White fragility

[Epikur]

@NOTintoxicated

Well you can try to discuss it. Might be a little hard on your own. Good luck finding partners.

[Gesundheit]

@NOTintoxicated You aren't seeing the validity of what I said even though I'm on the same side. So, you're basically fighting with yourself. Relax a little bit. Your silly online reactions count for nothing in the real world, and only highlight the fact that you're currently triggered and therefore blind, or that you're too closed-minded to begin with.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gesundheit

[NOTintoxicated]

30 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated You aren't seeing the validity of what I said even though I'm on the same side. So, you're basically fighting with yourself. Relax a little bit. Your silly online reactions count for nothing in the real world, and only highlight the fact that you're currently triggered and therefore blind, or that you're too closed-minded to begin with.

Look who's calling who triggered. Notice that I never said you were opposed to progressivism, it is obvious from your comments that's not necessarily the case. That doesn't change the fact that you're espousing a right-wing argument that black people are being done a disservice by pointing out how POC are disadvantaged. The reason why you didn't clarify exactly where I misinterpreted you and instead sheepishly deferred to the easier approach of merely stating that I can't understand your argument is because you're fully aware that I haven't misinterpreted you in the slightest, and there are no words you could use to demonstrate where I was misguided. 

Go ahead and embarrass me by pointing out what I missed from your comment. I'd better not hold my breath, I'll certainly be waiting a while...

[Gesundheit]

2 minutes ago, NOTintoxicated said:

black people are being done a disservice by pointing out how POC are disadvantaged.

Where did I ever say that?

[NOTintoxicated]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv I feel the sentiment/overcorrection you have for poc is somehow disempowering to them because it leads to victim mindset. 

Wow, short memory.

Just now, Gesundheit said:

Where did I ever say that?

 

[Gesundheit]

@NOTintoxicated That's your misinterpretation right there. I was pointing to something else entirely. I was pointing to various things that Forest said, and your interpretation is not any single one of them. An example is when he said that it's not fair to place high expectations on poc because they're oppressed. That leads to disempowerment and victim mindset imo. Just because someone has been treated poorly does not make them less. I've been treated poorly, does this mean I should not think of myself as an equal anymore? It's problematic to take this position because it assumes that poc are inherently less due to poor social rights, and it treats them as such. So instead of helping them out of inequality by empowering them with a mindset of full equality and responsibility, you end up confirming inequality and injustice whilst thinking that you are solving them.

Embarrassed yet?

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Epikur]

@Gesundheit

Sounds like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism_of_low_expectations

[Gesundheit]

12 minutes ago, Epikur said:

@Gesundheit

Sounds like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism_of_low_expectations

Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the concept.

[NOTintoxicated]

19 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated That's your misinterpretation right there. I was pointing to something else entirely. I was pointing to various things that Forest said, and your interpretation is not any single one of them. 

You're making the "bigotry of low expectations" argument.... Of course I see you are addressing @Forestluv, this is hilarious.

Forest points out ways black people can be empowered, you claim it's actually doing them a disservice, I call you out... Are you following?

23 minutes ago, Epikur said:

@Gesundheit

Sounds like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism_of_low_expectations

5 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the concept.

Wow, this is epic. Imagine my luck, to my surprise you've actually confirmed that you're making the "bigotry of low expectations argument", which was my entire grievance from the beginning, yet when I call out this foolish perspective, you deny it because you aren't properly recognizing the critique. Imagine committing to this sequence of discourse and having the gall to call me blind and closed-minded.

30 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated Embarrassed yet?

?

[Preety_India]

@NOTintoxicated

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv I feel the sentiment/overcorrection you have for poc is somehow disempowering to them because it leads to victim mindset. 

This is a nuanced topic that includes inputs at both individual and societal levels.

Acknowledging barriers can either be empowering or disempowering - depending on how it is approached. In the baseball example I gave, the first thing Branch Rickey did was inform Jackie Robinson of all the barriers and forms of racism he will be exposed to within the major league baseball system. This empowered Jackie because he was better informed and prepared. Together, they could come up with a strategy on how to deal with it. 

Disempowerment is very different. That would be if coach Rickey told Jackie that he is a victim of a racist system and will never succeed as a professional baseball player.

The acknowledgement of barriers and inequities is important. If everyone pretended there was no racism in baseball, Jackie would not have been in an environment to succeed and racial integration would not have begun. Rather, Jackie's coach and teammates all acknowledged the shit Jackie was being exposed to. And expectations are relative to context. Jackie and his family was facing imminent threats of physical harm for simply being black. It's not fair to expect him to be outspoken against white racists. I'm in no position to criticize him for not doing enough when he had 10X the patience and courage that I do. 

