General Current Events/Political Discussion

[CodysGameRoom | 2,014]

55 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

How am I enabling racism (systemic or individual) when I’ve taken no racist action in my life?

Denying systemic racism exists is in itself a racist action. I'm not saying that makes you a full fledged racist, but I think it means you need to take a look outside of your own personal situations and experiences and look at a bigger picture of things.

[Silent Hill | 284]

27 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

How can an immigrant get systemically prejudiced against in a country they didnt live in their whole life? We are talking about black people born in the US. Most other “groups” dont have the same history as Blacks in the US (Outside of Native Americans). A majority of Latino and Asian came here within a few generations as immigrants, Blacks were brought here as Slaves. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that systemic racism and oppression is only applied those who have ancestors that were enslaved (in America specifically)?

Do you think that a black person's family heritage is taken into consideration when the "system" oppresses them? Surely a black person who is an American citizen, but came from a different culture, would be equally oppressed by systemic racism because their skin color is the same, right? 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,014]

5 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

(a legal act would be preferred)

Why such an obsession with the legal system? Racism unrelated to law is not an issue with you? You can't just point to the laws and say "there are no racist laws so there is no systemic racism". The issue is people within the system abusing it to engage in racist actions and behavior. It's illegal in some places for cops to racially profile people, but how do you prove they are not? That is using the system to perpetuate their racism. 

[fcgamer | 5,015]

6 minutes ago, Gloves said:

According to your friend.

You can't apply your cultural viewpoint on other cultures, and that's what is happening here. Corey applied an American / Canadian viewpoint on the issue, without  stopping to acknowledge that it may not hold true elsewhere.

Initially, I admit to baiting him, as I didn't mention the fact that he is from South Africa; however, after hearing the context, Corey doubled down and even goes so far as to try to tell other people what they should be referred to. Which is not cool, imo, and not really accepted anymore.

[Silent Hill | 284]

3 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Denying systemic racism exists is in itself a racist action. I'm not saying that makes you a full fledged racist, but I think it means you need to take a look outside of your own personal situations and experiences and look at a bigger picture of things.

I don't see how that works. Racism exists today, and it always will. Systemic racism does not exist today, (it legitimately did before) or at least not in a fashion that anyone can properly define as to take action against it. And not in a fashion that makes it the sole culprit for all disparities between black people and all other races within America. 

[MrWunderful | 2,932]

Just now, fcgamer said:

You can't apply your cultural viewpoint on other cultures, and that's what is happening here. Corey applied an American / Canadian viewpoint on the issue, without  stopping to acknowledge that it may not hold true elsewhere.

Initially, I admit to baiting him, as I didn't mention the fact that he is from South Africa; however, after hearing the context, Corey doubled down and even goes so far as to try to tell other people what they should be referred to. Which is not cool, imo, and not really accepted anymore.

In the context of discussing systemic racism in the US, I am right. 
 

Pointing out that you have a friend from South Africa who is ok with you calling him colored, is irrelevant in the context of the discussion. 

[cartman | 195]

Just now, MrWunderful said:

In the context of discussing systemic racism in the US, I am right. 
 

Pointing out that you have a friend from South Africa who is ok with you calling him colored, is irrelevant in the context of the discussion. 

I think it's better to stray away from the elitist and rigid grouping into colors altogether and replace it with something more inclusive instead. Perhaps something like Monotone-1 for whites and Monotone-2 for blacks. That way nobody will be offended.

[Tulpa | 3,715]

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

Can you give me an example of a subtle, unnoticed act of racism that impacts a minority's future and/or well-being? (a legal act would be preferred)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_racism

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real

Plenty of them.

BTW, I am encouraged that you're willing to listen.

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

How many of these racists from the Civil Rights era are still pulling the strings today? Did they just pass along their racism playbook to their kin, or was it left as part of their organization's policy?

 

Like I said, it isn't a cabal. It's wormed its way into the system. And it was laid out way before the Civil Rights era.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10101266476857446&set=pcb.10101266479746656

And this link is enlightening.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/juneteenth-tulsa-massacre-what-isn-t-taught-classrooms-has-profound-n1231442?utm_source=pocket-newtab

They're passed along in actions. Not just teaching a child it's okay to use the N-word, but in things that are taught and not taught.

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I understand the definition(s) bounced around as and I've looked at resources for both viewpoints. I watch/read one thing and can easily find something that directly counters every point made, so I try and go with the most logical resources, especially those that use statistical analysis.

 

I take it you just want hard numbers, and I get it, and that's what makes it tough to define. You ever listen to the stories? It puts those numbers in context and they're not easy to refute, if they are even refutable.

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I feel like I get the point, but I struggle to get on board with something when there isn't a clear plan to the end-goal. The "solutions" are all over the board from defunding/abolishing the police to reparations, to holding city property hostage. I can't say I'm really behind any of those solutions. Give me an action and outcome that makes logical sense to fight systemic racism, and I'm willing to get on board. 

