Do you consider this to be racism/hate speech

[jackstar7]

I don't think every white person is part of the KKK/Neo-Nazis, do you?

Didn't you imply that some compensation is required for payment/debt? I'm not going to try to sort out who gets paid or who doesn't. Maybe its a check box on your income tax return and that leads to an inquiry about validity of your claim. A successful investigation nets you a million dollars. Maybe there is also an input box where you can specify your demands for centuries of persecution.

You may not want to disclose your position on racism by answering the question, I respect that.

I do not think every white person is part of a hate group, no. Was the time spent asking that time well spent?

Which position on racism might I not want to disclose? I'm confounded by the vagueness of that.

I do think some form of reparations is required if the goal is to put that shameful past behind us and embrace a more progressive present and future.

 

[crashtech]

So you don't think language itself can be violent?

It depends, right? That's a whole other 1st Amendment debate. Certain language is indeed actionable, so neither of us should make blanket statements in that regard. As far as what I said being construed as such, I take it back.

 

[dyna]

I think revealing their identities and maximally shaming them is a great idea. I don't know if we're ready to make the simple expression of horrible ideas a crime though. That's probably a bridge too far.

There is obviously a problem that needs to be solved. A solution might be to criminalize racist speech, not just whites but all colors(I realize there is some disagreement on the forums about this). A couple of months, years(for repeat offenders) of hard time should root out the evil. I think this only reasonable if you can believe any race, can be racist. If you believe all whites are racist then we basically have to put them all into prison(I'm sure Amused would approve of this).

 

[jackstar7]

As a practical matter, it simply can't be repaid, just like the Native Americans cannot be repaid. It's a disgrace, but to believe otherwise is an exercise in futility. The Germans can't ever repay what they did in WW2. The Turks can't repay what they did to the Armenians. The list goes on and on. In a way, to tack some dollar amount on it diminishes it, I think. it's a terrible stain on our history, and it is perhaps true that the descendants of the perpetrators should feel more contrition and be more proactive in fighting for equality.

What do you propose to remedy what you call the societal debt?

You started by stating that it cannot be repaid. Why ask me my remedy for a problem you've already defined as unsolvable?

 

[crashtech]

You started by stating that it cannot be repaid. Why ask me my remedy for a problem you've already defined as unsolvable?

Because that's how you have a dialogue? I'm reasonably certain you disagree with me, and I want to know what you think.

 

[jackstar7]

It depends, right? That's a whole other 1st Amendment debate. Certain language is indeed actionable, so neither of us should make blanket statements in that regard. As far as what I said being construed as such, I take it back.

I'm not trying to make blanket statements. I'm trying to root out your position on the subject at hand.

What I've gathered is that you think racism is bad, but not something that can be addressed in a large scale/societal way. You think it needs to be handled on an individual level.

Please correct me if I am not getting any of this correct. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

Also, saying "it depends" is basically meaningless. Are you asking me if context matters? Well, I believe it always does, so let's please move on from that.

 

[jackstar7]

Because that's how you have a dialogue? I'm reasonably certain you disagree with me, and I want to know what you think.

Sorry, you have a dialogue this way? I think you're having a debate. There are some differences between those things.

You are correct that I disagree with you. Is this a reddit CMV thread in miniature? Are you open to having your mind changed on this subject, or is your position unassailable because your reason is without flaws on this matter?

I just want to know from where I am starting here.

 

[crashtech]

@jackstar7 , it looks like you ask way more questions than you answer. I think you are at least one important one behind. But it doesn't matter, I probably need to stop participating for now.

Generally speaking, I have, if not changed my mind, at least evolved and/or moderated my position on some things. I've completely reversed my position on the death penalty, for example. But it's a gradual process. If you think you're going to change my mind today, you might think too highly of both of us. But to the extent you and others have engaged me thus far, I have been given some perspective, so thanks.

 

[jackstar7]

@jackstar7 , it looks like you ask way more questions than you answer. I think you are at least one important one behind. But it doesn't matter, I probably need to stop participating for now.