Similarly, I teach at a college. Some students come from wealthy families. These students went to private schools and had private tutors. That is very different than our students that come from poor areas of Chicago and Los Angeles. Their school system sucked and they were more worried about survival than their algebra test. If I don't acknowledge advantages and disadvantages, I would handicap myself as a teacher. If I say "all students are equal" I am blinding myself to some inputs. I've had students from disadvantaged backgrounds that have immense potential. Yet they get "C"s because they are under-prepared due to their life history. As well, I've had students from wealthy backgrounds that may get an "A", yet they aren't intellectually gifted. They had the best resources. 

Part of empowering students is to acknowledge disadvantages and inform them how to overcome them. For example, I may acknowledge that a student is underprepared in math - NOT that they are stupid or a victim. Rather because they were in a shitty disadvantageous system. This is good, empowering news - because they are now in a better system in which they can address that and catch up. If I pretend like those disadvantages didn't exist, it's not fair to the student - because it suggests it's all their fault, that they are stupid and don't belong in college. . . As well, we can't fix barriers and inequities if we don't acknowledge they exist. 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated An example is when he said that it's not fair to place high expectations on poc because they're oppressed. That leads to disempowerment and victim mindset imo. Just because someone has been treated poorly does not make them less.

That is not at all what I said. As I explained above, I'm talking about acknowledging barriers and disadvantages. 

As a non-racial example: some of my students have relatively severe dyslexia. Acknowledging this has nothing to do with them "being less". You are adding that in. If we are to be successful, both the student and teacher need to acknowledge this and come up with a strategy. If we pretend like it doesn't exist, it's not fair to the student and disempowers them. Once we acknowledge it, we can come up with a strategy. For example, we can focus on learning methods that don't involve a lot of reading - such as videos, kinesthetic modeling, visual images, etc.

That is a very different dynamic to tell the person "Oh, you have dyslexia. You are a victim of genetics, have low intelligence and can't be successful". . . That is not at all what I'm saying. 

Yet, it's also true that people make up all sorts of self-limiting beliefs and those become barriers as well. 

 

[Gesundheit]

@NOTintoxicated

16 hours ago, NOTintoxicated said:

Forest points out ways black people can be empowered, you claim it's actually doing them a disservice, I call you out...

Actually, you're just calling out your closed-mindedness, irrationality, misinterpretation, and lack of nuance. Unless you're willing to change that and show some maturity, you can excuse yourself from further embarrassment. I am having a discussion with a mature person, don't interrupt like a 5 years old keyboard warrior.

@Forestluv Let's recap...

1. You claim that systemic racism exists.
2. I bring up presidency, which is the most powerful position within government, because that's how systemic problems get solved, i.e. from within the system. That was my original argument.
3. I choose Obama in specific because he can't possibly be racist against his own color. I could have chosen anyone else, and have already mentioned the other presidents in a question which you basically ignored.
4. You bring up a successful black celebrity, which has no influence on or even business with systemic racism. And that's a textbook example of a strawman argument. You ignored my main argument and created one of your own and then argued against your strawman. This is where the other person here is getting confused about. For whatever reasons, he simply fell for the strawman argument you made, and then he started attacking me like an agitated child.
5. You keep ignoring my perspective and on with the strawman.

Now, I need to clarify that I have no horse in the game and that I'm just an outside observer. So, I don't have the same attachments or biases that you have. This helps me see with clarity. On the other hand, I'm not well-educated about your culture or history, so my perspective is not necessarily technical. You should be able to discern what's technically correct after you let go of the attachments and biases. But for now, I think you could benefit from taking my perspective into account.

We basically have the same position, which is equality for all, but the difference between your stance and mine seems to be the ground layer on which each of us is basing his sentiments. For example, the fact that you resorted to logical fallacies tells me that you are grounding your sentiments in emotions, rather than logic. This is not to say that I'm being rational or that you're being irrational or that logic is better than intuition. I think there's value in your stance, but I also think it could benefit from some more nuance. For example, I think it's damaging to poc to be sympathized with in this way. Why? Because it confirms the already existing inequality instead of focusing on moving forward. On the one hand, I think sympathy is a really good orientation to adopt when arguing with a white racist, because it points to the injustice directly, and racist whites need to be faced with the truth directly, because many of them are just blatantly blind. On the other hand, I think offering sympathy can be useful sometimes, but with issues such as racism I think it can be quite counterproductive. I would bet that many blacks in America have an internalized inferiority complex because of this sympathy. They probably genuinely believe that they're less and that they're inherently faulty, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not that I blame them for that, but that I don't support them having this mindset. Successful blacks are certainly not of those. There are many blacks who made it to success because they're dedicated and hardworking. They've overcome the challenges and come out on the other side better than before. If they were to blame inequality and injustice, they would have probably been stuck forever with victim mindset. Take Kevin Hart, for example. Not only he's black, but he's also short. That's two disadvantages in the American dictionary. But look how he made it through to celebrity regardless. So, you might need to reevaluate your stance.