 

The solutions are a fundamental shift in understanding how our society works, and what it has done to oppress people in ways we don't even imagine. The "solutions" you listed aren't really even part of it.

You want an easy way out. I do get that. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way out. It will be tough.

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I've done nothing in my life that has stunted or negated the progress of another person because of their skin color, and I'm sure a lot of Americans are in the same boat. 

 

Again, are you sure? You may have done it without even knowing it. And that's not saying you're individually at fault. No one would say that.

But your actions can have consequences, and the actions of society can work against minorities. Even if we're not intentionally doing it.

I don't think you can say with absolute certainty. Not without examining every aspect of your life and how it works in the whole. But few ever want to go there anyway.

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

Hypothetically, let's say everyone is in favor of this movement. What action can be taken that will be the turning point? Will defunding/abolishing the police resolve systemic racism within the police force, or could it potentially amplify the chance of unlawful acts by cutting training and payroll funds thus creating a lower standard for recruitment? Not to mention the animosity against police right now. I'm sure their enrollment rates will drop because of this. 

 

I don't think the current situation will produce that long term solution. This has been going on for centuries. It's bigger than you and me. But we can do something.

 

35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

What can we address that will close the other gaps in outcomes? (income, wealth, housing, crime, etc.). I mean there HAS to be something tangible to address in each of these buckets that is systemically oppressing black people, right? If you can't define that, then what are we doing? It's a pipe dream. An unobtainable utopia of equal outcomes for all.

 

See, this is the type of attitude that lets it keep going. It's too big. It can't be defined. It's a pipe dream. Unobtainable.

Start by changing that.

Start by saying, "What can I do?"

We've made some strides. Slavery abolished. Civil Rights Act.

We are not done.

We all have a part to play.

But denying it takes place, or saying there is nothing to do sure won't put us any closer.

Will we ever abolish systemic racism? I don't know. But I do know that inaction surely won't.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Tulpa

[Silent Hill | 284]

1 minute ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Why such an obsession with the legal system? Racism unrelated to law is not an issue with you? You can't just point to the laws and say "there are no racist laws so there is no systemic racism". The issue is people within the system abusing it to engage in racist actions and behavior. It's illegal in some places for cops to racially profile people, but how do you prove they are not? That is using the system to perpetuate their racism. 

I mentioned legal because that would help the definition of systemic. Of course racism is an issue, it always will be. But any example of "subtle" systemic racism is really just an individual's racist act and they're most likely doing something illegal (laws against discrimination in every major facet of life). Like, an entire bank branch staff isn't "subtly" not loaning black people money, or else they'd be outed and prosecuted (as they should). If you think that stuff like this is just happening without anyone noticing/recording proof or taking action, then I don't know how to approach that. Do we audit all banks to find trends/proof or do we just claim systemic racism in banks because of the disparity in loans? For police, let's look at all interactions between white police officers and black citizens in a given time period. What percentage would you say are wrongfully arrested/charged, brutalized or killed - based on their skin color? What percentage would that need to be in order to transcend from individual's actions to systemic racism/oppression?

 

[Estil | 1,292]

33 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

The Term “Colored” comes from the Jim Crow era. “People/ Person of color” is considered the respectful term.

You do know what NAACP stands for right?  And what that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" organization is called right?

[fcgamer | 5,015]

18 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

In the context of discussing systemic racism in the US, I am right. 
 

Pointing out that you have a friend from South Africa who is ok with you calling him colored, is irrelevant in the context of the discussion. 

Nope, you're wrong. I was requested by a different member to ask my black friends about racism, and I responded that I don't have any, but do have a coloured friend which I could (and have) discussed racism with.

You told me I was being offensive, I told you I wasn't, you refused to admit being wrong / uninformed and doubled down on your response, even trying to tell a whole group of people what they should be referred to, despite them being in a totally different country, in a totally different situation.

Looking at the full context , you are most certainly wrong, and to try to state otherwise just makes you look uninformed or stupid 

[Estil | 1,292]

45 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Why such an obsession with the legal system? Racism unrelated to law is not an issue with you? You can't just point to the laws and say "there are no racist laws so there is no systemic racism". The issue is people within the system abusing it to engage in racist actions and behavior. It's illegal in some places for cops to racially profile people, but how do you prove they are not? That is using the system to perpetuate their racism. 

