A very serious thread about race relations

[Divine Wind]

Yes, agreed, but there should be a Step One for each side of this argument. That's how effective communication works. For example, Step One could be (a) to reject any notion that criticism of blacks is racist on its face, AND (b) an admission that old fashioned, ignorant, bigoted racism does indeed still exist and must be culturally eradicated.

Those are the biggest impediments I see in this, among others.
.

Criticism of black individuals isn't racist. Criticism of the black community might not be meant as racist, but it does not help anyone. If someone identifies with a group, and that group is criticized en masse, they are going to be defensive.

As a woman, if I hear, "Women have a real problem with......" I am not going to take it kindly.

Works (or should I say, doesn't work) for political affiliation as well.

So we can't take about problems in the black community.

That ensures that they are NEVER ADDRESSED.


We keep pretending that all the issues are from outside the community, ie white racism, and ignore that all our efforts don't stop the suffering and dying.


Because we are ignoring the real problems. Because it is politically incorrect to discuss them.

If you want to help a community, do it from within. Get to know individuals. Behavior is best addressed one on one. Criticizing a whole race of people from as far away as possible doesn't do any good.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone criticizing an entire race, only a specific American subculture in an American city.

Really? Can you quote the words that made you see that?

You just quoted it.

 

[Correll]

I strongly respect the value of personal observation and even anecdotal evidence.


But I disagree that it is the only way to learn about something.

If you use secondary sources, they need to be trustworthy. Now there are sources that actively lie and distort.

IMO, one of the biggest issues in the black community is illegitimacy.


My reading on the problems caused by that, (not limited to black community, but just more of it there)


have been supported by personal interaction and observation of single mothers, specifically blacks single mothers.



I support pro job policies to, among many other reasons, to give black men the economic option of being providers.

I think that all children, including black children, should be taught how much better a two parent family is, than a one parent one.


So that we can reduce illegitimacy, specifically in the black community, to reduce all the effects, crime, drug use, poverty, suicides, ect ect ect


In your opinion, where did I go off the rails?

I don't know if you did go off any rails.

Single parents (not just moms) need support, not ostracism. Not that you ostracized any yourself, but the stats about crime, drug use, poverty, etc, is sometimes used to target single moms (especially single black moms) to blame them for being single, and causing those social ills. As if they don't have enough problems.

Yes, a two-parent family is best. People should be taught that.

So, that's the model I will be using instead of "one on one".


And the above position has gotten me called racist, probably literally thousands of times.

Don't expect that model to accomplish much.

You do know that there are single parents whose children do NOT succumb to crime, drugs, and poverty, right? Those single-parent families are going to get defensive, recognizing that no one factor is a guarantee of success or failure.

Two points.


1. Only if someone tells them that a general problem is a personal, likely "racist" insult.


2. So, we don't address a huge social problem because it might hurt some people's feelings? That is not valid to me.

 

[Correll]

I've seen some of the internal criticism on the Right about race. It was not constructive.


If there are any real issues on the right, with racism at this point, they have been utterly buried under the false accusations.

That might make it tougher, but it still has to be done. There is still clearly racism - not the Regressives' dishonest, opportunistic definition of it, but real racism - coming from the Right, so the Right can clean its own house first. The other "side" of this argument has its own internal battles to deal with.
.

Yeah, I don't see this as a both sides equal issue.


Outside of the radical fringe nutters, the Right has been anti-racism since before it was cool.


You show me someone, on the right, actually saying or doing something racist, or pushing an actually racist policy, and I'm there.


But right now, I feel like a woman in Salem, and you're telling me, that well all the witch trials were bad, there really are witches in the town, and we have to be honest about that.

It doesn't have to be "equal". There is no independent authority keeping score.

If both sides have work to do, they should admit it and get on with the work.

Isn't that reasonable?
.

Considering the vast discrepancy between the witch hunt the Left is conducting and the feeble counter response by the Right,

no, it does not seem reasonable.


I will be open to specific examples of real racism on the right, as they come along.


But, the tiny amount of real racism on the Right is not the priority we need to be focused on.

You are open to examining specific examples of racism on the right, but have no time or patience for addressing specific examples and anecdotes from the left?

