Do you consider this to be racism/hate speech

[ch33zw1z]

You're talking about systematic inequality.
Racism and Systematic Inequality which resulted because of racism are fundamentally 2 different problems which require 2 different solutions.

It's cyclic, systemic inequality creates stereotypes that fuel racism, racism then creates systematic inequality, and so on

 

[Amused]

Will you answer?

LOL

The meat of the article:

"The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now.And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism."

Not racist. Read the fucking article you dimwitted fucking sheep. It literally is an article about stopping people like you from perpetuating white supremacy.

 

[UglyCasanova]

LOL

The meat of the article:

"The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now.And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism."

Not racist. Read the fucking article you dimwitted fucking sheep. It literally is an article about stopping people like you from perpetuating white supremacy.

If a news organization headlined an article about black on black violence as "Black people must be stopped" in your opinion would that be racist? Or an article about suicide bombers as "Muslims must be stopped"? Or an article about illegal immigration as "Latinos must be stopped"? To me it would be. I guess it depends on who wrote the article.

 

[sao123]

It's cyclic, systemic inequality creates stereotypes that fuel racism, racism then creates systematic inequality, and so on

The unfortunate loop of being poor leads to you becoming a criminal, which results in your offspring growing up poor and then becoming a criminal is not exclusively a black problem, that spans the borders of all races...

Even if we eliminated 100% of all racism today, socio-economic classes would still persist. There would still be poor people, some of which would undoubtedly be black, and many of those poor will still continue to perpetuate the cycle.

Hate Crimes and Racism is a solvable problem, but However since Strasserism is just as evil as white nationalism, solving inequality is not quite so easy.
Given that maintaining a meritocracy where each man is worth to society that which he is able to contribute is still a desired outcome, how would you proceed?

 

[Ventanni]

Honestly, while I don't consider the titles of the articles to be racism (it's click bait), I also recognize that the meat of the articles probably isn't doing anyone any favors, either. While I'm not denying that racism doesn't exist, and I know there are examples of where whites exhibit racism against others, I've also learned that 99% of all problems people face are resolved by taking ownership and focusing their energies on things they can actively control.

And to be the only one to says it, here it goes. There's also a very, very large population of white people in America right now who were taught growing up that racism of all types is an abomination; that you are to judge a person by their character and not their skin color, and that the elevation of position and promotion is to be based by merit alone. Heck, I remember growing up and listening to my grandfather spew racist crap all the time, but I knew in my heart that it was wrong, and I wanted no part of it.

Eventually, this generation would grow up. They got educated, went off and got jobs, and now they hold positions of authority in business, politics, and religious institutions. Heck man, you could now lick this toilet bowl - it's so clean compared to what it was 100 years ago. Yet, there is this ever-present accusation that this generation is still racist and enjoys a "privilege" that others want. And these groups of whites are going, "Uhh, what?"

We know that reverse-racism doesn't exist, but the condition of the human heart will always make itself known. When you have a mindset that believes that, and I'm paraphrasing here, "You're enjoying a higher level of wealth, education, and privilege at my expense," that's called jealousy. Jealousy says, "You got rich at my expense." Jealousy says, "You went to that school when I should have." Jealousy says, "You enjoy a privilege that I don't."

Since when has jealously done anyone any favors?

I want to be very clear that I'm not denying that white-on-black racism doesn't exist. At the same time, I also want to be clear on two other things, too. One, that we live in a far less racist society that we ever have, and two, that, unfortunately since ignorance and stupidity will always exist, so, too, will racism. In other words, you're living in lala-land if you think racism will be 100% eradicated. News flash, people are assholes, and the world is not nice. Get over it.

So that narrows down the solution to all of these problems down to one thing; personal ownership. Your own success is on you, son. Taking ownership builds traits in people that the world finds universally agreeable: Character, strong work ethic, perseverance, honesty, humility, appreciation, compassion, thankfulness, etc. Those are the traits you need to be successful.

So yeah, when I see titles of articles like that, I know they're probably not doing anyone any favors.

 

[UglyCasanova]

And to be the only one to says it, here it goes. There's also a very, very large population of white people in America right now who were taught growing up that racism of all types is an abomination; that you are to judge a person by their character and not their skin color, and that the elevation of position and promotion is to be based by merit alone. Heck, I remember growing up and listening to my grandfather spew racist crap all the time, but I knew in my heart that it was wrong, and I wanted no part of it.