But again, I'm not taking the strawman as the main argument. I don't think Kevin Hart should become a black people rights activist. In fact, I agree that that's counterproductive and would hurt him and all poc. I think that being a black celebrity is in and of itself one of the best things a black man can do. But when it comes to Obama and presidency, the same standards don't apply. If you (Americans) perceive that him becoming president is a big deal and a huge improvement, then that's just pathetic. And it would be just an indicator of how racist most Americans are, though many are covert about it, including poc themselves (they're shooting themselves in the foot). But let's leave Obama alone for a moment. What about the other presidents who I suppose were not actively racists at the very least? What have they done to improve the quality of life for poc? Is systemic racism increasing or decreasing? And finally, I am waiting to see what will come out of Biden. I don't wish to come here after 4 years and hear the same powerless victim justifications. If racism doesn't improve under his administration, when will it ever improve?

Edited April 2, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

 

1. You bring up a successful black celebrity, which has no influence on or even business with systemic racism. And that's a textbook example of a strawman argument. You ignored my main argument and created one of your own and then argued against your strawman. This is where the other person here is getting confused about. For whatever reasons, he simply fell for the strawman argument you made, and then he started attacking me like an agitated child.

In the context of systemic racism, Jackie Robinson is one of the best examples. No way is he a strawman. Perhaps you are not familiar with his story.

The other user understands the acknowledgement concept I'm pointing to. You seem to be missing that - therefore you perceive the other person as confused. If I speak Spanish with another person and you can't see Spanish, you would need to create a bizarre story to keep filtering out Spanish. One could say "You are speaking strawman!! He got fooled by your strawman speaking!!". He is annoyed that you can't see Spanish being spoken, because it is so obvious to him. I can see how that would be annoying to someone.

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Now, I need to clarify that I have no horse in the game and that I'm just an outside observer. So, I don't have the same attachments or biases that you have. This helps me see with clarity.

You are wearing a lens regarding racial dynamics. That lens is distorting what I'm saying. That is why I am trying to use analogies that bypass those filters of distortion. 

For example, if someone believed the the letter "R" always means "shark" and they weren't willing to look at this - I wouldn't be able to use "Rs" in my communication. I would need to construct sentences without the letter "R". The other person might misinterpret this and get annoyed. Yet, they can't take a meta view of their own filters. There is a very good example coming up. . . 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

you are grounding your sentiments in emotions, rather than logic.

For example, I think it's damaging to poc to be sympathized with in this way. Why? Because it confirms the already existing inequality instead of focusing on moving forward. On the one hand, I think sympathy is a really good orientation to adopt when arguing with a white racist, because it points to the injustice directly, and racist whites need to be faced with the truth directly, because many of them are just blatantly blind. On the other hand, I think offering sympathy can be useful sometimes, but with issues such as racism I think it can be quite counterproductive.

Here is where a lens is distorting and projecting. Core parts of the relationship with your construct is that it is logical and contains elements of sympathy, victimization and disempowerment. That is the lens you are using to perceive what I say and it is distorting what I say. You are adding things in. Therefore, to make the point without this add-in distortion, I need to strip those away. 

I will try to point to what I'm saying with a highly logical construct that bypasses distortions you are adding in like "he is being sympathetic".

Let's put on our logical hats. . . 

-- I notice a student at my college has a 60% average in his math classes. What is the best path?

A) Pretend a 60% is an "A" grade     B) Turn a blind eye and pretend we didn't see his failing grade   C) acknowledge the problem and address it

If our goal is to help train the student success, obviously option "C" is best. Notice how there is ZERO emotion, sympathy etc. here. This is totally logical.

-- We have a meeting with the student in an attempt to diagnose the etiology (underlying cause) and create a treatment plan. This is like a doctor diagnosing a problem. 