I struggle to look at each incident fairly regardless of where the complaint is coming from.

It is difficult with so many false accusations flying around, but I try.

 

[Divine Wind]

What's worrying me is that - at least anecdotally - I'm seeing more and more of this behavior in "real life". People who, in regular conversation, are ready to launch off into some canned tirade against the other "side". With real anger.

I hope what I'm detecting is incorrect, that's for damn sure.
.

It's a phase. They're acting just like our leaders, celebrities and the talking heads on television. The louder others talk, the louder a person might shout in order to be heard. After a few more shootings and mass murders, most people will come to their senses. It's a natural cycle.

I do hope you're right.
.

Not sure of your age, but the 1960s was a pretty scary time. Not just the social unrest and mass domestic causalities from riots and entire city blocks on fire, but from both Viet Nam (over 56,000 Americans D-E-A-D) and the constant threat of WWIII and global nuclear annihilation. This is nothing compared to that. Sure, some people will end up dead, but it will be nothing like this:

Watts Riot begins - Aug 11, 1965 - HISTORY.com
The five days of violence left 34 dead, 1,032 injured, nearly 4,000 arrested, and $40 million worth of property destroyed. The Watts riot was the worst urban riot in 20 years and foreshadowed the many rebellions to occur in ensuing years during the 1967 Detroit Riots, the Newark Riots, and other violence.

I do believe that's very possible, but the big thing that has changed the landscape is the internet, which has profoundly separated us even more into tribes. A person doesn't have to leave their home, they don't have to talk to anyone for months, and they can come out one day as a complete zealot.
.

And they can be as big of a jerk as they want, with no push back. and they keep escalating their rudeness to insane levels.

Agreed about rudeness, but I don't see them necessarily or commonly coming out as zealots. More often than not, I see Internet posts as a form of "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". They are mostly venting their fears, frustrations and concerns but, in the light of day, won't do anything about it.

Political causes nor the Internet do not make people crazy or zealots. They are that way to begin with and are looking for a way to release those feelings and urgings.

 

[Correll]

It's a phase. They're acting just like our leaders, celebrities and the talking heads on television. The louder others talk, the louder a person might shout in order to be heard. After a few more shootings and mass murders, most people will come to their senses. It's a natural cycle.

I do hope you're right.
.

Not sure of your age, but the 1960s was a pretty scary time. Not just the social unrest and mass domestic causalities from riots and entire city blocks on fire, but from both Viet Nam (over 56,000 Americans D-E-A-D) and the constant threat of WWIII and global nuclear annihilation. This is nothing compared to that. Sure, some people will end up dead, but it will be nothing like this:

Watts Riot begins - Aug 11, 1965 - HISTORY.com
The five days of violence left 34 dead, 1,032 injured, nearly 4,000 arrested, and $40 million worth of property destroyed. The Watts riot was the worst urban riot in 20 years and foreshadowed the many rebellions to occur in ensuing years during the 1967 Detroit Riots, the Newark Riots, and other violence.

I do believe that's very possible, but the big thing that has changed the landscape is the internet, which has profoundly separated us even more into tribes. A person doesn't have to leave their home, they don't have to talk to anyone for months, and they can come out one day as a complete zealot.
.

And they can be as big of a jerk as they want, with no push back. and they keep escalating their rudeness to insane levels.

Agreed about rudeness, but I don't see them necessarily or commonly coming out as zealots. More often than not, I see Internet posts as a form of "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". They are mostly venting their fears, frustrations and concerns but, in the light of day, won't do anything about it.

Political causes nor the Internet do not make people crazy or zealots. They are that way to begin with and are looking for a way to release those feelings and urgings.

Crazy?

The internet encourages behavior that sabotages communication and increases division.

This will result in real world effects.

My focus was not so much, some radicalized individual DOING something, as the Public Discourse, more and more being nothing but a screaming match with no Contest of Ideas.

 

[Tresha91203]

.....