Generally speaking, I have, if not changed my mind, at least evolved and/or moderated my position on some things. I've completely reversed my position on the death penalty, for example. But it's a gradual process. If you think you're going to change my mind today, you might think too highly of both of us. But to the extent you and others have engaged me thus far, I have been given some perspective, so thanks.

I do ask questions because I don't know much of anything, but I want to know.

I'm sorry that you find the number of questions daunting, but it's because I'm trying to suss out where the disconnect is between our respective conceits about the idea being discussed.

I wasn't approaching this with the arrogance that I could change your mind, but the humility of knowing it cannot happen if you're not open to it.

I hope that makes sense. Thank you for your engagement thus far and I hope you return to the conversation at some point.

 

[crashtech]

I do ask questions because I don't know much of anything, but I want to know.

I'm sorry that you find the number of questions daunting, but it's because I'm trying to suss out where the disconnect is between our respective conceits about the idea being discussed.

I wasn't approaching this with the arrogance that I could change your mind, but the humility of knowing it cannot happen if you're not open to it.

I hope that makes sense. Thank you for your engagement thus far and I hope you return to the conversation at some point.

I didn't intend to come back to this so soon, but to say that just now you have shown something of yourself that I haven't seen before, and now I have to re-evaluate what I thought I knew about you. Which is good, I guess. Slightly disconcerting, but good. Until later.

 

[Jaskalas]

I said white people do not get to decide how or when the forgiveness has been earned. Not that they don't have a voice. Oppressors do not get to choose when they have done enough for the oppressed to move on, that by nature implies that they still hold some power over the oppressed.

Thank you. From my perspective, it sounded like the original quote had those implications.

As for the power we hold, anyone naturally holds the power to veto a peaceful coexistence. To refuse a better outcome and cause further aggravation and conflict. Building that bridge towards a better future requires that we all pitch in and do our part to keep the peace. To work towards realizing an equal justice. But justice might never find equilibrium if we are always fighting to avenge or balance past wrongs. Such activity undermines the calm, it disturbs the peace.

The problem is... what do we have if not peace? Further agitations. A cycle of violence. It is unending if we do not jointly call for it to end.

The topic starts with Salon.com repeatably using racial narratives. White people this, white people that. When racial narratives are used against POC, with such repetition, the authors and supporters are called racists, they are called Nazis. They are booed and hated and barred from employment. It is a situation where the prevailing wisdom is to wish them dead and gone. Such racial narratives are frequently condemned.

Then we have topics suggesting racism cannot exist against whites. As if injustice and harm cannot be done to individuals in a majority population. As if sacrifices are fine so long as the scales are still tipped in a group's favor. Do individuals not bleed, do they not feel pain, or succumb to hatred?

Perhaps we speak of different things, but when I hear of "constant reminders" I think of the topic and of racism used against the majority. I think of people wanting to tip the scales against others and I imagine Salon.com is what that looks like. The freedom to use racial narratives on whites, among other things considered harmful when the majority has done it. Perhaps that is just my conservative brain being fearful of things.

What I am looking for is a quiet peace. One not paid for by the conquest of one's enemies but by a mutual armistice. A meeting of minds who are interested in a future of equal justice. Where we condemn individuals for their actions without stereotyping groups. Where we do not use racial narratives. Where we have found a way to help POC without singling them out. I want our solution to not know race.

 

[sao123]

I do not think every white person is part of a hate group, no. Was the time spent asking that time well spent?

Which position on racism might I not want to disclose? I'm confounded by the vagueness of that.

I do think some form of reparations is required if the goal is to put that shameful past behind us and embrace a more progressive present and future.

this is your complete disconnect with reality and why race relations are failing and deteriorating. White people like myself do not feel or express collective guilt for something which we did not personally participate in. White people will not accept responsibility for things which happened over a century ago, outside of our control, outside of our consent. Racism is not a collective issue, it is be an individual one.

if people want racial peace, it can be had at any time, the violence must end, the hate must end.
But it will not come to fruition as long as there are continued inflammatory things like this horse crap.

