How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Modder_Mode]

Systemic racism has been the norm in US history. The burden is on you to prove it ever stopped.

I agree it existed, in fact I have acknowledged the fact it existed in the past several times now much like white privilege existed in the past. I don't even know if you could even use those terms to describe past injustices to black people, because black people didn't even have rights, they didn't even have citizenship, it wasn't even a crime, it was the standard of the time.

The burden is on you to prove it ever stopped.

That's not how it works. If someone claims something and provides evidence to backup their initial claim then yes the burden of proof is on the counter-claimer to provide evidence to the contrary, but if someone makes a blanket statement without proof, then the burden is on them to prove their claims to the counter-claimer. This is common on here with blanket statements, however Estebonrober does regularly offer proofs for his/her claims. Not saying I'm perfect I've posted blanket statements on here without proof we all do it, but I don't mind being called out for the burden of proof.

Besides that point I have provided counter arguments and evidence to systemic racism claims in various threads on here.

 

[Senethro]

Nah. You make plenty of implicit claims that you don’t examine, or don’t want examined, or just adopt a poise of deliberate incuriosity about. (Supposed end of USracism being one)

It’s to do with modern conservatism lacking a rigorous intellectual underpinning and, if you like, a grand unified theory. Any injustices that you find convenient for yourself are “natural” and “just the way the world works”. Deserved, even. You don’t feel the need to explain them but you demand such from any threatening reform.

It’s a strategy of Only Attack, Never Defend and it does often work admittedly.

 

[NinjaCow64]

There's some irony in calling me out for ad hominem in the context of multiple posters who flagrantly violated forum rules repeatedly to do little more than make childish attacks on posters rather than the content of their posts. Even in RD threads.

You haven't substantiated these claims.

That is why I now can't see those posts, and I have no interest in further looking at them. Those posts obviously couldn't manage basic discussion and weren't worth the time.

A post cannot manage basic discussion because a post is not a human being.

If you meant "poster" then that is yet another case of disgusting, ad hominem garbage.

Don't quote trash to me.

How can you judge if something is trash without reading it? If you're judging something purely on where it comes from, that's a disgusting use of the genetic fallacy.

I have no obligation or even reasonable expectation to address the content of justifiably blocked posters.

What kinds of posts would have a poster have to make before one would not have an obligation or reasonable expectation to address their posts?

We could define what is meant by "hot", and then establish whether a particular fire meets the criteria by measuring it directly.

Yes, but it would be completely unreasonable for us to do that, because fire being hot is self-evident.

Also some things burn at pretty low temperatures, relative to fires we're used to seeing.

Unless you're being overly pedantic.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I don't even know if you could even use those terms to describe past injustices to black people, because black people didn't even have rights, they didn't even have citizenship, it wasn't even a crime, it was the standard of the time.

Racism being "the standard of the time" is quite literally the definition of institutional racism. Additionally, something can be both legal and racist.

Besides that point I have provided counter arguments and evidence to systemic racism claims in various threads on here.

Such as...?

 

[Modder_Mode]

Nah. You make plenty of implicit claims that you don’t examine, or don’t want examined, or just adopt a poise of deliberate incuriosity about. (Supposed end of USracism being one)

By posting on a public forum, in which anybody can simply reply to?

It’s to do with modern conservatism lacking a rigorous intellectual underpinning and, if you like, a grand unified theory.

You're more than welcome to speculate on my supposed thought processes although that is a fascinating insight into the supposed mind of a modern conservative...

Any injustices that you find convenient for yourself are “natural” and “just the way the world works”. Deserved, even. You don’t feel the need to explain them but you demand such from any threatening reform.

Isn't that what you are doing though? You observe that something that has a racial impact (even though it doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going) and that "it just must be racism, that's how the world works" without taking into account any multivariate analysis's or actual evidence, do we follow this logic with everything?

It’s a strategy of Only Attack, Never Defend and it does often work admittedly.

I've defended you and others "attacks" on several occasions.

Racism being "the standard of the time" is quite literally the definition of institutional racism. Additionally, something can be both legal and racist.

That is my point, in the past when there was a demonstrable racist system in place and racial oppression was occurring it most definitely explained the plight of black people. The argument being made among others is that some remnants of that racist system still exist today as well as other systems or policies that were put in place to keep black people down.

Such as...?

Oh, I thought you said you read the article I posted?