I'm not quite sure how anyone who made half his appointments from Goldman Sachs and the other half for their contacts with Russia is fighting 'the establishment".

and one doesn't need to be a racist piece of garbage to oppose the so-called "establishment".

see if you find a single trumptard who stands up to the kkk and neonazi scum. good luck with that.

what is important now for people like you and people like me who don't agree on an awful lot but who agree that neo-Nazis are vile and should certainly shouldn't be enabled, to stand up and be as loud as possible.

I don't worry about making the bullies mad. I worry that we won't.

and I keep remembering "all it takes for evil to prevail is for decent [people] to do nothing".

I think it would be far smarter to completely ignore them.

And then have people who disagree, communicating, listening and slowly improving relations.

The idiots would be completely neutralized with no screaming, no attacking, no deaths.

Things are only getting worse with this approach.
.

Mac, I heard a guy on the news a few nights ago who has just written a book. His claim is that we can defeat racism by being MORE into our "identities," into being tribal, really building feeling of community around us and feeling of belonging in our own cultures, which defeats the reason for racist recruitment--needing a feeling of belonging, of a specific identity. If we have a strong sense of identity, of who we are, we will be more secure and less likely to be hostile or uncomfortable with other groups. Just being white isn't enough. It's way too global and ephemeral.
Wish I could remember where I heard him. It was an interesting and practical idea, actually. Some of the groups that try to "rehabilitate" racists claim the same underlying lack of a positive identity that sucks them in. The racist org gives broken folk a place to feel accepted and gives them a "tribe." Not so different from the lure of gang culture, actually.

That's not the ONLY factor or the only solution, but it was harmless and people have actually been talking about it for years--somehow recouping that feeling of belonging in something secure and positive.

Holy crap, that goes against all my impulses, but I'm open to anything at this point.

Let's not forget that it's Identity Politics, the division of people, that has so many (including myself) at odds with the Left.

Maybe the author might argue that it would depend on the way it's done. If it's done in a combative, divisive way, it simply can't work, because that's what got us here. If there's a way to do it in a civil, cooperate way, then maybe. Of course it takes two to tango...
.

The tribe is the community IMO. No white or black tribes necessary. Local tribes, neighborhood tribes, school group tribes, sports/extracurricular tribes, religious tribes and so on. All of these are well integrated where I live and it is working well.

There are some things predominantly one race or the other, churches for example. There are none that I know of that are exclusively one race. The other race is welcomed (even appreciated), but church music is an acquired taste and we don't seem to acquire other flavors of music so readily. There are whites that prefer black churches (mostly 20 to 30-somethings) and black people who prefer white churches (mostly 60+ and Catholics).

We identify with common interests and common ties more than skin color. We had a rocky time for a bit after Katrina, but the haters mostly moved back to NO, into BR or across the river. The rest seem to have acclimated well and are with the program.

Like politics, IMO, race relations is a local thing until you turn on the TV.

Here's the big picture problem from my perspective: (1) Race has (obviously) become politicized, and when that happens, all arguments get dumbed down to bumper-sticker level and no one wants to get in the weeds. We just want to keep stuff simple enough to fit on a sign. Well, that approach ain't gonna work here. (2) There are too many people who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided - I'm call them the Division Pimps - and their flocks are all too happy to dance to their tune.

Look at his thread. Accusations and insults, accusations and insults. This is what they want, and it's clearly working.
.

I don't think the nation is that divided at all. I think the cities are. I think politicians stir it up intentionally and media shouts it out to the world. However, I do not see it at all in smaller communities. I live in Louisiana,close enough to New Orleans and close enough to Baton Rouge go go to either for dinner and a movie. Both of those areas are rife with tension and gangs. Maybe it is the gang culture that sets off the tension for the whites? Maybe it is the density in close quarters that causes lack of jobs, thus gang culture? I know the Gulf South is a HUGE football area (and other organized sports). Kids that get into sports get a lot of positive attention, learn discipline and to pick themselves up after defeat. It makes a huge difference. I just don't see anger and hostility outside of the cities.

 

[Mac1958]

.....

I think it would be far smarter to completely ignore them.

And then have people who disagree, communicating, listening and slowly improving relations.

The idiots would be completely neutralized with no screaming, no attacking, no deaths.

Things are only getting worse with this approach.
.

