I think the act of protesting a police use of force is a fair and constitutionally defended act. I don't think BLM is officially saying it's some kind of neighborhood genocide, most people will acknowledge the real threat is from criminals themselves, but the police can't or don't distinguish well enough between citizens going about their lives and people committing crimes (in fairness, not an easy thing to do). I'm not seeing the false equivocation from BLM, but I'm not paying attention to this movement that closely, so apologies there, you may be right. And yeah, no surprise that a few pastors get print for saying some crazy shit. Being the voice of reason in this situation will have your congregation desert you. If BLM had consolidated leadership, it might be easier to tease out what they want as opposed to the spectrum of "hey guys, this is unjust" to "fuck tha police". I agree with you that it's not rational to demand conviction: that's mob justice. I agree that burning shit down isn't right, that's a crime. My original point is that crime and police use of force need to be clearly distinguished and it's not fair to compare them. One is a crime that society at large has an obligation to reduce, prevent, investigate, etc. One is...blurrier, but not a crime and comes with tacit approval. I think it's fair to protest that approval come with more qualifications, more oversight and I think it's fair to protest (legally) that cops should exercise more caution and humanity in how they interact with members of these communities. Is that BLM's message? Somewhere I think it could be teased out to say that, but it gets lost in the outrage and posturing. I think somewhere there's a legitimate reason to protest, and a genuine grievance. It won't get a conviction, but it does need to be addressed. The issues with that are: BLM not having the leadership to consolidate and hammer away with that message, and these communities not having the influence, resources or tactics to influence the system on their behalf. If this occurred in say, the Woodlands, TX (wealthy suburb), there would be lawyers swarming, city councils involved, property values changing: it would have a dramatic effect, because the people there have influence, money and know how to get this addressed. From what I've seen, the same can't be said of this community, and it boils into outrage, protest and ultimately violence, thus crossing the line into criminal behavior detrimental to all.
I think this is also really hard to tease out because, honestly, how could you be a person of color in this country and NOT have some level of "fuck the police" sentiment? The police are a historically racist institution, and while some forces might be trying to improve, most of them aren't doing it adequately. In instances that I have called the police, I have had a number of considerations, but none of them were ever about MY safety should I call the cops. And I just don't think that's true for many, many people of color. (Not to mention all of the other kinds of structural and institutionalized racism over the entire course of our nation's history.)
Something very similar was voiced by a St Louis business owner who has been affected by the protests: "Hobbs said that while he supports the protests, he is frustrated by the vandalism and loss of business that followed the peaceful demonstrations over the weekend. He wants to know the plan after the protests. “Where do we go to get behind this thing and sign petitions to change out police procedures? And, that’s what’s frustrating to a lot of us who are involved or not involved.”
I agree with you guys that the cops have issues. I've had my run ins with them where they've acted completely inappropriately. I'm sure it's worse for your average black person. But even so, I just can't get on board with BLM because I don't think they have any desire to actually work with the cops. I don't think that they care to be reasonable about how cops should conduct themselves. It's just been blind (and often misdirected) rage, and not a whole lot else. While as a white person it's a lot easier to shrug off racism towards whites, they are being so flagrant at times it is kind of offensive. I mean, sure, I don't really care all that much and I have the convenience of not taking it too personally, but at the same time it's kind of hard not to cringe. I just think that if a movement wants to be taken seriously they need to act like adults. You can't just fling shit and scream outrageous accusations. Even if at it's core the movement has some merit it still has to be carried out in an appropriate manner. I don't think the hyperbole and nonsense helps anything either.
There is literally no such thing as "racism towards whites" or "reverse racism". To suggest that there is shows a lack of understanding of the nature of structural and institutional racism and the role that power plays in perpetuating it.
Bullshit. If someone hates any group or individual simply for the color of their skin or their ethnicity, they're racist. That is literally the definition of the word. rac·ist ˈrāsəst/ noun plural noun: racists 1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Are you telling me that you think racism is only white to black, and blacks can't be racist to whites?
Just so I kind of understand your thought processes better.......is sex biological or a social construct and are there only two genders?
At this point I think she's just trolling... because she never answered my previous question around gender/Clintonvs race/Obama, and now she's spewing this drivel. And when I say she's trolling, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt... because the only other option is that she's too fucking stupid to know she's stupid.
Is it just open season on insults here now? Or are you going to hold yourself to the standards supposedly set forth in this thread?
What is the definition of "racism" again? It has something to do with race. Sounds like somebody has never seen a Spike Lee film before.