You’re not alone. I mentioned this earlier that we’ve had a generation where racism as you said was an abomination and as a result that generation grew up much less racist than their parents. Now we’re backtracking. My kids are growing up in a world where it’s now ok again to generalize people because of the color of their skin. Nothing good can come from that.

 

[Paratus]

The unfortunate loop of being poor leads to you becoming a criminal, which results in your offspring growing up poor and then becoming a criminal is not exclusively a black problem, that spans the borders of all races...

If we go back to my example then those folks aren’t ‘unfortunately poor’ today. They are poor as a direct result of the systemic racism Instituted by their and our government.

Even if we eliminated 100% of all racism today, socio-economic classes would still persist. There would still be poor people, some of which would undoubtedly be black, and many of those poor will still continue to perpetuate the cycle.

Yup there will always be poor(er) people of all races even without systemic racism.

That’s why welfare and strong worker protections are important.

Hate Crimes and Racism is a solvable problem, but However since Strasserism is just as evil as white nationalism, solving inequality is not quite so easy.
Given that maintaining a meritocracy where each man is worth to society that which he is able to contribute is still a desired outcome, how would you proceed?

See this is what is meant by ‘privilege’. The phrase “maintaining a meritocracy” assumes that we are currently living in a meritocracy and that it is under threat.

Your privilege comes from the belief you’ve been living in that meritocracy and your position in life is based on your skills compared to all the other competitors you’ve faced.

In truth you, me, our parents, our grandparents etc have never competed in true meritocracy. Potential competitors for jobs, schooling, housing, etc were arbitrarily handicapped by systemic racism.

Now neither of us were born asking for these benefits anymore than minorities were born asking to be handicapped by racism.

We can however acknowledge that is the situation we are in. We can even go further and put a stop to further acts of racism by our government by electing politicians who are against it.

We can even, gasp! use affirmative action.

Did you know that being poor has a measurable negative cognitive effect?

Did you know that experiencing racism also has a measurable negative cognitive effect?

So when poor minorities are working to become not poor minorities they must work harder.

It’s like if you are comparing two PCs and they both get the same Cinebench R15 score but one is running a bunch of bloatware and norton antivirus ontop of Cinebench while the other isn’t. Well the first one is faster (say an 8700K) while the second is actually slower (say an 8600K).

It’s why I don’t have problems with race being a tie breaker with affirmative action. Statistically the minority had to work harder to get the same score.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If we go back to my example then those folks aren’t ‘unfortunately poor’ today. They are poor as a direct result of the systemic racism Instituted by their and our government.

You could attribute some of it to that - the WOD and our incarceration rates of black males is abysmal for instance. I think the biggest factor though is honestly the breakdown of the family within the black community. The father isn’t around in an insanely high percent of black kids lives. Growing up in a single parent household increases the likelihood the child will be poor when they are older, white black blue or polka dot it doesn’t matter.

 

[sao123]

If we go back to my example then those folks aren’t ‘unfortunately poor’ today. They are poor as a direct result of the systemic racism Instituted by their and our government.



Yup there will always be poor(er) people of all races even without systemic racism.

That’s why welfare and strong worker protections are important.



See this is what is meant by ‘privilege’. The phrase “maintaining a meritocracy” assumes that we are currently living in a meritocracy and that it is under threat.

I dont assume that we are living in a meritocracy, I observe it. It is literally manifested itself as fact around all of us.

Your privilege comes from the belief you’ve been living in that meritocracy and your position in life is based on your skills compared to all the other competitors you’ve faced.

In truth you, me, our parents, our grandparents etc have never competed in true meritocracy. Potential competitors for jobs, schooling, housing, etc were arbitrarily handicapped by systemic racism.

Now neither of us were born asking for these benefits anymore than minorities were born asking to be handicapped by racism.

We can however acknowledge that is the situation we are in. We can even go further and put a stop to further acts of racism by our government by electing politicians who are against it.

Nope! I grew up in an area with a low concentration of minorities, and the ones that were present were as well off as everyone else in the area. This might be regionally true, but its not true everywhere.

We can even, gasp! use affirmative action.