Mac, I heard a guy on the news a few nights ago who has just written a book. His claim is that we can defeat racism by being MORE into our "identities," into being tribal, really building feeling of community around us and feeling of belonging in our own cultures, which defeats the reason for racist recruitment--needing a feeling of belonging, of a specific identity. If we have a strong sense of identity, of who we are, we will be more secure and less likely to be hostile or uncomfortable with other groups. Just being white isn't enough. It's way too global and ephemeral.
Wish I could remember where I heard him. It was an interesting and practical idea, actually. Some of the groups that try to "rehabilitate" racists claim the same underlying lack of a positive identity that sucks them in. The racist org gives broken folk a place to feel accepted and gives them a "tribe." Not so different from the lure of gang culture, actually.

That's not the ONLY factor or the only solution, but it was harmless and people have actually been talking about it for years--somehow recouping that feeling of belonging in something secure and positive.

Holy crap, that goes against all my impulses, but I'm open to anything at this point.

Let's not forget that it's Identity Politics, the division of people, that has so many (including myself) at odds with the Left.

Maybe the author might argue that it would depend on the way it's done. If it's done in a combative, divisive way, it simply can't work, because that's what got us here. If there's a way to do it in a civil, cooperate way, then maybe. Of course it takes two to tango...
.

The tribe is the community IMO. No white or black tribes necessary. Local tribes, neighborhood tribes, school group tribes, sports/extracurricular tribes, religious tribes and so on. All of these are well integrated where I live and it is working well.

There are some things predominantly one race or the other, churches for example. There are none that I know of that are exclusively one race. The other race is welcomed (even appreciated), but church music is an acquired taste and we don't seem to acquire other flavors of music so readily. There are whites that prefer black churches (mostly 20 to 30-somethings) and black people who prefer white churches (mostly 60+ and Catholics).

We identify with common interests and common ties more than skin color. We had a rocky time for a bit after Katrina, but the haters mostly moved back to NO, into BR or across the river. The rest seem to have acclimated well and are with the program.

Like politics, IMO, race relations is a local thing until you turn on the TV.

Here's the big picture problem from my perspective: (1) Race has (obviously) become politicized, and when that happens, all arguments get dumbed down to bumper-sticker level and no one wants to get in the weeds. We just want to keep stuff simple enough to fit on a sign. Well, that approach ain't gonna work here. (2) There are too many people who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided - I'm call them the Division Pimps - and their flocks are all too happy to dance to their tune.

Look at his thread. Accusations and insults, accusations and insults. This is what they want, and it's clearly working.
.

I don't think the nation is that divided at all. I think the cities are. I think politicians stir it up intentionally and media shouts it out to the world. However, I do not see it at all in smaller communities. I live in Louisiana,close enough to New Orleans and close enough to Baton Rouge go go to either for dinner and a movie. Both of those areas are rife with tension and gangs. Maybe it is the gang culture that sets off the tension for the whites? Maybe it is the density in close quarters that causes lack of jobs, thus gang culture? I know the Gulf South is a HUGE football area (and other organized sports). Kids that get into sports get a lot of positive attention, learn discipline and to pick themselves up after defeat. It makes a huge difference. I just don't see anger and hostility outside of the cities.

Pretty interesting. It's certainly portrayed as having saturated the country.
.

 

[Divine Wind]

I do hope you're right.
.

Not sure of your age, but the 1960s was a pretty scary time. Not just the social unrest and mass domestic causalities from riots and entire city blocks on fire, but from both Viet Nam (over 56,000 Americans D-E-A-D) and the constant threat of WWIII and global nuclear annihilation. This is nothing compared to that. Sure, some people will end up dead, but it will be nothing like this:

Watts Riot begins - Aug 11, 1965 - HISTORY.com
The five days of violence left 34 dead, 1,032 injured, nearly 4,000 arrested, and $40 million worth of property destroyed. The Watts riot was the worst urban riot in 20 years and foreshadowed the many rebellions to occur in ensuing years during the 1967 Detroit Riots, the Newark Riots, and other violence.

I do believe that's very possible, but the big thing that has changed the landscape is the internet, which has profoundly separated us even more into tribes. A person doesn't have to leave their home, they don't have to talk to anyone for months, and they can come out one day as a complete zealot.
.

