Not too many Not Guilty verdicts in civil law.
Fair enough, I misread you as talking about jury verdicts in general, I should've reread
Yeah, my dad's not racist either, he just says and does and thinks racist things.
I'm guessing it all stuff that didn't have anything to do with Trump's campaign.
How sure are you that they're not racist?
Because there's plenty of people who don't consider themselves racist because they're not actively trying to make the lives of minorities worse, but still don't see them as equal to themselves as human beings. And that's still racism.
Remember the guy i posted about who was screaming racist slurs at a black female on tape, and then the 1st thing he said was that he's not racist, coz he's got mixed races grandkids?
The terms "racist" and "racism" (and, for that matter, sexism, sexual assault, etc) are very wide and have very different definitions based on who you ask. I've worked with people of different colors and/or religions all my life, I don't particularly care about it and I definitely don't consider them lesser people or less human, I most certainly don't think they should be treated as slaves or subhuman or have less rights than I do. I have Muslim friends. However, I can still laugh at a racist joke, and I can freely admit that, if two people come into my office, one of which is a Muslim woman with a head scarf and completely dressed to hide, while the other is a white woman in modern business casual clothing, I go into the conversation with different prejudices and expectations. Some would most definitely still class me as racist, others would say I'm a perfect example of a person adjusted to multicultural life.
A LOT of people who don't consider themselves racist, are. Just like a lot of people who don't consider themselves, say, vain, or lazy, or selfish, still are. There are almost always "worse" offenders to point at and claim *THAT* is [negative trait], not what I do/am/say!
In the case of racism, this is reinforced by people on the "against racism" side who are unswerving, unfaltering and unforgiving of anything; much like zealots they're horribly blind to relativism and comparisons. Laughing at a bad joke isn't the same as crossing the street to avoid someone isn't the same as yelling filthy slurs isn't the same as rounding "them" all up and putting them into camps isn't the same as gassing the lot of 'em. Some people would like to have you believe they're all equally evil and one will inevitably lead to the other - a slippery slope that's completely ridiculous and is incredibly effective at pushing people away. They may all be related, and they can all be called versions of racism - they're all on the spectrum - but they're not all the same, and saying people guilty of one should feel bad because they're in league with people who do all the others is bogus.
A LOT of people who don't consider themselves racist, are. Just like a lot of people who don't consider themselves, say, vain, or lazy, or selfish, still are. There are almost always "worse" offenders to point at and claim *THAT* is [negative trait], not what I do/am/say!
In the case of racism, this is reinforced by people on the "against racism" side who are unswerving, unfaltering and unforgiving of anything; much like zealots they're horribly blind to relativism and comparisons. Laughing at a bad joke isn't the same as crossing the street to avoid someone isn't the same as yelling filthy slurs isn't the same as rounding "them" all up and putting them into camps isn't the same as gassing the lot of 'em. Some people would like to have you believe they're all equally evil and one will inevitably lead to the other - a slippery slope that's completely ridiculous and is incredibly effective at pushing people away. They may all be related, and they can all be called versions of racism - they're all on the spectrum - but they're not all the same, and saying people guilty of one should feel bad because they're in league with people who do all the others is bogus.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/trump-white-nationalism/568393/
This article pretty well explains why certain relatives of mine support Trump.
This article pretty well explains why certain relatives of mine support Trump.
No it's fucking not, people are just bad at differentiating between racism and the severity of the acts one commits based on said racism.
Hence my entire argument about ppl being racist even if they aren't lynching people.
True, they should feel bad because racism is bad, even when it doesn't lead to murder.
Yes, because the "mild" racist are totally not blind to their own racism, and take offence at being called racist, even after calling someone a nigger and a monkey that should go back to Africa.
What exactly is it that you want anyway, that we pat people on the head and tel them they're the good kind of racist, so it's ok?
True, the actual thing that has always helped with racism is letting it run rampant until someone does murder a few people in horrific ways that can no longer be ignored by the less murderous parts of the population... see: the 1960's...
Post automatically merged:
WTF Halforums, how did we miss this tweet where Trump goes all in on white "nationalism" BS:
Trump has made it pretty clear that whatever gradients one might see in racism, it's still racist. Words aren't empty. A person who "only says racist things, never acts on them" absolutely acts on them. The words reflect a worldview and how the person acts is going to be informed by that worldview.
