Discussion: Racism - Part 2

[Donner]

Yeah, right. Saying "I understand" to someone like SuperT or The Commissioner will likely just be met with "You could never understand!" and more BS like that.

 

[TheCommissioner]

a little understanding goes a long way

 

[DeadPresident]

a little understanding goes a long way

Being more articulate with what you personally think would make for a way forward would go even further.

 

[regwec]

Perhaps I can be genuinely helpful, here. When "white people" defer to you in the way that you suggest they should, they are not really agreeing or empathizing with you. They are just saying whatever they think will shut you up so they can get on with their lives. The result of that is that you have alienated other people while distorting your own sense of reality.

So, being constructive, I would abandon such demands that others should defer to you as a result of their race as it is (a) by definition racist, and (b) will only act as a catalyst for more resentment.

 

[TheCommissioner]

we are already resented, really not much farther down it can go

 

[DeadPresident]

we are already resented, really not much farther down it can go

This seems like an odd angle to go down when asked for your opinion on a solution. Do you actually care about it, or do you just use this thread as a place to vent?

"We are already resented" makes a boatload of assumptions, almost none of which can logically be true at any meaningful scale.

 

[Donner]

So why bother then? You're such a defeatist and no one can do right by you, so really. Why bother.

 

[regwec]

That's an absurd attitude. Do you really think that things haven't improved in 60 years, or 160 years? Of course they have. But we end up sliding backwards when we foster double-standards.

 

[TheCommissioner]

That's an absurd attitude. Do you really think that things haven't improved in 60 years, or 160 years? Of course they have. But we end up sliding backwards when we foster double-standards.

progress for minorities had to be legislated to actually change things

from the Emancipation Proclamation (which didnt free slaves immediately), to Brown v Board of Education, to the Civil Rights Act and everything in between

equality didn't come from the good of peoples hearts, it was loud social movements and making people uncomfortable, sit ins and having dogs sicked on people

People have to be dragged into the light kicking and screaming

yes things are better, but they aren't where they should be and with Orange Foolius in the White House as of next week, it is in dire danger of sliding back some

 

[regwec]

In a democracy, legislation tends to be passed because it's what most people wanted and therefore voted for. I am not sure quite what legislative acts you now feel should be passed in your favour, but they will never come into being without the cooperation or consent of the majority. There is not a teacher in Washington to whom you can go crying to get your own way. You need to learn compromise, diplomacy, and realism if you want to change things.

 

[TheCommissioner]

In a democracy, legislation tends to be passed because it's what most people wanted and therefore voted for. I am not sure quite what legislative acts you now feel should be passed in your favour, but they will never come into being without the cooperation or consent of the majority. There is not a teacher in Washington to whom you can go crying to get your own way. You need to learn compromise, diplomacy, and realism if you want to change things.

hate crime legislation SHOULD be a priority

across the board

crimes against minorities, LGBTQ, if they meet specific criteria should automatically be categorized as a "hate crime" and the perpetrator should have all the books thrown at them

 

[regwec]

Just minorities, though, right?

 

[TheCommissioner]

Just minorities, though, right?

no, but like I said there needs to be criteria met when a crime like that is committed

take the Walter Scott case, that police officer should have been charged with a hate crime and it should have been tried in federal court

the jurors who failed to come to a guilty verdict, even with video evidence should be cited for malfeasance or failure to perform their duty as jurors

 

[regwec]

You can't have trial by jury if the jury is only permitted to come to one verdict. So would you do away with it?

 

[TheCommissioner]

I think when the evidence is so pervasive, as it was in this instance, a jury trial should really be a formality

The officer gave a statement that he was attacked, and that Scott went for his weapon

the video shows the exact opposite of that - Scott running away while the officer repeatedly shoots him in the back

 

[SuperT]

I think there are many white people who want to be saviors, not allies

and either don't know the difference or don't care

Yessssss! It's crucial for an ally to know when we need help versus being able to sit back and say "You know, I can probably sit this one out."

 

[Donner]

...

wtf.

 

[DeadPresident]

So there's no possible solution, it's futile to even try, but, whites need to be allies in achieving this impossible solution, but they also need to know their place and not try and be saviors by achieving the solution without suitable consultation.

…alright.

Don't help assuming "You can sit this one out" - "Whitey doesn't care, privileged asshat".
Does help assuming they're an ally - "Relax man, we've got it".

This seems slightly problematic.

 

[Donner]

So damned if you do, damned if you don't. Great. This is just nonsense.

 

[Reek]

I am already resented, really not much farther down it can go

 

[TheCommissioner]

So there's no possible solution, it's futile to even try, but, whites need to be allies in achieving this impossible solution, but they also need to know their place and not try and be saviors by achieving the solution without suitable consultation.

…alright.

Don't help assuming "You can sit this one out" - "Whitey doesn't care, privileged asshat".
Does help assuming they're an ally - "Relax man, we've got it".

This seems slightly problematic.

actually no, it just requires that person taking a minute, assessing a given situation and making the right decision

to engage or not

and to get to that point requires some introspection on the ally's part

 

[DeadPresident]

The confusing part of this topic is that it's basically 50% bashing whites for being racist animals, 50% insisting those same people overturn a vague, poorly defined discourse of racism. It's really a case of mixed signals.

 

[regwec]

It's because we're vile people because our skins are the wrong colour, you racist.

 

[TheCommissioner]

The confusing part of this topic is that it's basically 50% bashing whites for being racist animals, 50% insisting those same people overturn a vague, poorly defined discourse of racism. It's really a case of mixed signals.

sucks to not have control of the discourse over perceptions like that, huh?

 

[DeadPresident]

It's because we're vile people because our skins are the wrong colour, you racist.

Ah, now I remember!

sucks to not have control of the discourse over perceptions like that, huh?

…what?