And they can be as big of a jerk as they want, with no push back. and they keep escalating their rudeness to insane levels.

Agreed about rudeness, but I don't see them necessarily or commonly coming out as zealots. More often than not, I see Internet posts as a form of "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". They are mostly venting their fears, frustrations and concerns but, in the light of day, won't do anything about it.

Political causes nor the Internet do not make people crazy or zealots. They are that way to begin with and are looking for a way to release those feelings and urgings.

Crazy?

The internet encourages behavior that sabotages communication and increases division.

This will result in real world effects.

My focus was not so much, some radicalized individual DOING something, as the Public Discourse, more and more being nothing but a screaming match with no Contest of Ideas.

The Internet no more encourages bad behavior than over drinking does. It's a personal choice. A person chooses to engage in bad behavior, they are not made to do so by alcohol, the Internet or another person.

 

[Correll]

Not sure of your age, but the 1960s was a pretty scary time. Not just the social unrest and mass domestic causalities from riots and entire city blocks on fire, but from both Viet Nam (over 56,000 Americans D-E-A-D) and the constant threat of WWIII and global nuclear annihilation. This is nothing compared to that. Sure, some people will end up dead, but it will be nothing like this:

Watts Riot begins - Aug 11, 1965 - HISTORY.com
The five days of violence left 34 dead, 1,032 injured, nearly 4,000 arrested, and $40 million worth of property destroyed. The Watts riot was the worst urban riot in 20 years and foreshadowed the many rebellions to occur in ensuing years during the 1967 Detroit Riots, the Newark Riots, and other violence.

I do believe that's very possible, but the big thing that has changed the landscape is the internet, which has profoundly separated us even more into tribes. A person doesn't have to leave their home, they don't have to talk to anyone for months, and they can come out one day as a complete zealot.
.

And they can be as big of a jerk as they want, with no push back. and they keep escalating their rudeness to insane levels.

Agreed about rudeness, but I don't see them necessarily or commonly coming out as zealots. More often than not, I see Internet posts as a form of "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". They are mostly venting their fears, frustrations and concerns but, in the light of day, won't do anything about it.

Political causes nor the Internet do not make people crazy or zealots. They are that way to begin with and are looking for a way to release those feelings and urgings.

Crazy?

The internet encourages behavior that sabotages communication and increases division.

This will result in real world effects.

My focus was not so much, some radicalized individual DOING something, as the Public Discourse, more and more being nothing but a screaming match with no Contest of Ideas.

The Internet no more encourages bad behavior than over drinking does. It's a personal choice. A person chooses to engage in bad behavior, they are not made to do so by alcohol, the Internet or another person.

Sure, it's a choice. ONe they are responsible for.


But the rest of US have to live with the consequences.

 

[Divine Wind]

I do believe that's very possible, but the big thing that has changed the landscape is the internet, which has profoundly separated us even more into tribes. A person doesn't have to leave their home, they don't have to talk to anyone for months, and they can come out one day as a complete zealot.
.

And they can be as big of a jerk as they want, with no push back. and they keep escalating their rudeness to insane levels.

Agreed about rudeness, but I don't see them necessarily or commonly coming out as zealots. More often than not, I see Internet posts as a form of "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". They are mostly venting their fears, frustrations and concerns but, in the light of day, won't do anything about it.

Political causes nor the Internet do not make people crazy or zealots. They are that way to begin with and are looking for a way to release those feelings and urgings.

Crazy?

The internet encourages behavior that sabotages communication and increases division.

This will result in real world effects.

My focus was not so much, some radicalized individual DOING something, as the Public Discourse, more and more being nothing but a screaming match with no Contest of Ideas.

The Internet no more encourages bad behavior than over drinking does. It's a personal choice. A person chooses to engage in bad behavior, they are not made to do so by alcohol, the Internet or another person.

Sure, it's a choice. ONe they are responsible for.


But the rest of US have to live with the consequences.

Agreed it's a choice, but free speech always have consequences. One problem with the Millenial generation is that they want "safe spaces" to protect them from hearing other people's free speech. That's idiotic, but that's what they want and one reason why our universities are failing to properly teach them. Universities are now letting the children be in charge and it's producing a bunch of self-righteous authoritarian idiots who think they have a right to dictate behavior to others because some actions by others, despite being legal, are "offensive" to them.