The burden of proof is how do you prove they ARE racially profiling people (AFAIK even in the Floyd and Atlanta incidents we've yet to see any indication that the officer did what they did because of racist kinds of things).  In this country it's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

But clearly BLM insists on presuming all white officers who are accused of shooting black people as presumed guilty of a racist hate crime.  That above all else is why I will not "just" go along with unconditionally saying those three magic words.  Presumption of innocence is one of (if not THE) the most important, sacred rights of our legal system.  While it is true that blacks throughout history have often not gotten that in history in practice (because of all white juries and well, all white everyone in the courtroom pretty much; hey I read To Kill A Mockingbird and saw the movie just like most other HS students) that is absolutely no excuse to now swing over to the opposite extreme.  I've said time and time again no problem in history has ever been solved or made better by going to the opposite extreme, and this is no exception.

And I know I'm beating this like a dead horse...but what is going on with this whole witch hunt for racists is no different than the witch hunt several decades ago for Communists and the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC; now we have UIAC's...University Intolerant Activities Committees as I like to call them) led by Joseph McCarthy (wiki him).  For both McCarthy and his anti-Communist movement/crusade and today with BLM and their anti-racist movement/crusade, both were equally convinced starting out that their cause was of absolute righteousness, that Communists/racists are the single greatest threat to America, and they must be rooted out and shamed at all costs.  There no doubt were a few at the start that were scarred and afraid that it might inevitably go too far but didn't want to say anything out of the very real fear of being accused of being a Communist/racist or at the very least being in cahoots with them.  In both cases there were those, celeberties and regular civilians alike who had their lives half or completely destroyed just from the mere accusation of being a Communist/racist, even if they were totally innocent and did nothing wrong.  In both cases some innocent people getting caught in the "dragnet" was viewed as perfectly acceptable "collateral damage".  But eventually, gradually the anti-Communist witch hunt did go waaaaaay too far and now you all know how Joe McCarthy is viewed in the history books and yes, among most of academia.

So do you guys now understand why I'm so concerned that BLM may also end up gradually taking their anti-racism crusade too far?  Surely you guys are not going to tell me with a straight face that my concerns are unfounded.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Estil

[Estil | 1,292]

5 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Nope, you're wrong. I was requested by a different member to ask my black friends about racism, and I responded that I don't have any, but do have a coloured friend which I could (and have) discussed racism with.

You told me I was being offensive, I told you I wasn't, you refused to admit being wrong / uninformed and doubled down on your response, even trying to tell a whole group of people what they should be referred to, despite them being in a totally different country, in a totally different situation.

Looking at the full context , you are most certainly wrong, and to try to state otherwise just makes you look uninformed or stupid 

That is because you, as an individual are in no way shape or form responsible for what some other guys/group do (unless of course you're a part of that group or something).

Edited June 23, 2020 by Estil

[Kguillemette | 1,616]

I've said before that black lives matter has a real issue with leadership. Early on DeRay McKesson and Shaun King were leading members as it grew to prominence. DeRay, being the actual black guy out of the two of them, started to become the face of the whole movement. It is speculated that King was unhappy about this and wanted more attention for himself and then began referring to himself as black, ala Rachael Dolezol. DeRay also began publicly noting that he felt donations to BLM were being misappropriated by King, so King got ahead of DuRay and had him black balled from the organization. (Duray is also gay, and there is discussion that he didn't want a gay person as the face of blm). King just doesn't have the leadership skills of Deray, so the organization went nowhere until he was forced out himself. After that, the organization just kind of dissolved and BLM morphed into a slogan, a rallying cry, a statement of fact. One I think we all can get behind. 

King, however, and this is my opinion, is trying to build significant notoriety for himself and get his name back into the media. Odds are you never knew who he was before now. With all the noise about removing statues, he's pulling out the big guns.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/shaun-king-jesus-christ-statues-white-supremacy

What King is failing to realize is that blacks by and large are very Christian and love Jesus. It is clear he doesn't understand the demographic he is trying to lead at all. I feel all he is going to do at this point is have more attention drawn to his own blackness, or lack thereof. It's going to be a mess. Where's MLK at?

[MrWunderful | 2,932]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

Nope, you're wrong. I was requested by a different member to ask my black friends about racism, and I responded that I don't have any, but do have a coloured friend which I could (and have) discussed racism with.

You told me I was being offensive, I told you I wasn't, you refused to admit being wrong / uninformed and doubled down on your response, even trying to tell a whole group of people what they should be referred to, despite them being in a totally different country, in a totally different situation.

Looking at the full context , you are most certainly wrong, and to try to state otherwise just makes you look uninformed or stupid 

Cool story Bro, I have black friends too. 
 

You injecting this tangent about how your buddy is cool with calling him something that is considered derogatory by a majority of this board, is Dumb dude.
 

 I was making light of the fact that in a thread about racism, you thought it important to use the term “colored“ when most of us on the board, participating in the discussion KNOW its an offensive, minimum “outdated” term.  
Talk about doubling down. 
 

Would you go to Chicago and start calling people colored? No you wouldnt.
 