I've already explained this.
Affirmative action does not combat racism, it's just as misguidedly racist as the problem it is attempting to solve. Why? Because affirmative action is Anti-White Pro-Black. The only way to solve racism is to be pro black, without being anti-white. the final ultimate solution must be RACE BLIND. Any policy which favors 1 race over any other, for any reason, even if well-intentioned, will never create racial harmony.

You must create a situation where 2 exactly equal candidates will have sometimes the white guy wins and sometimes the black guy wins. And both must be equally acceptable. Affirmative action says that in the case of 2 equal candidates, always choose the black one. That is not racially blind, that's preferential treatment. Black preferential treatment (AKA Affirmative action) will never bring about the desired result.

Did you know that being poor has a measurable negative cognitive effect?

Did you know that experiencing racism also has a measurable negative cognitive effect?

So when poor minorities are working to become not poor minorities they must work harder.

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Thats true of ALL poor, minority or not. Since Systemic inequality is not in and of itself racism, victims of systemic inequality have not necessarily been personally subjected to racism. Finally, many of the "racism" recent people have been exposed to, absolutely they were wronged in some fashion, possibly by a white person... but unless it was Racially Motivated its not racism.

Useless GobbeltyGoop

It’s why I don’t have problems with race being a tie breaker with affirmative action. Statistically the minority had to work harder to get the same score.

All poor should have to work equally hard, but all poor should have to work harder. Give them all 2/3/4 jobs and let them earn their way out of poverty the way everyone else has. Those who fail still fail on their own merits.

once you decouple systematic inequality from racism, racism can be solved in days.

 

[pmv]

Yes, the idea that race isn't at least significantly a social construct is...well... obviously, comically wrong. The easiest example is that Germans, Italians, and Irish were all at one time not considered fully 'white' in America. Just look to Ben Franklin's writing on those 'swarthy' Germans.

One could also consider how race is defined differently in south America than the north. Or there's the (in)famous 'one drop rule' which would define people who look white as black. South Africa (in)famously formalised the system to an even greater extent than the US, of course, with Japanese people officially decreed to be 'white' out of economic national interest. There's also a certain expression one frequently heard here in in the UK in past decades, that ends '...begin at Calais'. Some of the Brexit rhetoric suggests that hasn't entirely gone away, either.

The conservatives on here illustrate just how central race is to US politics, by their desperate determination that nobody should acknowledge its ongoing existence or talk about its painful history.

But I still can't help considering it a shame that it has become the dominant political issue. There are things people could unite around if more white people could just make more effort to find a way out of their bunker.

And I don't see how anything can be achieved if those who want change write off half the population. But it's hard to maintain a belief that that's unjustified when reading some posters here, hunkering down behind the sandbags of stupidity while refusing to think.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The unfortunate loop of being poor leads to you becoming a criminal, which results in your offspring growing up poor and then becoming a criminal is not exclusively a black problem, that spans the borders of all races...

Even if we eliminated 100% of all racism today, socio-economic classes would still persist. There would still be poor people, some of which would undoubtedly be black, and many of those poor will still continue to perpetuate the cycle.

Hate Crimes and Racism is a solvable problem, but However since Strasserism is just as evil as white nationalism, solving inequality is not quite so easy.
Given that maintaining a meritocracy where each man is worth to society that which he is able to contribute is still a desired outcome, how would you proceed?

There is no magic answer. It takes change in the systemic inequality, people disregarding stereotypes (probably the hardest thing to change), educational increases in areas like logic, and history, social studies.

The meritocracy is over, that's an archaic plan leftover from our Puritan background, just like our tendency to mix shame and guilt in with sex.

I'm not convinced Americans can overcome the hurdles requirement to really change it.

We could make a big difference by ending the war on drugs, and reallocating money to real effective drug education, and social detriments

 

[pmv]

I dont assume that we are living in a meritocracy, I observe it. It is literally manifested itself as fact around all of us.

Equally, I observe that you are delusional.

I would also observe that 'meritocracy' is a term that was never intended to describe something desirable. The word itself was coined to describe a problem.

 

[Paratus]

I dont assume that we are living in a meritocracy, I observe it. It is literally manifested itself as fact around all of us.