 

[PredFan]

Is there anyone here, or does anyone here know of anyone, who wants to see race relations improve?

No, I don't mean "beat" the other "side". No, I don't mean punishing the other side for their opinions. No, I'm not talking about the political angles, particularly pointing the finger and blaming the other guy.

I mean, is anyone aware of anyone whose top priority is better, more open, more positive, more civil, more constructive, more fruitful human relationships between the races?

Dead serious question. Examples would be great. Links would be great.
.

I think most Republicans would want that. I think a great many democrats and moderates would too. The problem is that the ruling class of Democrats and their media will not let that happen.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

LOL. Funny, but in all fairness, Doc and Dogmaphobe were going cats and dogs first.

I prefer to think of it as weasel and eagle, myself.

.....listing references in proper order, of course.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is there anyone here, or does anyone here know of anyone, who wants to see race relations improve?

No, I don't mean "beat" the other "side". No, I don't mean punishing the other side for their opinions. No, I'm not talking about the political angles, particularly pointing the finger and blaming the other guy.

I mean, is anyone aware of anyone whose top priority is better, more open, more positive, more civil, more constructive, more fruitful human relationships between the races?

Dead serious question. Examples would be great. Links would be great.
.

I know some individuals, but as long as we have a media that magnifies differences instead of encouraging commonalities, race relations will only deteriorate.

When an authoritarian brand of identity politics replaced liberalism as the guiding principle of the left, the die was cast. Liberalism encourages a color-blind society while this new leftist authoritarianism is all about color.

It may be that there is a desire for improved race relations under the surface for some, I just don't see it.

I don't see a connection between these behaviors and anything that could be construed as constructive.
.

Maybe when people stop broad brushing "the other"....there will be improvement. When we realize we can sit down, share a meal, have a conversation about our kids...and realize we're not so different after all. It comes down to basic respect for each other.

I heard this guy on Ted Talks I think....really impressive....
A black man's quixotic quest to quell the racism of the KKK, one robe at a time

That's it. That's my argument. Communication.

Whether it's business or personal relationships or politics or race, once communication breaks down, it's over.

You go to the doctor and refuse to tell him what's wrong. He checks you out and refuses to tell you what he's found. No communication. What's the result?

There is none now, and here we are.
.

Nonsense. There's plenty of "communication" going on now. Perhaps you're not taking part in it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is there anyone here, or does anyone here know of anyone, who wants to see race relations improve?

No, I don't mean "beat" the other "side". No, I don't mean punishing the other side for their opinions. No, I'm not talking about the political angles, particularly pointing the finger and blaming the other guy.

I mean, is anyone aware of anyone whose top priority is better, more open, more positive, more civil, more constructive, more fruitful human relationships between the races?

Dead serious question. Examples would be great. Links would be great.
.

I know some individuals, but as long as we have a media that magnifies differences instead of encouraging commonalities, race relations will only deteriorate.

When an authoritarian brand of identity politics replaced liberalism as the guiding principle of the left, the die was cast. Liberalism encourages a color-blind society while this new leftist authoritarianism is all about color.

Ignoring race and racism isn't going to magically make race relations better.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

That a lot of people have reached the same conclusion, doesn't make it wrong.


And calling himself an individual is not the same as being a snowflake. That was unfair.

Ignoring race and racism isn't going to magically make race relations better.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

I doubt that you have read ANY history books. You are just a simpleton forever stuck in the acting-out phase in your life.

Blah, blah blah. You've already proven your ability to get flustered and start lashing out with insults. We're all so impressed.

I'm open to the possibility that my conclusions are false. But you haven't yet given me any reason to believe that they are.

Your mis-characterization of his position was pretty insulting and quite rude.

Make up your mind.

Did I mischaracterize his position, or is he "not wrong"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is there anyone here, or does anyone here know of anyone, who wants to see race relations improve?

No, I don't mean "beat" the other "side". No, I don't mean punishing the other side for their opinions. No, I'm not talking about the political angles, particularly pointing the finger and blaming the other guy.