 

[Senethro]

I think you managed to miss every single point there and I can't tell if I've poorly expressed myself or if its a deliberate derailling. Theres your feedback.

And to everyone else: Stalling, derailing, Only Attacking, Never Explaining are a variety of poor faith tactics available for use. All a bunch of different ways to talk without listening. Its weaponizing the appearance of actually engaging with the other side, while having no intention of sincerely doing so.

 

[Angst]

So my eyes are kinda swimming because I'm unsure how we got here from cancel culture, but can anyone answer me quickly here.

Let's presume for a bit that it's not systemic racism, but issues with classism, hitting all poor people. (It should be obvious that poors don't have it good in the US.)

How in the world is this an argument against bettering the conditions for some of these poors?

Targeted programs exist everywhere in pretty much all facets of our society, even if we go NGO, most charity foundations are specialized, and if they aren't, they change priorities as time goes on, usually according to need, seeing different groups in need of help at different times.

If one's position isn't that systemic racism explicitly targets black poors, but rather that poors have it equally bad, it's not an argument against helping black poors, if one is to support helping the poor at least.

 

[Angst]

And about burden of proof, the point about systemic racism existing in the past being readily proven, and as such proof is needed to show that it has changed, is sound. Because the historical proof is proof. As long as new data doesn't counter it, all the proof we have is the old proof. I won't relate this to the single article in question per se because I'm not really interested in getting too much into the discussion, especially in a thread meant for something else. That said, a single study showing a recent change in hiring bias doesn't counteract the problems in the criminal system nor the massive wealth disparity... The article does note this.

 

[NinjaCow64]

You observe that something that has a racial impact (even though it doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going)

If there is something that is solely caused by unfair treatment of an already disadvantaged racial minority, then that is racism. And if there are other factors involved there is a good chance that they were also caused by systematic racism (for instance African American children have worse educational outcomes on average, this can easily be traced to the lack of money that is poured into African American schools and that is a hold over from Jim Crow that was purposefully kept around).

Also so-called "reverse racism" doesn't count because those programs (e.g affirmative action) are explicitly designed to counteract the racism perpetuated by other parts of the system.

The argument being made among others is that some remnants of that racist system still exist today as well as other systems or policies that were put in place to keep black people down

Yes that is literally my argument. That is literally the definition of systematic racism.

Oh, I thought you said you read the article I posted?

Yes, I especially remember the part where the study's author said that people shouldn't overreact to the study and claim that systematic racism was dead. I also criticised aspects of the study that I believed limited the accuracy of the study's result.

 

[Modder_Mode]

I think you managed to miss every single point there and I can't tell if I've poorly expressed myself or if its a deliberate derailling. Theres your feedback.

I didn't manage to miss anything, you made points based off your assumptions, assumptions that appear to be in bad faith...I just didn't take the bait.

And to everyone else: Stalling, derailing, Only Attacking, Never Explaining are a variety of poor faith tactics available for use. All a bunch of different ways to talk without listening. Its weaponizing the appearance of actually engaging with the other side, while having no intention of sincerely doing so.

Come on Senethro, you do this regularly, don't be naughty.

If there is something that is solely caused by unfair treatment of an already disadvantaged racial minority, then that is racism. And if there are other factors involved there is a good chance that they were also caused by systematic racism

When can we determine that something racist is going on though?

If there is something that is solely caused by unfair treatment of an already disadvantaged racial minority, then that is racism. And if there are other factors involved there is a good chance that they were also caused by systematic racism (for instance African American children have worse educational outcomes on average, this can easily be traced to the lack of money that is poured into African American schools and that is a hold over from Jim Crow that was purposefully kept around).

Also so-called "reverse racism" doesn't count because those programs (e.g affirmative action) are explicitly designed to counteract the racism perpetuated by other parts of the system.

Thomas Sowell has a good piece titled "The Education of Minority Children" in which he uses a number of school examples to argue that it's not necessarily funding or even a child's socio-economic status that determines a good/bad education. https://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

Yes, I especially remember the part where the study's author said that people shouldn't overreact to the study and claim that systematic racism was dead. I also criticised aspects of the study that I believed limited the accuracy of the study's result.