No, it's not. This is meant to be a place for discussion, hence the serious nature of the thread. If someone is just going to drop in here and make blatantly provably wrong statements (the earth is flat, etc), stir up the pot, and then go away and not answer any questions that are posed as a result of said stirring, then they are not living up to the implied contract of the thread. At that point I'm quite OK with calling them out for trolling. If someone comes in here and says the Earth is Flat, then I will call them too fucking stupid to know they're stupid. This is not a safe space, nor is it a place where we will just blindly accept your beliefs in things as gospel... if there is some merit to your statements, and you attempt to explain your point of view, then you will be treated with respect. If you are being a fucking idiot, then you will be called out as such. If someone is honestly trying to engage in a discussion around a particular point of view (that is not as retarded as Flat Earth, for example), then the mods will not allow it to devolve into throwing shit at each other. To come in and proclaim that a word has a completely different meaning than the definition of said word is idiotic, and is being called out in this case. So yeah, just like life and politics, the rules are somewhat nuanced, but I still think that they are holding the same standards that were originally set forth.
Well let's just be honest about this then. Anyone who thinks racism against white people is a big problem is too stupid to discuss the issue of race in America. And anyone who thinks BLM is a racist hate group is being dumb as hell too. From the Southern Poverty Law Center: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group.
Also, since you wouldn't trust a Flat Earther to talk about science... I think ToyToy either needs to back this claim up or shut the fuck up about protests.
I am not trolling. I stopped responding to you in the politics thread because the conversation had moved on and it seemed fruitless to keep saying the same thing and to expect a different response. In re: Obama v. Hillary, obviously his race impacted his treatment and the way people perceived him. Peoples' identities affect the way they are treated and perceived. Obama was a good enough candidate to overcome the additional negativity and win anyways. It's not an either/or scenario, nor could I say if Obama's treatment was affected more than Clinton's. The fact that you don't seem to understand that race and gender can both affect how people are treated makes me think you're at least as stupid as I am. In regards to racism: White people do not experience racism. When I say Racism, I mean the deeply entrenched and systemic ways in which people of color are marginalized. I don't mean one person saying "I hate white people" or "I hate black people". Racism is slavery, turned into sharecropping, turned into exclusionary housing and lending, turned into block busting and all of the other ways in which (primarily) black people were kept from building wealth. It's Jim Crow turned into the drug war and continuously racist policing and the disproportionate incarceration of people of color. "Reverse racism" is just white people pouting about having ever so slightly less of an advantage.
Where did anyone say that? A statement was made that white people can't experience racism, and that is false. You are manufacturing statements to fit your narrative. You are making shit up. Quote me where someone said that. No it hadn't... you just didn't have a reasonable answer for the question that still fit your narrative that Hillary lost because of the extreme hardships she suffered for being a woman. So you're redefining, or dare I say gate-keeping, racism now? Of course when you actually explain what you mean when you say racism, it means something different than what we're all talking about. Words have meanings... and when intellectually honest people try and have a discussion around those words, you can't just make shit up and then condescend to us from some moral high ground when we don't automatically change those definitions to your personal concept. There are many forms of racism. Period. It's not only about blacks being enslaved. If you think that is the only acceptable scenario for racism, then, again, there's nothing more to be said because there's no discussing things with you. It's not about who "wins" the racism war... it's not a case of "only the worst affected can claim that label"... it's not how that works. For instance... Do you mean to say that the Jews didn't suffer from racism under the Nazis? What about the Durban race riots between the Indians and the Zulus? What about during the Congo Civil war when pygmies were hunted down and eaten because it was thought their flesh had magical properties when ingested? (hot tip... it wasn't white people who did that) But let me guess... we've moved on now, so no sense in you responding... right? Or are you going to say that they are allowed to claim to be the victims of racism... but it's just white guys who aren't allowed to do that?
Just to add to what sisterkathlouise is saying, racism is not synonymous with prejudice. Anyone can be prejudiced against another person, and people of all races can experience prejudice at the hands of someone of another race. However there has never been any sort of institutionalized discrimination against white people by black people in the US. Maybe it would help to think of it as the difference between institutionalized racism and individual racism. But I can assure you defining racism as an institution (and therefore making true the statement "black people can't be racist toward white people") isn't just some mental gymnastics designed to shame white people while excusing any and all behavior of non-white people. It's a true statement of the reality of our culture and history. Kampf neatly illustrates it with his comment: He can shrug it off and not really care all that much because he knows black people don't have any real, cultural, power over him. And really that's what it all boils down to: Power. Anyone can be prejudiced, but racism requires actual power. Since white people have held the institutional power in this country since its inception, and more or less still hold it to this day, white people really can't experience racism at the hands of people of color.
All of your examples are of minorities/marginalized groups of people. White people are not marginalized in this country. No where did I say that only black people can experience racism. I said that white people do not experience racism, as in institutionalized, systemic racism, in this country. Plenty of different races/ethnicities/religions/identities experience racism, women experience sexism. Privilege is intersectional. Identities affect privilege.