I mean, is anyone aware of anyone whose top priority is better, more open, more positive, more civil, more constructive, more fruitful human relationships between the races?

Dead serious question. Examples would be great. Links would be great.
.

I know some individuals, but as long as we have a media that magnifies differences instead of encouraging commonalities, race relations will only deteriorate.

When an authoritarian brand of identity politics replaced liberalism as the guiding principle of the left, the die was cast. Liberalism encourages a color-blind society while this new leftist authoritarianism is all about color.

Ignoring race and racism isn't going to magically make race relations better.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

Straw man "arguments" like this are a big part of the problem.

You're part of the problem. I wonder why you feel you have to misrepresent the views of others.
.

You haven't demonstrated that I'm "misrepresenting" anything.

You seem to be arguing that "race relations" are bad because those uppity black folks keep "screaming" things like "cops shouldn't be killing so many black kids" or "we want equal treatment".

If I'm getting your argument wrong, then convince me.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I know some individuals, but as long as we have a media that magnifies differences instead of encouraging commonalities, race relations will only deteriorate.

When an authoritarian brand of identity politics replaced liberalism as the guiding principle of the left, the die was cast. Liberalism encourages a color-blind society while this new leftist authoritarianism is all about color.

Ignoring race and racism isn't going to magically make race relations better.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

That a lot of people have reached the same conclusion, doesn't make it wrong.


And calling himself an individual is not the same as being a snowflake. That was unfair.

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

I doubt that you have read ANY history books. You are just a simpleton forever stuck in the acting-out phase in your life.

Blah, blah blah. You've already proven your ability to get flustered and start lashing out with insults. We're all so impressed.

I'm open to the possibility that my conclusions are false. But you haven't yet given me any reason to believe that they are.

Your mis-characterization of his position was pretty insulting and quite rude.

Make up your mind.

Did I mischaracterize his position, or is he "not wrong"?

It may have been due to your stupidity rather than deliberate dishonesty arising from your extremist agenda, but I never said people should not talk about racism. What I actually indicated was that the media magnifies such.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ignoring race and racism isn't going to magically make race relations better.

You guys really don't get it, do you?

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

That a lot of people have reached the same conclusion, doesn't make it wrong.


And calling himself an individual is not the same as being a snowflake. That was unfair.

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

I doubt that you have read ANY history books. You are just a simpleton forever stuck in the acting-out phase in your life.

Blah, blah blah. You've already proven your ability to get flustered and start lashing out with insults. We're all so impressed.

I'm open to the possibility that my conclusions are false. But you haven't yet given me any reason to believe that they are.

Your mis-characterization of his position was pretty insulting and quite rude.

Make up your mind.

Did I mischaracterize his position, or is he "not wrong"?

It may have been due to your stupidity rather than deliberate dishonesty arising from your extremist agenda, but I never said people should not talk about racism. What I actually indicated was that the media magnifies such.

What you said was that "the media" magnifies "differences" - which is a statement without meaning.

What you meant was the media won't stop talking about black people being upset, so they must be causing that anger, because black people are too stupid to think for themselves, and can't possibly have any real grips, it's all just the media and the democrats, and all the other evil things you like to blame everything on.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"You guys"? I am an individual who thinks as an individual, and expresses my opinions as an individual.

I realize that is an alien concept to you, but you should try it some time. .

...and yet, you parrot the same exact same talking points as thousands of other old white men who consider themselves to be "above" racism, but think that everything was just fine back before black people started whining about how much it sucks for them.

You're not a unique snowflake. I've heard your arguments before - in fact, I've read them in history books.

That a lot of people have reached the same conclusion, doesn't make it wrong.


And calling himself an individual is not the same as being a snowflake. That was unfair.

I doubt that you have read ANY history books. You are just a simpleton forever stuck in the acting-out phase in your life.

Blah, blah blah. You've already proven your ability to get flustered and start lashing out with insults. We're all so impressed.

I'm open to the possibility that my conclusions are false. But you haven't yet given me any reason to believe that they are.

Your mis-characterization of his position was pretty insulting and quite rude.

Make up your mind.

Did I mischaracterize his position, or is he "not wrong"?