I will always remember the kid on my school bus when I was a teenager who would say racist jokes and slurs against black people, and put it off as just a joke, just a joke. It wasn't a joke when he said what he said, and it wasn't a joke when he built a bomb and planted it at the house of another kid from our school. No one was hurt and he was arrested. It comes to mind whenever i hear someone make a racist joke.
I will always remember the kid on my school bus when I was a teenager who would say racist jokes and slurs against black people, and put it off as just a joke, just a joke. It wasn't a joke when he said what he said, and it wasn't a joke when he built a bomb and planted it at the house of another kid from our school. No one was hurt and he was arrested. It comes to mind whenever i hear someone make a racist joke.
I used to laugh at racist joke, until i realised way too many ppl aren't laughing at how ridiculous they are.
Same with online trolling... it was funny, until some actually started believing it and now the nazis are back...
Remember Charlottesville? Then, after everyone let the nazis know they're not welcomed, the 2nd rally in DC was a bust..
figmentPez
Staff member
I've observed my dad for decades interacting with people of various races. He really does not treat people differently because of race, or speak differently about people based on race. Technically he acts in racist ways, but not out of racist motivation. i.e. He's against affirmative action, but not because he thinks it's stealing jobs from qualified white people, it's because he thinks poor white people are just as, or more, disadvantaged as middle class black people. And I can fault him for thinking affirmative action shouldn't exist because of that, but I can't really fault him for realizing the truth that some poor white kid growing up in a dying town in West Virginia might be at more of a disadvantage in life than a black kid growing up in an affluent suburb of a major city.
He genuinely doesn't like Trump's immigration policies. He just thinks the core problems of the immigration policies have been around for a lot longer than Trump. He doesn't like the racist things Trump says, but he genuinely thinks that Democrats will ruin the economy bad enough that it will hurt everyone. This is why this subject is so hard to talk about, because people are so ready to demonize the opposition's motives. And that gets you nowhere. If you are trying to convince someone to change their mind, and you try to convince them that their motives are wrong, when you've completely misrepresented those motives, you've lost the argument before you even started.
You're right, I can't be sure they're not racist. Because racism is such a broad category, it covers everything from someone who unwittingly uses the term "long time, no see" without even realizing it's origins, all the way to the leader of the KKK. Everyone, absolutely everyone, does racist things from time to time. It's built into every single culture on the face of the planet. You cannot escape some form of racism at some point in your life, and if you're going to conclude that every person who ever does something that is biased against a minority race did so because they're consciously holding an attitude that the race they're slighting is inferior, then you're doing the world a great disservice.
Yes, there are a lot of people who scream "I'm not racist" while actually thinking things that are racist. There are also a whole lot of people who genuinely don't realize what they're doing has implications beyond what they've been taught. And that's not even getting into the complexities of trying to determine if support or dissent of a political policy constitutes racism. (i.e. if someone supports lottery tickets because they think that funds schools, is that racist because it is a de facto tax on the poor? You might be able to fault the person for ignorance, but that doesn't necessarily mean they think that way because they think less of minorities.)
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
So, everyone who uses the terms: "Peanut gallery", "long time, no see / no can do ", "I got gypped", "mumbo jumbo", etc are eventually going to act intentionally racist? That seems like suspect reasoning.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's thought to have its origin in mocking native american pidgin english. Heap big wampum, etc.
To iterate, Allen Weisselberg, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization has been granted immunity by the SDNY in the Cohen matter.
Allen is not cheetos man, he is his father Freds man. And has been running the finances for all of the trumps for decades.
This man knows everything and is competent enough to hide it from the feds for years.
Allen is not cheetos man, he is his father Freds man. And has been running the finances for all of the trumps for decades.
This man knows everything and is competent enough to hide it from the feds for years.
figmentPez
Staff member
I wonder how much this is FUD, trying to scare people out of taking action against him, and how much is based on his perception that revealing his financials will uncover enough business scandals to crash the market independent of him being president.
You're talking about phrases with racist roots that a person may not know. But if informed, would they adjust or just dig their heels in?
It doesn't have to be intentional. A person doesn't have to realize they're executing a bias to be doing so.
