[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Cloud_Strife]

Cloud, you are trans. But you are so much more than that to me, and I certainly hope you know it

I do my friend, I do.

 

[Anysense]

Can you provide your motives here so I can decide how to respond to this sentence?

I'm just feeling rather angry that you guys attack somebody just because the colour of their skin.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm just feeling rather angry that you guys attack somebody just because the colour of their skin.

Then I'm sure you can quote examples of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm just feeling rather angry that you guys attack somebody just because the colour of their skin.

I don't. I do have a habit of getting really nasty to people who say incredibly stupid crap though. That's why I wanted to understand your motivations.

 

[Syno]

I'm just feeling rather angry that you guys attack somebody just because the colour of their skin.

Fret not. If anyone is attacking Rah, it's because he's rich and not because he's white.

 

[Anysense]

@Synsensa, by your definition Hispanics and Asians have white privilege too. That's a bit odd, they are not white, you see. Judging by what you say, white privilege is all about blatant racism. Basically the term implies that all white people are racists by definition.

Then I'm sure you can quote examples of it.

@Cloud_Strife
Sorry, but I don't feed trolls.

Moderator Action: Calling someone a troll on the forums is, in fact, trolling. Do no more of it, please. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I don't. I do have a habit of getting really nasty to people who say incredibly stupid crap though.

Why don't you learn to argue your point then? You think you are so clever, write down you clever thoughts then so that stupid people could read it and, perhaps, learn something.

 

[Gorbles]

And Gorbles, I've haven't benefited because I was white, I was not disadvantaged because I wasn't black. It all depends on how you look at it.

That's what I'm getting at rah. Calling it privilege from our viewpoint is the same as pointing out the discrimination from a discrimated minority's viewpoint. They're two sides of the same coin.

Heck, in some cases (this isn't aimed at you or me, because I don't know your life, and I do know mine) people underqualified get progression and benefits that minorities up for a similar progression or promotion (in a job, in a social situation, wherever) would have otherwise got (in a fairer society). That's literally privilege, because it's above and beyond a minority being discriminated against. That's why the language is rooted in privilege as supposed to just a handicap for a specific minority. Does that make more sense?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's because you can't quote any examples of it, @Anysense

 

[rah]

Fret not. If anyone is attacking Rah, it's because he's rich and not because he's white.

WELL OFF DAMMIT, not rich.

 

[rah]

That's what I'm getting at rah. Calling it privilege from our viewpoint is the same as pointing out the discrimination from a discrimated minority's viewpoint. They're two sides of the same coin.

Since they're the same coin, I just want to use a term that doesn't diminish my accomplishments. That's been my stance since my first post on it.
I still not sure why anyone is arguing with that.

 

[Syno]

@Synsensa, by your definition Hispanics and Asians have white privilege too. That's a bit odd, they are not white, you see. Judging by what you say, white privilege is all about blatant racism. Basically the term implies that all white people are racists by definition.

This feels bad faith to me. I don't know how to respond. Are you sure this is the counterargument you'd like to make?

 

[Gorbles]

Since they're the same coin, I just want to use a term that doesn't diminish my accomplishments. That's been my stance since my first post on it.
I still not sure why anyone is arguing with that.

You know your life - I don't. For my part, I've never been put in a situation (to the best of my knowledge, though I've still got a lot of years ahead of me) where I'm going head-to-head with someone for any kind of better position in life. If I did, and I was aware that race was a factor, I would therefore be aware that my race would be my privilege as much as it was any minority worker's disadvantage (well, let's hope so. I was an ass until a fair bit over the age of 20).

It's not meant to be a personal thing, right? I've benefitted from a diverse and accepting workplace, and I'm relatively comfortable with the above assertion. But that doesn't mean I haven't ever benefitted from being white. I'm sure there have been plenty of times that I wouldn't be aware of where that's happened, because racism is often invisible (and / or subconscious). Nobody is saying that you are diminished by a consequence. It's just odd that you'd refuse to use a word because it might imply things about your accomplishments. It's systemic - it's not your specific fault.

 

[El_Machinae]

Since they're the same coin, I just want to use a term that doesn't diminish my accomplishments. That's been my stance since my first post on it.
I still not sure why anyone is arguing with that.

Well they're not the same coin, but that's neither here nor there. Why should acknowledging an unearned privilege diminish one's accomplishments?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why don't you learn to argue your point then? You think you are so clever, write down you clever thoughts then so that stupid people could read it and, perhaps, learn something.