We get it, you live in another country and are worldly.  Awesome.  but relating  racial unrest That the US is going through to what A guy from south Africa lets his ex pat buddy in Taiwan call him is a Super Trumpy “all about me and my experience” thing.  Bonus points for saying “you need to expand your world view”
 

Spike the Ball and declare victory, you Deserve it!
 

Dave 1

Me/us 0

[Estil | 1,292]

55 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

King, however, and this is my opinion, is trying to build significant notoriety for himself and get his name back into the media. Odds are you never knew who he was before now. With all the noise about removing statues, he's pulling out the big guns.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/shaun-king-jesus-christ-statues-white-supremacy

What King is failing to realize is that blacks by and large are very Christian and love Jesus. It is clear he doesn't understand the demographic he is trying to lead at all. I feel all he is going to do at this point is have more attention drawn to his own blackness, or lack thereof. It's going to be a mess. Where's MLK at?

Wow, just when I thought it could go no futher than George Washington (does this mean they're gonna refuse $1 bills or at least mark him as "racist slave holder" on them or something?).  I mean the statues were bad enough but can you imagine if God forbid (pun not intended) they could try to break precious stained class windows that might be several decades or even more than a century old.  In my local area a church did in fact get burned down via an arsonist I'm sorry and sad to say.    Does he not know or care how dangerous his calling for tearing down of Jesus that's not his preferred color is?   I thought God is supposed to be able to take on many forms?

[Gloves | 12,266]

I don't like the term "colored" because it's a very "white" and "others" kind of term. You're either "colored" or "white" with that terminology and I feel like that's just another shitty separation thing. 

I call black people black, and thus far nobody has had a problem with that. 

Generally speaking though, I call people by their names.

[Estil | 1,292]

Just now, Gloves said:

I don't like the term "colored" because it's a very "white" and "others" kind of term. You're either "colored" or "white" with that terminology and I feel like that's just another shitty separation thing. 

I call black people black, and thus far nobody has had a problem with that. 

Generally speaking though, I call people by their names.

Usually, in practice most blacks refer to themselves as black.  That's what I go by, whatever they prefer to call themselves.

[Gloves | 12,266]

Just now, Estil said:

Usually, in practice most blacks refer to themselves as black.  That's what I go by, whatever they prefer to call themselves.

Same.

[Estil | 1,292]

I mean all any of us can really do is treat everyone (well almost!) as fairly and respectably as we can.  And remember above all regarding prejudice of any kind...it can easily cause you to really miss out on some really swell people who might have otherwise been among your best pals/allies/whatever if you had given them a truly fair nonprejudicial chance.

And let's not forget my own take on the classic Golden Rule...what if one day it's you?  When you are tempted to have this "not my problem" 'tude, step back and ask yourself...what if it IS my problem someday down the road?

[fcgamer | 5,015]

14 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

You injecting this tangent about how your buddy is cool with calling him something that is considered derogatory by a majority of this board, is Dumb dude.

 I was making light of the fact that in a thread about racism, you thought it important to use the term “colored“ when most of us on the board, participating in the discussion KNOW its an offensive, minimum “outdated” term.  
Talk about doubling down. 

It's dumb for you to make the assumption that on an international forum, everyone is going to share the same experiences, cultures, and ideas regarding words.

Furthermore, it's ignorant of you to know go off on your tirade that those who consider themselves coloured, in South Africa, should be referred to as black just because Corey and others on VGS don't know anything about that racial situation.

 

[Estil | 1,292]

Wow, I'd say that Mark Twain quote was certainly tested for me!  I mean if indeed any man/woman who loves kitties should be my friend and comrade without further introduction, then if I'm gonna be fair and consistent about it....that must include even one of the most super liberal celebs out there...

I don't care how far left she wants to go...if she really loves kitties this much then I got no choice!   That's one super liberal celeb I'll never insult/name call!  

Edited June 23, 2020 by Estil

[MrWunderful | 2,932]

27 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

It's dumb for you to make the assumption that on an international forum, everyone is going to share the same experiences, cultures, and ideas regarding words.

Furthermore, it's ignorant of you to know go off on your tirade that those who consider themselves coloured, in South Africa, should be referred to as black just because Corey and others on VGS don't know anything about that racial situation.

 

Except we are talking about the US?
 

So we get it dude, you dont think the term is derogatory. Call your buddy whatever. You made your point. 

[Link | 2,880]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

Usually, in practice most blacks refer to themselves as black.  That's what I go by, whatever they prefer to call themselves.

I agree.

Now, what name have I called you?

[Link | 2,880]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

And let's not forget my own take on the classic Golden Rule...what if one day it's you?  When you are tempted to have this "not my problem" 'tude, step back and ask yourself...what if it IS my problem someday down the road?

How do you reconcile this and your reference to the Niemöller piece, with your “Kraepernick” stuff and your “all lives” stance?