I think the former.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're absolutely right, bias can be unintentional. People can do racist things with the best of intentions, and if you try to prove that they're doing the wrong thing by telling them that they're doing it because they're racist, then you've already lost the argument. If you say "Peanut Gallery is a racist term, by using it you're just openly being racist, and you're going to do more racist things because you're thinking racist thoughts" you've already lost the argument with someone who used "Peanut Gallery" because they grew up watching Howdy Doody and had no idea it was originally a slur. Someone who's been told that isn't going to listen to reason, because they haven't been given any reason to listen to. They've been presented with wild, and probably false, accusations.
And that's a hyperbolic way of demonstrating that it's bad to assume anyone's motivations when those motivations haven't been made evident. If someone says "I don't think gerrymandering is a problem" there's no way of knowing if they believe that out of ignorance, if they're acknowledging that gerrymandering can be used in many different ways and that it's specific uses that are the issue (and can cause problems because of unintended secondary effects even when used to try to give a better voice to minorities), or if they outright don't care if minorities have a voice in government, or something else altogether. It's a racist statement to say that, but it doesn't necessarily stem from racist motivations.
Are there a lot of voters who are racist but not KKK-racist? Yeah, probably. There are also a lot of voters who are Peanut Gallery-racist, but not "talk louder in English so the foreigner can understand you"-racist, or "why can't they just be more like Asian immigrants"-racist, etc. There's a lot of different ways to be racist, some more benign than others. A person who says "I made fried chicken for you because I know black people love fried chicken" is racist, even if they genuinely were trying to be hospitable and didn't think any less of people for liking fried chicken (because, really, most people like fried chicken). The assumption that everyone born into a group is the same is a problem, even if it's a positive or neutral stereotype. (It can be a problem believing that about groups people choose to be in as well, but it's not quite the same thing.)
One time I was getting ready for play rehearsal and someone joked that I should move back to my normal seat or we'd have bad luck. My reply was "Oh my goodness, you people are so superstitious", because I was talking to two people who were planning on making a career of being actors, as opposed to my own acting as a hobby. I got an accusatory response of "you people?" and I suddenly realized that I was talking to two black people. I explained that I meant actors are superstitious, and I very much hoped that they believe me, because I've never stereotyped black people as superstitious. Athletes, Catholics, Protestants, hippies, actors, but not any racial minority. But I can't prove that. I have no way of proving the thoughts that were in my head when I said "You people" and meant actors. I can only hope my actions as a whole show that I am not motivated by racism. My statement wasn't something that was unintentionally racist, it was something that unintentionally sounded like it could be racist. There's no need for me to stop joking that actors are superstitious (three words: The Scottish Play), because that's not racist. I can try to be less ambiguous about how I phrase things in the future, but there's no wrong position for me to recant of. It's wholly about perception as to if people believe my motivations were correct in what I said.
And that's true for a lot of things. It's not fair to assume motivations without any other evidence. "How do you know that Republican voters aren't racist?" Well, how do you know that they are voting the way they are because of racism? Why judge someone's motivation without evidence? How do you know what type of racist they are just based on how they voted in the past? What good does it do to assume their motivation? Is there anything to be gained by assuming they're racist, other than to feel better about yourself?
I guess I have a bias when it comes to people using racist jokes and slurs because the first person in my life who did that around me ended up trying to murder a family because they were black. It left an impact.
I'm not sure how to overcome this bias.
I'm not sure how to overcome this bias.
Honestly? Yes, do this. If the economy is so weak that it can't withstand a small-time millionaire pulling his money, then it's a sure sign the economy isn't working as designed. More to the point, if a single person moving their wealth out of circulation destroys the economy, then it's also a sure sign that such wealth inequality is unhealthy to the economy in the long run... and that counting on the benevolence of the bourgeoisie was a fool's errand.
Yeah, no, trying to dilute what racism is isn't something that helps.
You should realise this from the fact that it's a tactic that been used by actual racist since forever.
But hey, guess it's time for the picture again:
Also, who the fuck did you see get tarred and feathered over using "long time, no see"? Are you spending too much time on Tumblr by any chance?
Explaining what exactly?
How many times do you need to put your hand in the fire before you figure out that it always burns?