Okay, here's my point. You guys travel in packs. You all play the same stupid game. You open with some lame meme straight from the alt right play book intending to offend as many people as possible, then you blather at the people you intentionally offended about how they "aren't being fair," are "ganging up on you," or "aren't clearly arguing their points." My guess is that you and your pack mates are backslapping each other for "showing us up" on whatever cesspool site you crawled out of.

So here's the thing...your entry here made you unwelcome, so I am not making any pretense about welcoming you. If you want me to "debate" then you gotta earn it, because all you've earned so far is the harsh dismissiveness you are getting.

Do better, or you are likely to get worse, that's the deal.

 

[Gorbles]

Well they're not the same coin, but that's neither here nor there. Why should acknowledging an unearned privilege diminish one's accomplishments?

I'm a few glasses of wine too deep for this to potentially make sense, but I meant strictly in the semantic sense. One is borne out of institutional injustice, and the other by default benefits from that injustice by not being a targeted demographic. There's certainly a lot more nuance to it than that

 

[rah]

Why should acknowledging an unearned privilege diminish one's accomplishments?

Because maybe the accomplishment is not always assisted by an unearned privilege. That does happen.

 

[zxcvbob]

I think you are all railing against the wrong problem; the problem is corruption, not racism. I tried suggesting that a few pages ago. Racism is a symptom, not the cause. The corruption started long before President Trump, and it will be here long after he's gone. I don't think he's even had an effect. The mayors of the big cities (most if not all of them Democrats; this is the first I've mentioned it but you're probably heard it before and are getting tired of it) approve of what to police are doing until an egregious incident occurs that draws too much attention -- then they talk like they care until the rage wears off but they never do anything meaningful because they benefit from the corruption or perhaps are in on it. Of course black lives matter, but BLM is a distraction.

(I am not saying Republicans are not corrupt, but theirs manifests in different ways)

What I think needs to happen: bust the police unions (could probably use RICO to do that), do away with qualified immunity, take away all of their cool "tactical" toys except for a small SWAT team, and reduce the number of officers but increase their pay. Not every police dept even needs a SWAT team; maybe the sheriff could run that.

Sheriff Andy Taylor didn't even carry a gun. I know he's a fictional character and from a different era, but he's still what every peace officer should be trying to emulate whenever possible. He did have a cabinet full of rifles and shotguns, and his deputies (not just Barney) were armed but didn't use their guns much. (IIRC, Goober and Floyd were deputies too)

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm a few glasses of wine too deep for this to potentially make sense, but I meant strictly in the semantic sense. One is borne out of institutional injustice, and the other by default benefits from that injustice by not being a targeted demographic. There's certainly a lot more nuance to it than that

That's the ticket. Booze is good.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you are all railing against the wrong problem; the problem is corruption, not racism. I tried suggesting that a few pages ago. Racism is a symptom, not the cause. The corruption started long before President Trump, and it will be here long after he's gone. I don't think he's even had an effect. The mayors of the big cities (most if not all of them Democrats; this is the first I've mentioned it but you're probably heard it before and are getting tired of it) approve of what to police are doing until an egregious incident occurs that draws too much attention -- then they talk like they care until the rage wears off but they never do anything meaningful because they benefit from the corruption or perhaps are in on it. Of course black lives matter, but BLM is a distraction.

(I am not saying Republicans are not corrupt, but theirs manifests in different ways)

What I think needs to happen: bust the police unions (could probably use RICO to do that), do away with qualified immunity, take away all of their cool "tactical" toys except for a small SWAT team, and reduce the number of officers but increase their pay. Not every police dept even needs a SWAT team; maybe the sheriff could run that.

Sheriff Andy Taylor didn't even carry a gun. I know he's a fictional character and from a different era, but he's still what every peace officer should be trying to emulate whenever possible. He did have a cabinet full of rifles and shotguns, and his deputies (not just Barney) were armed but didn't use their guns much. (IIRC, Goober and Floyd were deputies too)

Cops here aren't armed. We got an armed offenders squad if needed. The cops can arm themselves if needed.

Saw armed police in person last year after the Mosque shooting. They were carrying Bushmasters and guarding the local Mosque.

They went away after a few weeks.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because maybe the accomplishment is not always assisted by an unearned privilege. That does happen.

Rah, that's kinda exactly what he said.

Our unearned privilege is just a fact on the ground. Acknowledging that it exists doesn't elevate it to a prominence that diminishes our accomplishments. No one is saying that it does.