To diagnose the situation, we ask about the student's study habits, class attendance and prior history with math. The student studies math 3hrs a day and attends class 98% of the time. So that is unlikely the source. Although there could be issues with their attention level in class and efficiency of study methods. (These traits are at the individual level and are important). . . We also learn that the student came from a low income urban area that had a shitty school system. They didn't even offer algebra!!! The school system didn't have computers and the student couldn't afford a laptop. He only has an iphone and is not familiar with how to use basic computer software like Excel. . . This is obviously a big source of the problem. How can a student learn calculus if he never had basic math courses in high school and didn't have access to a computer? 

At this point, what is the best course of action?

A) Pretend like his shitty school system was awesome and that he took the best math courses in high school

B) Pretend like we didn't hear anything he said and turn away

C) Acknowledge that he came from a shitty school system and teach him what the other students were taught in high school

Again, if our goal is the train the student toward success, option "C" is best. We can now create a 100% evidence-based treatment plan that is sympathy-free. We place the student in Math100, that teaches high-school level math. We give the student a math tutor. We schedule a 1hr. meeting each week in which the student learns basic computer software programs. (Notice how this is 100% sympathy free, 100% victim free). We are logically addressing underlying deficiencies without any sympathy, victim blaming etc. 

As well notice there is a combination of inputs from both individual AND societal levels. If someone doesn't have a guitar, they are not going to learn how to play a guitar. It doesn't matter how hard they work at playing "air guitar". On the flip side, Someone could have the best guitars and teachers, yet if they don't practice, they won't learn how to play the guitar. It's a combination of both individual and societal. 

One of the major blocks people have toward systemic thinking are narrow views of causation. Most minds only see one direct input of causation. For example, we could say "He never succeeded because he has a victim mindset". That is one of many inputs of causation. I am acknowledging what you write about that input of causation. I'm not saying it isn't an input. Personal beliefs, hard work etc, are factors. I'm saying it is one input of many factors within a larger system of causation - that includes both individual and societal dynamics. If you keep focusing on a subset of individual factors, it will create a distorted view. 

It's like you keep saying "Icy roads cause car accidents". I am acknowledging, yes icy roads are ONE factor that can cause car accidents. Yet you are locked into icy roads and seem to think ice is the only cause. Everytime I bring up other causations - like how mud slides, texting, drunk driving and speeding are ALSO inputs to car accidents, you respond "That is a strawman. You aren't addressing that icy roads cause car accidents!". 

[Gesundheit]

@Forestluv

[Philipp]

@Gesundheit I think a black man can also be racist. Racism is a social phenomena and not an individual one. Besides racism is often subconcious (would not believe that a black man is conciously racist). 

[Epikur]

https://www.news24.com/news24/world/news/uk-report-denies-systemic-racism-prompting-angry-backlash-20210331
 

Maybe there is a conspiracy to deny systemic racism

Edited April 2, 2021 by Epikur

[Philipp]

@Epikur racism is not only about numbers (not even systemic racism). It can be about forgiveness, history, support, love. 

[NOTintoxicated]

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated

Actually, you're just calling out your closed-mindedness, irrationality, misinterpretation, and lack of nuance. Unless you're willing to change that and show some maturity, you can excuse yourself from further embarrassment.

You can accuse everyone who sees through your flimsy arguments of strawmanning you, but it is blatantly obvious to any 3rd party observer that you should just accept the L here. Yet again you refuse to specify where I am misinterpreting you and just assert blindly that I am closed-minded and irrational. You are fully aware that any attempt on your end to specify my ignorance will be easily refutable, as I have already demonstrated, so all you can do is resort to juvenile name-calling while hypocritically insisting that I am immature for posing a rebuttal to your foolish perspective without regard for your overly sensitive feelings.

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated

I am having a discussion with a mature person, don't interrupt like a 5 years old keyboard warrior.

The lack of self-awareness here might deserve some kind or trophy. The only person who has resorted to outright name-calling here is yourself, friend.

The first post of yours I criticized was on the basis of you making the classic "bigotry of low expectations" argument, which countless academics have exposed as reactionary drivel. You comically went on to confirm that you were indeed making that argument when you thanked literal race-realist @Epikur for citing the "racism of low expectations" Wikipedia entry, so I can not have misinterpreted you since you accidentally validated my entire grievance from the beginning. I understand you are very defensive because it is never fun having your own ignorance exposed, but hopefully you'll come to realize this approach is not doing you any favors.