Nope you observe a meritocracy where the pool of competitors has been artificially reduced based on skin color. For evidence of this see:

Nope! I grew up in an area with a low concentration of minorities, and the ones that were present were as well off as everyone else in the area. This might be regionally true, but its not true everywhere.

Your very next sentence. Have you ever considered why there are few minorities in your area for you to compete against?

I've already explained this.
Affirmative action does not combat racism, it's just as misguidedly racist as the problem it is attempting to solve. Why? Because affirmative action is Anti-White Pro-Black.

Nope. It’s based on merit. If a white and black candidate basically rate the same on average the black candidate will have worked harder than the white candidate. (For specific individuals this doesn’t have to be true but almost always is). This is simply acknowledging the way the world currently is.

Choosing the harder worker is choosing the better candidate for whatever based on merit.

The only way to solve racism is to be pro black, without being anti-white. the final ultimate solution must be RACE BLIND. Any policy which favors 1 race over any other, for any reason, even if well-intentioned, will never create racial harmony.

Sure. That’s the final goal. Which we’ll never get to if you ignore the damages done over generations and still being done to race relations.

You must create a situation where 2 exactly equal candidates will have sometimes the white guy wins and sometimes the black guy wins. And both must be equally acceptable. Affirmative action says that in the case of 2 equal candidates, always choose the black one. That is not racially blind, that's preferential treatment. Black preferential treatment (AKA Affirmative action) will never bring about the desired result.

On average choose the minorities.

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Thats true of ALL poor, minority or not. Since Systemic inequality is not in and of itself racism, victims of systemic inequality have not necessarily been personally subjected to racism. Finally, many of the "racism" recent people have been exposed to, absolutely they were wronged in some fashion, possibly by a white person... but unless it was Racially Motivated its not racism.

But the systemic inequalities we are talking about are racist....

All poor should have to work equally hard, but all poor should have to work harder. Give them all 2/3/4 jobs and let them earn their way out of poverty the way everyone else has. Those who fail still fail on their own merits.

once you decouple systematic inequality from racism, racism can be solved in days.

So you’ve worked 2/3/4 jobs to earn your way out of poverty? Why was that necessary in your case?

 

[child of wonder]

Yes. Racism against whites is prevalent in social media, rag publications, and college campuses. It's practically fashionable to make judgments about white people or spread hate about them based on the color of their skin.

It doesn't matter what race you hate or how you justify it to yourself -- racism is wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. Racism against whites is prevalent in social media, rag publications, and college campuses. It's practically fashionable to make judgments about white people or spread hate about them based on the color of their skin.

It doesn't matter what race you hate or how you justify it to yourself -- racism is wrong.

How much time do you spend on college campuses? It must be a lot to make that kind of judgment.

As for racism generally, what would you say the relative impact of racism vs. whites is vs. say, black and Hispanic people? Just wondering.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Relative impact doesn’t matter, wrong is wrong.

It’s be a hard thing to judge too. I think society as a whole is harmed when we start boiling people down to skin color again. Blacks, whites greens, everyone. All this does is regress society.

 

[fskimospy]

Relative impact doesn’t matter, wrong is wrong.

It’s be a hard thing to judge too. I think society as a whole is harmed when we start boiling people down to skin color again. Blacks, whites greens, everyone. All this does is regress society.

Of course relative impact matters, it would be insane to think it doesn't. If there are warrants out for a two people, one of whom killed one person and one of whom killed a thousand, we would immediately fire any police chief who said 'relative impact doesn't matter, wrong is wrong, therefore I will address both criminals equally.'

If one aspect of racism is a bigger problem than another, any logical person would devote more time and interest to the bigger problem. This is common sense.

 

[glenn1]

Now you may find this surprising but in this country we are allowed to ‘petition the government for redress of grievances’. It’s one of the reasons we no longer have a king and a reason why liberals still don’t want a king.

Now I don’t know what the appropriate redress is for the citizens affected by the governmenta racists policies but I do know the first step is to have the government stop formenting racist policies .

Great Britain with its king outlawed slavery well before the U.S. without a king did so. The EU doesn't have a king either yet its para-government in Brussels regularly gives the middle finger to its member state voters and shits over what they want and the technocrats lord over the plebes in ways that Georgian era kings could not.

And we'll never make progress on racism issues when racism is routinely conflated with class and inequality issues; for example those who make the argument that opposing social welfare is essentially a racist position.