As I said the author is putting the disclaimer in that this doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination doesn't happen when it comes to hiring, but their findings might suggest otherwise, that's why in the second paragraph he says "I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination..." and he was very, very smart to put that disclaimer in there, he would be well aware the implications the study could have on his career and reputation, it takes balls to publish findings like that and I'd guarantee had this study been done post the George Floyd protest era he would have never even published the results knowing what would probably happen to him.

 

[NinjaCow64]

When can we determine that something racist is going on though?

When that something is solely caused by unfair treatment of an already disadvantaged racial minority.

Thomas Sowell has a good piece titled "The Education of Minority Children" in which he uses a number of school examples to argue that it's not necessarily funding or even a child's socio-economic status that determines a good/bad education. https://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

Cool, so Sowell cherrypicks a handful of examples of schools that do/did well despite being underfunded, while ignoring the many studies that show how school funding and educational outcome are intrinsically tied.

As I said the author is putting the disclaimer in that this doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination doesn't happen when it comes to hiring, but their findings might suggest otherwise, that's why in the second paragraph he says "I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination..." and he was very, very smart to put that disclaimer in there, he would be well aware the implications the study could have on his career and reputation, it takes balls to publish findings like that and I'd guarantee had this study been done post the George Floyd protest era he would have never even published the results knowing what would probably happen to him.

Jeeze, talk about speculating on someone's supposed thought processes...

I find the idea that Codel would have been afraid to publish this study and that he put the disclaimer there even though he thought that systematic racism wasn't a thing anymore to be completely absurd. "Cancel Culture" as dreamed up by conservatives is little more than a boogeyman.

Anyway, onto the original point, single study is nowhere near good enough proof that systematic racism is over.

 

[Lexicus]

When can we determine that something racist is going on though?

The mere fact that we are dividing people into "races" is enough to show that our society is racist.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If racism isn't to blame for plight of black people in America as well as the disparity they experience then what is, @Modder_Mode?

Genetics?

Come on, spell it out to us, because right now you're literally arguing against decades of established history and fact in an attempt to go down the road of "oh it isn't racism it's something else..." but you won't come out and say what it is, you'll hint at it, but you won't outright say it.

It can't be culture, because that was formed as a response to white-led racism and bigotry so that ol' chest nut is gone.

So we're kind of left with two options;

Nature; Genetics or Nurture/Environment; racism.

So which one @Modder_Mode is it? No more dancing around the topic.

 

[Angst]

Saying that it's culture also goes back to the problem that culture is something that can be helped. But the culture-pointer doesn't want to because they don't care about these people.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Saying that it's culture also goes back to the problem that culture is something that can be helped but the culture-pointer doesn't want to because they don't care about these people.

Culture comes under the racism/environment category as it is formed as a response to social discrimination/treatment.

 

[Angst]

My point is more that whether it's a response or not isn't really relevant here. The people are poor and if it's because of culture, it can be changed. People that argue that it's culture highly overlap with people that don't really want to change things, because they don't care about people in question.

Also. Incidentally, we're talking about poor blacks. The people that blame it on culture then inherently don't care about black poors. That's actually relevant when we talk racism.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You haven't substantiated these claims.

The evidence remains in multiple closed RD threads.

A post cannot manage basic discussion because a post is not a human being.

A post can manage to be (or not be) something that manages basic discussion.

How can you judge if something is trash without reading it? If you're judging something purely on where it comes from, that's a disgusting use of the genetic fallacy.

Multiple posters in a hugbox hit double digit posts where poster a) did not say anything related to the topic or an argument I/others made and b) used the entire post to try to attack poster credibility/insult them. Sometimes with an obnoxious dose of fabricating arguments I or others didn't make to further this process...but often enough just a straight up personal attack with nothing else too depending on poster in question.

When someone systematically does this, I lose respect for them and block them. By their behavior they clearly didn't have any respect for people with dissenting opinions either. Since this is a forum for discussion and not personal attacks, blocking is the most reasonable/civil response.

What kinds of posts would have a poster have to make before one would not have an obligation or reasonable expectation to address their posts?

Nobody has an "obligation" to post or address anything on CFC, to my knowledge.

Perhaps after a while I might unblock people. I might not. Shouldn't matter either way. I don't see their posts, and if they don't want they can also avoid seeing mine. I did this for cause, and I ask you to not try to bypass it.

Yes, but it would be completely unreasonable for us to do that, because fire being hot is self-evident.

