White fragility

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

But make no mistake, today we actually still have racist laws. For example, someone convicted of possessing one gram of crack would receive a sentence 100 times longer than someone possessing one gram of cocaine, even though there's almost no chemical difference between the two substances. So, you might wonder why this difference in punishment? Well, I can't tell you that, but what I can tell you is that crack is being consumed predominantly by poor black people, whereas cocaine is mostly being consumed by rich white people. I leave it up to you to decide whether this is just a coincidence.

I can see that racism still exists, but calling it systemic racism in a first world country sounds way off.

The example you provided here is not evidence of anything systemic. If anything, you're imagining things, and that seems a bit paranoid. Maybe what you said is true and maybe even it's exactly because of the reason you highlighted. But that doesn't mean there's systemic racism. That would only mean that some rich whites are racists, and since they have influence because of their money, they have the ability to manipulate the law to their benefit, that's all. There's no need for conspiracy theories here.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gesundheit
Underlined addition

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

The example you provided here is not evidence of anything systemic.

Having laws that disproportionately impact black people is systemic racism.

Powder cocaine and crack have very similar harm profiles to society. However, the laws against crack are much more severe and are enforced much more intensely. These laws were specifically designed by Nixon in the 1970s to target black people. Cocaine users are mostly white and crack users are mostly black. At the time, Nixon could not say "I want to imprison more black people". So to do so, he needed to create laws that disproportionately targeted black people. People in the Nixon administration later admitted this. . . These types of covert laws are imbedded within the system. Even today, police offers make more arrests for crack use and judges give harsh prison sentences (to mostly black people). Yet powder cocaine usage (by mostly white people) is not severely enforce and judges give light sentences like a warning or probation. These police officers and judges might not be intentionally racist, they are just following the racist rules that still exist within the system.

17 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

If anything, you're imagining things, and that seems a bit paranoid. Maybe what you said is true and maybe even it's exactly because of the reason you highlighted. But that doesn't mean there's systemic racism. That would only mean that rich whites are racists, and since they have influence because of their money, they have the ability to manipulate the law to their benefit, that's all. There's no need for conspiracy theories here.

It is systemic racism by the common definition. This law was introduced by the Nixon administration to target black people, arrest them and imprison them. It is still part of the legal system. There are mountains of data clearly showing black people are disproportionally targeted by drug laws. 

[Epikur]

Under this premise you could argue that it would also be the case with affirmative action just in an opposite way

Edited April 1, 2021 by Epikur

[Gesundheit]

@Forestluv @Zeitgeist If what you're saying is true and so glaringly obvious, then what did Obama do about it during his administration? Or is he racist too?

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv If what you're saying is true and so glaringly obvious, then what did Obama do about it during his administration? Or is he racist too?

I'd say it's more complex than that. There needs to be awareness and support at the societal level. Drug laws have deep roots within systemic infrastructure. A president can't simply say "I hereby change this drug law". There is a process and there needs to be support. In the 1970s a president trying to decriminalize marijuana would have been marginalized and stigmatized. Someone admitting they smoked weed would be disqualified. Today, Biden could sign an executive order decriminalizing weed at the federal level if he wanted to. There is finally enough support for that. Yet he couldn't get away with decriminalizing psychedelics. There isn't enough public support yet.

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Or is he racist too?

This brings up distinctions between "racist", "nonracist" and "antiracist". I would consider a "nonracist" as someone that doesn't actively personally engage in racism, yet passively participates in a system with racism and doesn't do anything about it. An "anti-racist" specifically tries to address aspect of racism. For example, a white person might not be personally engaging in racism, yet they work at an institution in which they benefit from institutional racism. For example, the institution might be set up that it is harder for poc to get promoted. An anti-racist would see this, get upset and take action to make the work place more fair. Yet, we need to choose our battles carefully. If I tried to address every racial issue at my institution, it would take 50+ hrs a week. My entire time would be trying to address racial issues. As well, there can be severe backlash in confronting systemic racism. There are situations in which a person could be marginalized, stigmatized or fired for confronting racial inequities. I've seen racial issues at my work that I just don't won't to get involved with. It would be a messy fight and take an enormous amount of time and energy. 

This mentality has been consistently demonstrated in psychology experiments. Nearly everyone says that they would step in and help someone being harmed. For example, nearly everyone says that if they saw someone in harm on they would step in and try to help. Yet experiments have clearly shown that the vast majority actually exposed to someone being harmed will not want to get involved and will rationalize turning a blind eye and moving on. 

I suppose we could consider turning a blind eye or not wanting to get involved as a form of "passive racism". Yet there is only so much one person can do. 

 

[Etherial Cat]

49 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv @Zeitgeist If what you're saying is true and so glaringly obvious, then what did Obama do about it during his administration? Or is he racist too?

Becoming president doesn't necessarily give you the cards to do all the move you wish for.

You've got to compose with existing forces and be strategic. Obama was supported by the democrats. The democrat electorate and its big donors are overwhelmingly white. While more open-minded, I'm certain that taking strong measures to try to undo systemic racism could have been widely unpopular. It's even likely to have fueled the Republicans.