It may have been due to your stupidity rather than deliberate dishonesty arising from your extremist agenda, but I never said people should not talk about racism. What I actually indicated was that the media magnifies such.

What you said was that "the media" magnifies "differences" - which is a statement without meaning.

What you meant was the media won't stop talking about black people being upset, so they must be causing that anger, because black people are too stupid to think for themselves, and can't possibly have any real grips, it's all just the media and the democrats, and all the other evil things you like to blame everything on.

Is being an utterly dishonest piece of shit three steps to the left of Che Guevara one of the basic requirements for being a senior moderator here?

All the others are good, decent people.

 

[Coyote]

Mod apology, I was removing a post for off topic gaming in z2 and my phone selected 20 posts!

They have been restored please disregard any messages...

 

[Tresha91203]

.....

Mac, I heard a guy on the news a few nights ago who has just written a book. His claim is that we can defeat racism by being MORE into our "identities," into being tribal, really building feeling of community around us and feeling of belonging in our own cultures, which defeats the reason for racist recruitment--needing a feeling of belonging, of a specific identity. If we have a strong sense of identity, of who we are, we will be more secure and less likely to be hostile or uncomfortable with other groups. Just being white isn't enough. It's way too global and ephemeral.
Wish I could remember where I heard him. It was an interesting and practical idea, actually. Some of the groups that try to "rehabilitate" racists claim the same underlying lack of a positive identity that sucks them in. The racist org gives broken folk a place to feel accepted and gives them a "tribe." Not so different from the lure of gang culture, actually.

That's not the ONLY factor or the only solution, but it was harmless and people have actually been talking about it for years--somehow recouping that feeling of belonging in something secure and positive.

Holy crap, that goes against all my impulses, but I'm open to anything at this point.

Let's not forget that it's Identity Politics, the division of people, that has so many (including myself) at odds with the Left.

Maybe the author might argue that it would depend on the way it's done. If it's done in a combative, divisive way, it simply can't work, because that's what got us here. If there's a way to do it in a civil, cooperate way, then maybe. Of course it takes two to tango...
.

The tribe is the community IMO. No white or black tribes necessary. Local tribes, neighborhood tribes, school group tribes, sports/extracurricular tribes, religious tribes and so on. All of these are well integrated where I live and it is working well.

There are some things predominantly one race or the other, churches for example. There are none that I know of that are exclusively one race. The other race is welcomed (even appreciated), but church music is an acquired taste and we don't seem to acquire other flavors of music so readily. There are whites that prefer black churches (mostly 20 to 30-somethings) and black people who prefer white churches (mostly 60+ and Catholics).

We identify with common interests and common ties more than skin color. We had a rocky time for a bit after Katrina, but the haters mostly moved back to NO, into BR or across the river. The rest seem to have acclimated well and are with the program.

Like politics, IMO, race relations is a local thing until you turn on the TV.

Here's the big picture problem from my perspective: (1) Race has (obviously) become politicized, and when that happens, all arguments get dumbed down to bumper-sticker level and no one wants to get in the weeds. We just want to keep stuff simple enough to fit on a sign. Well, that approach ain't gonna work here. (2) There are too many people who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided - I'm call them the Division Pimps - and their flocks are all too happy to dance to their tune.

Look at his thread. Accusations and insults, accusations and insults. This is what they want, and it's clearly working.
.

I don't think the nation is that divided at all. I think the cities are. I think politicians stir it up intentionally and media shouts it out to the world. However, I do not see it at all in smaller communities. I live in Louisiana,close enough to New Orleans and close enough to Baton Rouge go go to either for dinner and a movie. Both of those areas are rife with tension and gangs. Maybe it is the gang culture that sets off the tension for the whites? Maybe it is the density in close quarters that causes lack of jobs, thus gang culture? I know the Gulf South is a HUGE football area (and other organized sports). Kids that get into sports get a lot of positive attention, learn discipline and to pick themselves up after defeat. It makes a huge difference. I just don't see anger and hostility outside of the cities.

Pretty interesting. It's certainly portrayed as having saturated the country.
.

Venture out of the cities and the suburbs. I think you'd be surprised.