23 hours ago, Forestluv said:

On 4/1/2021 at 11:46 AM, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated That's your misinterpretation right there. I was pointing to something else entirely. I was pointing to various things that Forest said, and your interpretation is not any single one of them. An example is when he said that it's not fair to place high expectations on poc because they're oppressed.

That is not at all what I said. As I explained above, I'm talking about acknowledging barriers and disadvantages. 

Oooof. Do I even need to say anything?

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I choose Obama in specific because he can't possibly be racist against his own color.

And now our eager, young protagonist has painted himself into a corner. The idea that black people can't possibly be racist to other black people is a hilarious over-simplification of systemic racism. I know you are not open to an honest examination of your views here, because you are being challenged by somebody who you've already written off as a "5 year old keyboard warrior", but I'll still take the time to expose this commitment to ignorance for the rest of the community who cares to give credence to a cogent, thorough assessment of crucial social issues, or more specifically, for those of us who aren't painfully consumed by confirmation bias.

When people criticize systemic racism, we are not condemning society on the basis of "white people being racist to black people". That phenomenon, or its vice-versa scenario, is aptly described as "interpersonal racism". When we condemn "systemic racism" we are referring to systems of societal functionality that innately pose disadvantageous circumstances towards people of a certain race. For instance, a black man can participate in systemic racism against black people by serving as a police officer in an over-policed black community. Modern-day racism does not simply begin and end at the usage of slurs and interpersonal discrimination. Your example of citing Barack Obama as an inherently non-racist societal entity fails to take into account the systemic forces that are necessarily bound to disadvantage certain races. For instance, for Obama to avoid participating in systemic racism, the issue of disproportionately low funding for certain inner-city black schools would need to be specifically addressed under his direct leadership, rather than allowing perpetual social forces to inevitably beget the same outcomes.

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Now, I need to clarify that I have no horse in the game and that I'm just an outside observer. So, I don't have the same attachments or biases that you have. This helps me see with clarity.

???

Do I really need to explain the problem with this statement? ?

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

On the other hand, I'm not well-educated about your culture or history,

Perhaps with this acknowledgement we can agree to leave the discourse on heavily academic subject matters to those of us with sufficient education to effectively tackle them. I'd advise you to settle down and just gracefully take the L. At this point, it is predictable that if you do muster a response it will not be a complete assessment of the entirety of my refutation, but you will instead select an insignificant portion of my rebuttal that you feel will allow for the easiest attempt at a counter-response, as you've most recently demonstrated. 

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

We basically have the same position, which is equality for all, but the difference between your stance and mine seems to be the ground layer on which each of us is basing his sentiments. For example, the fact that you resorted to logical fallacies tells me that you are grounding your sentiments in emotions, rather than logic.

You and @Forestluv absolutely do not have the same position. Forest and I both believe it is necessary and beneficial to bolster the narrative of systemic racism by emphasizing the facets of American society that perpetuate racism. Your position is that black people are being done a disservice by focusing on these issues because the "victim complex" this evokes will counteract all of the benefits gained from society being aware of these problems and being equipped with effective rhetoric in combating these issues. Are you still going to deny that I have your position accurately pegged when your repitoire of arguments contains epic quotes like ??? this?

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

 

I don't think Kevin Hart should become a black people rights activist. In fact, I agree that that's counterproductive and would hurt him and all poc.

There's nothing I can do to argue against someone who's this thoroughly committed to a feelings-based position. 

6 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv

This is probably the most reasonable approach you could adopt at this point. Just gleefully dismiss any instance of Forest or myself taking the time to reveal your blindspots and go on about your day.

On 4/1/2021 at 0:25 PM, Preety_India said:

@NOTintoxicated

Willful ignorance can be quite hilarious, and I share in your delight, albeit at the expense of my brain cells, as I'm pretty sure @Gesundheit has given me brain-cancer. Perhaps all part of his plan.

[Gesundheit]

@NOTintoxicated Keep fighting with yourself, you're not moving an inch in any meaningful direction. You're not demonstrating anything else except the things I said above, and I don't have time for that BS. You're an ideologue, it's just that simple. The smiley face was out of generosity of me, and really out of tiresome. I don't have time to waste on blind defensive ideologues that lack critical thinking. Of course you will again repeat your same nonsense, because you're not seeing what I'm saying, and you will attack me again like a 5 years old. But I won't stoop down and reply to you again, because I know it will be pointless. It was my mistake from the beginning to take you seriously and hope to have a mature discussion with you when it was obvious where this was heading.

[NOTintoxicated]

45 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

But I won't stoop down and reply to you again, because I know it will be pointless.

Oooof.