Imagine the shitstorm that would have come from actively trying to push reparations, affirmative actions and other type of strong anti-racist campaigns. 

Not to mention that even without that, Obama's presidency didn't have the chance to have a collaborative house due to the Rep blocking most of his policies.

[Gesundheit]

50 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

There isn't enough public support yet.

So for Nixon, it was easy. But for Obama, it was hard.

To me, that means one of two possibilities:

1. The public support is actually representative of the American society, and the majority of Americans are racists. This won't go away with law upgrades. In fact, it will probably get worse due to the backlash. The racism is inherent in the psyches of many Americans, and that's their level of development.
2. Your stories don't hold up, and Obama was just lazy.

50 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Yet there is only so much one person can do.

He's definitely not alone. But the question is "what did he do about the situation?" Not "did he or did he not achieve total equality?" He might not have been able to achieve a lot, but if he tried, he would have been able to make some progress at least. So again, what did he do about racial inequality? And what about the other 10 (not sure about the number) presidents in between him and Nixon? Were they all racists whether active or passive?

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

31 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Obama was supported by the democrats. The democrat electorate and its big donors are overwhelmingly white. While more open-minded, I'm certain that taking strong measures to try to undo systemic racism could have been widely unpopular. It's even likely to have fueled the Republicans.

And a lot of centrist democrats were ethnocentric. Not quite racist, yet they still had some discomfort with a black president. I think this is one reason Obama picked Biden as his VP. Biden was the quintessential white guy who gave some comfort and permission to vote Obama for the 20% of ethnocentric democrats.

12 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

So for Nixon, it was easy. But for Obama, it was hard.

To me, that means one of two possibilities:

1. The public support is actually representative of the American society, and the majority of Americans are racists. This won't go away with law upgrades. In fact, it will probably get worse due to the backlash. The racism is inherent in the psyches of many Americans, and that's their level of development.
2. Your stories don't hold up, and Obama was just lazy.

There is an important distinction: Constructing laws that disproportionately affect minorities (Nixon) vs Deconstructing laws that disproportionately affect minorities (Obama). These dynamics are related, yet also have some unique components.

I would say #1 is closer to the truth, yet not quite. I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans are overt racists. There are many Americans that would be better described as ethnocentric. As well, many Americans are not consciously racist, they have unconscious biases they are not aware of. 

A lot of Americans are ambivalent with a lot of laws. For example, I'm not that engaged with the abortion issue. It doesn't affect me or most people in my close social circle (we are beyond child-bearing age). I would vote pro-choice - yet it's not an issue I would fight for. I'm not part of any pro-choice groups doing outreach, fighting in courts, developing safer methods etc. I'm more interested in other issues like climate change and neural diversity. Yet that doesn't mean I'm "anti-woman". Similarly, if someone isn't engaged in fighting for diversity, equality and inclusion - that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist, sexist, homophobic etc. They could simply be an average Joe that doesn't get involved with those social issues. 

Changing laws in the U.S. is a complex, nuanced system. It's not as simple as flicking a switch. 

25 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

He's definitely not alone. But the question is "what did he do about the situation?" Not "did he or did he not achieve total equality?" He might not have been able to achieve a lot, but if he tried, he would have been able to make some progress at least. So again, what did he do about racial inequality? And what about the other 10 (not sure about the number) presidents in between him and Nixon? Were they all racists whether active or passive?

It depends on the perspective and what counts as "doing something". I would say the process of being the first black president itself is doing something. For example, Jackie Robinson did an enormous amount for racial integration of sports simply by being the first black player in major league baseball. Jackie Robinson didn't change any laws. He wasn't an outspoken justice warrior. He was mild-mannered. He was a good human being, a hardworking man and a great team player. Even though he didn't directly change any policies, he mere presence had a huge impact on raising the consciousness of white people.

Robinson and Obama both had to endure a huge amount of racism - and they did so with dignity and class in a leadership role. This has an impact and is "doing something". It's not just about policy change.

And in terms of policy change. . . imagine it from the perspective of the under-represented person. What do you think would have happened if Jackie Robinson was an outspoken critic of racism and tried to drastically change racist policies in baseball? There would have been a huge backlash - in particular because he is black and would look threatening. As well, the entire baseball establishment is against him. Similarly, look how massive the backlash against Obama was - America elected Trump. Obama didn't even make any big racial policy changes and there was still major backlash. Imagine what would have happened if Obama was outspoken and tried to make radical policy changes that white people found threatening. The backlash would be worse. As well, the Republican senate specifically said they would block ALL of Obama's policies.

Yet it's not like Obama did "nothing" in terms of policy. Obama was a main force in police reform and legislation for police body cams. Body cams had a big impact with racial disparities in policing. 

