all the Americans who are left in a city with high crime, and no hope. And mostly black, FWIW.

Well, sure. There's a cottage industry of people out there who raise a stink for reasons of poor faith -- mostly for attention-grabbing or self-aggrandizement. And we should be able to discuss ideas that make us uncomfortable in a civil society. If that's what the other two posters were trying to get at, I couldn't make it out through all the generalized, poorly focused bloviating about younger generations and progressives and whatnot.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What, have people been excusing crimes committed by black people? Saying that people who kill other people shouldn't be punished? Not exactly sure what's going on. Could you cite some examples of this lack of willingness to assign responsibility? I'm not trolling or fishing here, I swear.

See, this is the kind of thing I really didn't want to get into because it takes too much effort to write something that is properly sourced and not misinterpreted. The points aren't exactly bright line. But since you're asking in good faith, I'll give the brief version a shot.

When the high crime rate in urban areas gets discussed, one of the first reactions is "we need more programs such as "x", as if it is the lack of such programs that causes such behavior. "Well, there needs to be a summer jobs program". There is also an educational and societal theme that focuses on how poorly black Americans were treated for so long. Much of that is true, but I think the problem is that the message has gotten garbled to the point where a major part of the mindset in urban areas is one of victimization. And being taught that you're a victim may give some a license to believe they have the right to engage in behaviors because they have a built in excuse or justification. And, that they are not really responsibile for their situation or future because life dealt them a shitty hand.

In essense, the problem with the Cosby message is that it's called that because he's one of the few major public figures pushing it. Again, I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I know that it is a huge disadvantage to grow up in those shitty environments. I've taught in a couple of those schools and seen it myself. But I don't think repeatedly emphasing that point is healthy. You sometimes watch some of the really good kids in pro sports who came from horrible neighborhoods, or under-privileged backgrounds, and the commonality often is the almost stereotypical strong black mother, father, or grandfather who wouldn't accept excuses, didn't tolerate backtalk or bad behavior, didn't buy into the victim mentality, and the result is a polite kid who addresses older people as "sir" or "ma'am", doesn't ruin their career with drugs or a bad attitude etc..

It is a horribly difficult problem. I'd be supportive of more money going into cities if I thought it would be spent in the right way, not viewed as an entitlement, and was being accompanied by a strong message of personal accountability, responsibility, and less tolerance for poor behavior. I think fixing it would require the goring of a lot of sacred cows, and I'm not sure we're up to it.