The very idea of reparations is nothing short of entitlement delusions and unrealistic expectations. This is why DJT is now your president. There are sane paths moving forward and extremism paths. You may want the extremism path because it feels good, like vindication, but if both sides cant agree to it, guess what wont be happening for the next 200 years.

 

[jackstar7]

this is your complete disconnect with reality and why race relations are failing and deteriorating. White people like myself do not feel or express collective guilt for something which we did not personally participate in. White people will not accept responsibility for things which happened over a century ago, outside of our control, outside of our consent. Racism is not a collective issue, it is be an individual one.

if people want racial peace, it can be had at any time, the violence must end, the hate must end.
But it will not come to fruition as long as there are continued inflammatory things like this horse crap.

The very idea of reparations is nothing short of entitlement delusions and unrealistic expectations. This is why DJT is now your president. There are sane paths moving forward and extremism paths. You may want the extremism path because it feels good, like vindication, but if both sides cant agree to it, guess what wont be happening for the next 200 years.

Talk about entitlement.

 

[glenn1]

Talk about entitlement.

If you mean that everyone should feel an entitlement to not be morally extorted by something they didn't do (such as slavery) then yes everyone should be entitled. Heraclitus' statement from long ago applies to nations as well: "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The U.S. isn't the same nation as it was in the 1860s with slavery or 1950s with Jim Crow and segregation.

 

[fskimospy]

If you mean that everyone should feel an entitlement to not be morally extorted by something they didn't do (such as slavery) then yes everyone should be entitled. Heraclitus' statement from long ago applies to nations as well: "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The U.S. isn't the same nation as it was in the 1860s with slavery or 1950s with Jim Crow and segregation.

So basically what you're saying is that if some massive injustice occurs that permanently affects the trajectories of two groups once everyone directly involved in that injustice is dead that's the end of it?

Sounds like a pretty amazing deal and a very strong incentive for people to keep fucking marginalized groups over. After all your kids can enjoy all the benefits and have no responsibility for how those benefits were acquired!

 

[jackstar7]

If you mean that everyone should feel an entitlement to not be morally extorted by something they didn't do (such as slavery) then yes everyone should be entitled. Heraclitus' statement from long ago applies to nations as well: "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The U.S. isn't the same nation as it was in the 1860s with slavery or 1950s with Jim Crow and segregation.

I know. The main difference is that now Dems work towards progress and the GOP/conservatives cling to racism and oppression.

So inheritance should not exist, right? All money should be given to the gov't upon your death, right?

 

[pmv]

Did slaves also hate the white people who tried to save them?

How wonderful of those white people to 'save' the poor benighted helpless slaves. You've heard of the 'white saviour' motif, right?

You make it sound as if the likes of John Brown did what they did to earn black people's gratitude. I think that's doing him a mis-service, in that he probably did what was right because he thought it was right (God probaby came into it). I doubt he'd have been as preoccupied as you seem to be with worrying whether the slaves would be suitably grateful and about them possibly generalising too much about white people.

If you mean that everyone should feel an entitlement to not be morally extorted by something they didn't do (such as slavery) then yes everyone should be entitled. Heraclitus' statement from long ago applies to nations as well: "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The U.S. isn't the same nation as it was in the 1860s with slavery or 1950s with Jim Crow and segregation.

But if you take that story literally (which possibly it's not supposed to be) it would mean nobody could ever be held responsible for anything. "That was last-week-me who punched you in the face, you can't blame today-me, I'm not the same guy". Certainly I don't think Monday-morning-me can be blamed for that idiot Sunday-night-me who decided to stay up till the early hours.

There is continuity, in a nation as much as in an individual. Heraclitus was being a smart-arse, but he's not the last word on a topic.

Personally, though, I'd say the main point is less about the need for very specific reparations, as about recognising and acknowledging that no person or group really owns something in a completely grounded and absolute way. Because it was all stolen from someone else at some point if you look at the history. So you have to consider peoples _needs_.