As well, I don't think it's fair to put the burden of D.E.I. on minorities. They already have to carry the burden of discrimination and it's not fair to say "it's your problem, do something about it". I don't think it's fair to raise expectations on Obama because he is black. I would place higher expectations on a white president because they have forms of white priveledge that a black president doesn't have. Look at the difference between Obama and Biden. . . Biden worked under Obama and his staff is mostly from the Obama administration. Notice how differently conservatives perceive Obama vs Biden. . . They still attack Biden, yet very differently than Obama - in part because Biden has privileges that Obama didn't have. For example, conservatives don't say that Biden isn't a "real American", yet they constantly did that with Obama. Conservatives don't paint Biden has some foreign oddity - yet did so constantly with Obama (Birtherism, Obama is a closet Muslim etc.)

[NOTintoxicated]

2 hours ago, Epikur said:

Under this premise you could argue that it would also be the case with affirmative action just in an opposite way

You heard it here first folks. The attempt to liberate a marginalized group of people is the same type of contemptible racism that white supremacists are accused of. We're dealing with a true genius over here.

Seriously though, how has this guy not been banned?

[Epikur]

3 minutes ago, NOTintoxicated said:

You heard it here first folks. The attempt to liberate a marginalized group of people is the same type of contemptible racism that white supremacists are accused of. We're dealing with a true genius over here.

Seriously though, how has this guy not been banned?

I guess because it is not a woke communist forum I guess

Edited April 1, 2021 by Epikur

[NOTintoxicated]

1 minute ago, Epikur said:

I guess because it is not a woke communist forum I guess

Okay mister race realist.

On 3/29/2021 at 1:00 PM, Epikur said:

Relax my friend. Epistomology is not easy. Science is a difficult thing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Heritability_within_and_between_groups

Got any more debunked pseudo science claiming that blacks are inherently lower IQ due to genetics?

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Epikur said:

Under this premise you could argue that it would also be the case with affirmative action just in an opposite way

You are missing a distinction. 

Yes, affirmative action has a racial preference component, yet the intention is to correct for a larger, more severe racial inequity issue. 

Do you have a better strategy to correct for inequity and exclusion? Not an idealistic view like "just treat everyone the equally". That doesn't work in the real world. Do you have any concrete strategies that are evidence-based and effective that are better than affirmative action?

On 3/29/2021 at 4:00 PM, Epikur said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Heritability_within_and_between_groups

Be mindful if you are reaching for science and statistics to support a pre-conceived agenda. This will distort the science. Intelligence, genetics and race is a highly complex, nuanced issue. 

 

[Epikur]

@NOTintoxicated

Relax my friend you are late to the party. This song has already been played out. Sorry we are done with it.

[Epikur]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You are missing a distinction. 

Yes, affirmative action has a racial preference component, yet the intention is to correct for a larger, more severe racial inequity issue. 

Do you have a better strategy to correct for inequity and exclusion? Not an idealistic view like "just treat everyone the equally". That doesn't work in the real world. Do you have any concrete strategies that are evidence-based and effective that are better than affirmative action?

Actually I am pro affirmative action

[NOTintoxicated]

1 minute ago, Epikur said:

@NOTintoxicated

Relax my friend you are late to the party. This song has already been played out. Sorry we are done with it.

This just in: Derek Chauvin lover declares the science is settled; black people are lower IQ because their genetics are inferior to whites. Genius.

[Epikur]

Just now, NOTintoxicated said:

This just in: Derek Chauvin lover declares the science is settled; black people are lower IQ because their genetics are inferior to whites. Genius.

Ok clarification. We discussed this topic on this forum last year. You can check the archives. That is why we are done.

[Forestluv]

 

7 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Actually I am pro affirmative action

Being pro something does not necessarily mean one is aware of underlying distinctions. Someone can be pro-affirmative action, yet be unaware of many underlying racial dynamics. 

I could be pro-vegetarian, yet if I say "Vegetarianism is the reverse of drinking gasoline", it would reflect a misunderstanding. 

[Epikur]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

 

Being pro something does not necessarily mean one is aware of underlying distinctions. Someone can be pro-affirmative action, yet be unaware of many underlying racial dynamics. 

I could be pro-vegetarian, yet if I say "Vegetarianism is the reverse of drinking gasoline", it would reflect a misunderstanding. 

Yes it can mean many things

[Gesundheit]

@Forestluv I feel the sentiment/overcorrection you have for poc is somehow disempowering to them because it leads to victim mindset. Not that I disagree on the position itself. Just the way it's being presented. Look for possible biases within your last reply.

[NOTintoxicated]

It's double trouble with today's internet intellectuals.
 

1 minute ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv I feel the sentiment/overcorrection you have for poc is somehow disempowering to them because it leads to victim mindset. Not that I disagree on the position itself. Just the way it's being presented. Look for possible biases within your last reply.

Apparently acknowledging the ways that POC are disadvantaged is to enact racial injustice because people will understand how POC are disadvantaged. The victim mindset this evokes will inevitably counteract all the benefits of societal awareness of these issues. I can't even.. Where does Actualized find these people?

16 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Ok clarification. We discussed this topic on this forum last year. You can check the archives. That is why we are done.

The short bus must be one student short today. A discussion that took place a year ago disqualifies any further discussion on an ever-evolving social matter. It's as if Actualized hired a court jester for comic relief but got more than it bargained for.