Post automatically merged:
Befriend more people that do that, i'm sure eventually one won't be racist... eventually...
figmentPez
Staff member
I'm not trying to dilute what racism is. I'm trying to show how widespread institutionalized racism is. It's baked into our culture, to the point that phrases that were once blatantly racist are now relics that mainly hold historical significance, but still contribute to the massive amount of microaggressions that minorities deal with. Most times using "long time, no see" doesn't have a racial impact. I'm betting it still does to some Native Americans, though. Just like "I got gypped" still matters a lot to Romani people. For all I know some Irish people still have reason to bristle at "paddy wagon" and "hooligan", because they're still stereotyped as drunken troublemakers.
Unintentional racism is still racism. It still matters, and some things matter more than others. Propagating stereotypes still hurts people, even if people don't realize what they're doing is helping propagate those stereotypes. I'm not saying that racism is okay, I'm saying that attacking people's motives is counterproductive, because actions are a problem even when the motive isn't. Things need to change, but that change isn't going to come about if you try to get people to change their motivation, in cases where their motivation isn't the problem to begin with.
Template matching =/= “diluted racism.”
It is objectively impossible to know everything you need to know about a person upon meeting them, and so you infer certain things from their dress, their speech, and yes, even their race. The fact that you might infer certain characteristics based on race is not, in itself, “Racism” any more than assuming someone driving a Cadillac CT6 must be wealthy is “Classist” or assuming someone with grey hair and wrinkles is over forty is “Ageist.” In each case it’s more like “playing the odds.”
—Patrick
It is objectively impossible to know everything you need to know about a person upon meeting them, and so you infer certain things from their dress, their speech, and yes, even their race. The fact that you might infer certain characteristics based on race is not, in itself, “Racism” any more than assuming someone driving a Cadillac CT6 must be wealthy is “Classist” or assuming someone with grey hair and wrinkles is over forty is “Ageist.” In each case it’s more like “playing the odds.”
—Patrick
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
At some point presumption crosses the line into prejudice. A visibly obese patient walks into doctor's office, it's not unfair for the Doctor to assume they'll likely have some weight related issues. It crosses the line into prejudice when that doctor refuses to consider other factors when looking for health problems. This happens with regularity. There really is a cultural bias against obesity that extends even to the point of clouding a doctor's judgement and causing them to treat their patient's in a prejudicial manner. A doctor can care about their patients, and not even think worse of them for being obese, while still being completely wrong to dismiss other causes for their health problems besides obesity.
Defining where that line is, both on an individual level, and on a cultural level, is very very difficult. Especially when racism, as a sociological term, can refer to stereotyping that generally positive, as well as to that which is outright negative. In fact, it's sometimes very necessary to point out that positive stereotypes of one ethnic group can be used to malign those who fail to adhere to the stereotype, and to disparage other racial groups by comparison. "How is it racism to say that Asians are good at math? Isn't racism thinking bad things about people based on their race?"
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't doubt you believe that you'll know it when you see it, but that's demonstrably not true for the population as a whole.
Take my example from earlier of "You people are so superstitious." I'm fairly certain my friends realized I really meant actors and not black people, but would someone who didn't know me be able to recognize I hadn't just made a racist statement? If a politician had been caught on tape making the exact same statement, would the public believe their denial of racism? If such a simple statement can be misunderstood, with the only defense being "I'm not racist, I didn't mean it that way" then how can we possibly say we know if people are racist or not simply because of what political party they've voted for in the past?
While I do believe the statement to be true for me (though of course tainted by my own preconceptions), the quote was a reference to US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous use of the phrase to describe his criterion for determining whether or not pornographic material had crossed over the line into “obscenity.”
As to the rest, how can any observer say with 100% confidence that the ONLY possible interpretation must be that it is racial? Much like the doctor v. obesity example, it’s certainly a strong possibility, but until it is tested and verified, it is still only a guess. Even in my earlier examples, the Cadillac owner could actually have won it or have it left to them by a relative BUT actually be poor, and the grey-haired, wrinkly guy could actually be a 10yr-old child with progeria.
—Patrick
Hey now, you've got more than one brother now.
Same with my "born in Ontario, raised in Alberta/NWT yet still sports a Confederate Battle flag tattoo" cousin.
Yesterday, while buying groceries, I saw a Confederate flag hoisted up on the front lawn of a house.
Yes, I still life in a small German town.
I imagine they fly the Confederate flag because they can't fly the one they want to fly.