 

[fskimospy]

Great Britain with its king outlawed slavery well before the U.S. without a king did so. The EU doesn't have a king either yet its para-government in Brussels regularly gives the middle finger to its member state voters and shits over what they want and the technocrats lord over the plebes in ways that Georgian era kings could not.

And we'll never make progress on racism issues when racism is routinely conflated with class and inequality issues; for example those who make the argument that opposing social welfare is essentially a racist position.

There's a good amount of empirical evidence that shows racism is a primary component of opposition to social welfare programs. It does not mean that all who oppose an expansive social welfare state are racist, but the more racist you are the more likely you are to oppose social welfare spending. To pretend the two are not connected would be extremely naive.

 

[Paratus]

Great Britain with its king outlawed slavery well before the U.S. without a king did so. The EU doesn't have a king either yet its para-government in Brussels regularly gives the middle finger to its member state voters and shits over what they want and the technocrats lord over the plebes in ways that Georgian era kings could not.

And we'll never make progress on racism issues when racism is routinely conflated with class and inequality issues; for example those who make the argument that opposing social welfare is essentially a racist position.

If you’ll note I said liberals didn’t want a king. I wasn’t insinuating you didn’t want a king.

And judging by this post your answer to this question:

Is yes?

Or are on further reflection are you suggesting that Kings, the US constitutional republic, and the European Union are all basically the same - none of which you support?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Of course relative impact matters, it would be insane to think it doesn't. If there are warrants out for a two people, one of whom killed one person and one of whom killed a thousand, we would immediately fire any police chief who said 'relative impact doesn't matter, wrong is wrong, therefore I will address both criminals equally.'

If one aspect of racism is a bigger problem than another, any logical person would devote more time and interest to the bigger problem. This is common sense.

That’s fair, but you have no way of knowing which is causing more harm. A generation ago race and judging someone based on skin color was a taboo and abhorrent thing to do. Did it happen? Sure. But we made tremendous progress in a really short period of time. Now it’s like we’re back in the damned 50’s.

You have no way of knowing the negative impact black on white racism. This new trend where it’s almost cool to bash whites because of their skin color has set back a generation of progress, how do you measure the negative impact there to even begin comparing to the “relative impact” of white on black racism? It’s impossible.

No one should be judged on skin color, period. It’s as easy as that

 

[zinfamous]

"Stop asking me to think--that's racist!"

/The OP.

 

[zinfamous]

Relative impact doesn’t matter, wrong is wrong.

It’s be a hard thing to judge too. I think society as a whole is harmed when we start boiling people down to skin color again. Blacks, whites greens, everyone. All this does is regress society.

This shit is funny.

 

[fskimospy]

That’s fair, but you have no way of knowing which is causing more harm. A generation ago race and judging someone based on skin color was a taboo and abhorrent thing to do. Did it happen? Sure. But we made tremendous progress in a really short period of time. Now it’s like we’re back in the damned 50’s.

A generation ago (1980’s) a majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. If anything racism is much better now than it was. The primary difference I see today is that sometimes white people are now on the receiving end of the same sort of collective guilt and stereotyping that they have routinely employed against others.

People of color who tried to do that in the past were ostracized by society. Not as much anymore and while it might sound counterintuitive I feel that minorities being able to speak their mind in that way is a sign of progress. It’s not like they didn’t think that before, they were just powerless to express it effectively.

You have no way of knowing the negative impact black on white racism. This new trend where it’s almost cool to bash whites because of their skin color has set back a generation of progress, how do you measure the negative impact there to even begin comparing to the “relative impact” of white on black racism? It’s impossible.

I cannot think of any plausible set of conditions where anti-white racism is even within an order of magnitude as harmful to the average white person as anti-black racism is to the average black person no matter how you choose to operationalize it.

If you’ve got any theory as to how that would be different (forget empirical evidence, just what you feel) I would love to hear it. It sounds preposterous to me.

No one should be judged on skin color, period. It’s as easy as that

In a perfect world I agree. That’s not the world we live in though and ignoring racism doesn’t make it go away.

 

[Vic]

Seems like the OP is always try to normalize his own racism by pointing out other peoples' racism, as if 2 wrongs made a right. It just doesn't work that way..