 

[Amused]

If you mean that everyone should feel an entitlement to not be morally extorted by something they didn't do (such as slavery) then yes everyone should be entitled. Heraclitus' statement from long ago applies to nations as well: "no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” The U.S. isn't the same nation as it was in the 1860s with slavery or 1950s with Jim Crow and segregation.

And yet crippling institutionalized, systemic racism persists in the US.

 

[glenn1]

So basically what you're saying is that if some massive injustice occurs that permanently affects the trajectories of two groups once everyone directly involved in that injustice is dead that's the end of it?

Sounds like a pretty amazing deal and a very strong incentive for people to keep fucking marginalized groups over. After all your kids can enjoy all the benefits and have no responsibility for how those benefits were acquired!

So some random Caucasian person should bear personal responsibility for events of 150+ years ago? Heck, if that's the case the Jews should ask the Egyptians for reparations since they made them slaves to build the pyramids 4,000 years ago.

Come on, you can come up with a better excuse justification for welfare than that.

 

[Amused]

So some random Caucasian person should bear personal responsibility for events of 150+ years ago? Heck, if that's the case the Jews should ask the Egyptians for reparations since they made them slaves to build the pyramids 4,000 years ago.

Come on, you can come up with a better excuse justification for welfare than that.

If every white person denies responsibility and claims to not be racist, yet demonstrable crippling institutionalized and systemic racism persists in the US, those denials accomplish nothing but the status quo.

Fact: Crippling institutionalized and systemic racism persists in the US.

As long as that fact remains, it is EVERYONE'S problem. Sitting on your ass and denying responsibility (while spouting and or ignoring racist dog whistles all around you and telling black people there is no problem and if there is, it's not your problem) is not a solution.

 

[pmv]

So some random Caucasian person should bear personal responsibility for events of 150+ years ago? Heck, if that's the case the Jews should ask the Egyptians for reparations since they made them slaves to build the pyramids 4,000 years ago.

Come on, you can come up with a better excuse justification for welfare than that.

Chances are that 'random Caucasian' is in the position they are because of those events of 150+ years ago. I don't see why you can take the benefits while denying the responsibility.

Besides, the discrimination and denial-of-rights endured by black Americans didn't stop 150 years ago. It's pretty historically-ignorant to imply it did.

 

[Jaskalas]

So basically what you're saying is that if some massive injustice occurs that permanently affects the trajectories of two groups once everyone directly involved in that injustice is dead that's the end of it?

Sounds like a pretty amazing deal and a very strong incentive for people to keep fucking marginalized groups over. After all your kids can enjoy all the benefits and have no responsibility for how those benefits were acquired!

Damage that would be erased over time if we stop trickle down and cut back income inequality.

Any policy that is racial would merely contribute to racial tension and polarization.

 

[fskimospy]

So some random Caucasian person should bear personal responsibility for events of 150+ years ago? Heck, if that's the case the Jews should ask the Egyptians for reparations since they made them slaves to build the pyramids 4,000 years ago.

Come on, you can come up with a better excuse justification for welfare than that.

Don't be silly. It's common sense that if you're currently benefiting from something bad that happened awhile ago and someone else is currently suffering from it there should be some sort of accommodation.

The principle here is pretty obvious I would think. The idea that we would pretend we have no idea where we came from and what happened is stupid.

 

[jackstar7]

So some random Caucasian person should bear personal responsibility for events of 150+ years ago? Heck, if that's the case the Jews should ask the Egyptians for reparations since they made them slaves to build the pyramids 4,000 years ago.

Come on, you can come up with a better excuse justification for welfare than that.

Not a random. You. You owe for reparations.

That's your big fear, right?

 

[child of wonder]

Would you call slaves hatred of white people, racism? I'm assuming they did.

Please don't tell me you're going to try to equate the black people of today with slaves.

If a black slave hated ALL white people, not just the ones that owned slaves, then, yes, that would be racism as you're condemning an entire race rather than individuals.