In contrast to systemic racism, yes. You don't need to rely on correlation and self-inconsistent assertions to conclude fire is hot.

When that something is solely caused by unfair treatment of an already disadvantaged racial minority.

It's one thing to claim that, it's another to demonstrate it.

If one's position isn't that systemic racism explicitly targets black poors, but rather that poors have it equally bad, it's not an argument against helping black poors, if one is to support helping the poor at least.

The question is *how* you help. US welfare policies create perverse incentives, including incentivizing more single parent households and a cycle of poverty. We should not anticipate benefit from doing more of this, but rather do something differently.

This probably includes a takedown of influence between corporations and government, major restrictions on lobbying, punishing predatory practices, closing tax loopholes, all while phasing away welfare in many (but not all) contexts. I'd similarly want to see FPTP voting gone, kangaroo courts gone, QI/civil forfeiture gone, and a lot more.

I don't see it being practically attainable while working within our current setup, but would vote for it if I could.

And about burden of proof, the point about systemic racism existing in the past being readily proven, and as such proof is needed to show that it has changed, is sound.

Laws did change though. Slavery ended > 100 years ago, and the civil rights reforms in the 1960's ended most legal means to discriminate directly based on race (excepting affirmative action, which is an actual example of systemic racism).

So no, it is not viable to claim something exists and ask people to prove the negative in reasonable discussion. Inferring causation from correlation alone is bad practice, for well-established reasons. If those reasons count in other situations, they also need to count when considering "systemic racism".

~~~~~

More on topic, there is some market correction for cancel culture, so it probably won't last forever: https://www.unwoke.hr/

Also Patreon's woke practices might bankrupt them, they have a lot of arbitrations to answer .

Moderator Action: TMIT, do not discuss your ignore list. It is considered trolling. --LM

 

[Angst]

Laws did change, but even after there have been fully described disparities of economic opportunity for the black poor, way past the 60s. Also criminal proceedings, practiced law, hit black poors much fiercer. These historical issues are so commonly known we're taught about them in high school in Denmark. You are too, in the US. To ask whether these issues were a thing back then is like to ask me to google for you who was the president back then. There is a reason people still do demographic research. So you can prove it has changed.

-

And about the single parent and toxic cycle thing. The second is incredibly unspecific but I can say to the first that the only statistically real incentive to be a single parent today is that you don't like your spouse. This is a good thing. And can be for different reasons. Personally I'm glad my parents divorced because of history of abuse, and I was lucky enough to grow up with wealthy parents in a country where even an impoverished situation would be alleviated, so I could get far in life. Arguing like being a single parent as a bad thing relies completely on an idea of the nuclear family that is incredibly privileged and outright offensive in some situations. It's very simple, being a single parent is not inherently a bad thing.

Regardless, not everyone divorces for reasons of abuse. Breakups are something that are going to happen in humans, it's how reality works. And after becoming a single parent, the biggest problem in healthy childhearing becomes economic disparity or poverty, something that is easily alleviated by money. I personally like to shape society about how humans work, not how I like them to work. And the moment people were able to leave loveless shitfests, they started doing it.

Yes, humans used to stay together for life, but it was due to poor economic opportunities. It was brimming with spousal violence and emotional shortcomings. It is a good thing to incentivise people away from that. Ignoring how people work is again not about priority, it's about indifference.

That said, what you did was to be very unspecific about what wondrous policies would actually help this. The idea that US alleviation policies in specific are toxic is hilarious to me because they are so meagre. But you're free to explain exactly what would work here. Show me how you care about what people need - without appealing to the nuclear family, since it's clearly not what people need. Otherwise they would've stayed and all. So time to display dat empathy

 

[Angst]

Just saw your edit, too... you understand that someone getting fired because of pressure from consumers is market mechanics, right?

 

[Hygro]

It's just really obvious. I didn't see it when I was younger, like I knew there was racism but I thought people had gotten sensitized and paranoid. Then I got sick and found the system was sooooo broken to accommodate me, in a time and place where people with disabilities did have options and recourse. Still, the degree to which disability can disenfranchise you from normal society extended vastly further. People were super blind to it, occasionally hostile though generally out of pure ignorance.

It took a while, but not long, to see that that was true for race as well. And once you see it it's sooooo obvious. Probably more in 2002 when I realized this than today, but not that much has changed, and outright racism has made a huge resurgence in adjacent the mainstream.