Racism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, it is true that the Founders only meant white men. Now those people who claim to be Constitutional originalists or strict constructionists, that is what they mean and what they want: A country where all white men are created equal, and all else get, at best, second class citizenship.

Well, the founders didn't believe in some kind of paradise of equality between white men. They believed in "good breeding" and that owning property made you basically a superior human, which is why they didn't even let all white men vote.

All of the movement in the Progressive/liberal direction has been movement towards making America's founding mythos a reality. Conservatism is all about failing to live up to who we think we are.

I agree with this.
 
Unless you believe that low IQ is some inherent feature of black people, which would be a completely different argument.


Judging by his disclaimer he is making this argument, since in his mind disparity in real opportunities is a false narrative.
 
If someone advocates for a law that is the same for everyone, and advocates for such a law to be applied to everyone in equal measure, but because of socioeconomic reasons tied to "races" that law ends up producing unequal outcomes, then I wouldn't call such a person racist. But I've been called a racist before for thinking in these lines, so what do I know.

Edit: I guess I am operating under an old definition of racism where racism is 1. the belief that races exist 2. the belief that such races differ in quality 3. the belief that the races form a hierarchy and 4. the belief that society should organise around the racial hierarchy 5. acting upon such beliefs.

So your old definition is the classical definition, but what you claim you are guilty of is also a subset of racist attitudes according to the left ( I agree since I was previously guilty of it myself but came to realize I was wrong). Do you see how the two get conflated? Do you understand that our systems play out in such a sever prejudicial matter as to making the fair application of the laws without due vigilance impossible? Doesn't that concern you? Do you understand why it concerns me and so many others?
 
Yeah, and a government imposing a "fair" flat tax upon all citizens is not engaging in a classist action either.


Are you actually serious about this or do you just not understand that much more then just income is taxed in the USA?
 
Are you actually serious about this or do you just not understand that much more then just income is taxed in the USA?
I'm guessing @Senethro's probably being sarcastic, I've seen many posts of his before that suggest to me he really understands these sorts of things. To me it looks like he's replying to another member who was supporting another poster who's denying institutional racism exists, and who doesn't understand how even if you have what you think are "equal" laws, your laws are still totally subject to human beings who give leeway to preferred classes (ie white men), and don't see how arguing against attempts to close racial and gender prejudices can make you racist and sexist, etc. And then he's trying to show this by comparing to similar concepts like "fair tax" which are blatantly classist like you seem to know and unequally hurt poor people to help him see his logical errors.
 
I just want to say before this goes predictably off the rails that for the first time in a long time I had someone openly say "when the founding fathers said all men are created equal, they really only meant white men" today, so I'm in a bit of a mood with the right wingers at the moment.

I mean at the time that would have probably been pretty accurate, no? It's not like American founding fathers were time travellers from the progressive future
 
And then going further, if you're black and you commit a crime, you're much more likely to receive your maximum sentence and go to prison longer than a white person who did the same thing as you and has a criminal history identical to yours, and that's racism.

Well as I'm sure we're all aware by now, a similar disparency exists in sentencing between the sexes. But I believe it's actually larger - i.e., that black female criminals will be sentenced more leniently than white males. I agree that this is all bad though and should be changed.
 
I mean at the time that would have probably been pretty accurate, no? It's not like American founding fathers were time travellers from the progressive future

At the time it was true. But the founding fathers were learned men. The pretense that their opinions would remain frozen in time through centuries of developments in the simplest sciences so that their position would match the most ignorant available today is such a mind boggling leap that I really was surprised to hear it actually given voice.
 
Races or no races? Unless you point to a "trusty scientific" source it is just speculation from one end to the other?

Which is fine with me! But scientific racial talk is decidedly out of fashion so...
 
At the time it was true. But the founding fathers were learned men. The pretense that their opinions would remain frozen in time through centuries of developments in the simplest sciences so that their position would match the most ignorant available today is such a mind boggling leap that I really was surprised to hear it actually given voice.

Well, their opinions did remain frozen in time. The opinions of civilized society have evolved and advanced by leaps and bounds since that time.

That's one of the reasons why opinions from the past should be taken with a grain of salt. The world is a rapidly evolving place, what was said in the past might not necessarily apply in the future.
 
Maybe it would be beneficial if you, as a nation, stopped falling back on what some dudes thought 250 years ago every time you have to make a decision about how to live your lives.
 
So your old definition is the classical definition, but what you claim you are guilty of is also a subset of racist attitudes according to the left ( I agree since I was previously guilty of it myself but came to realize I was wrong). Do you see how the two get conflated? Do you understand that our systems play out in such a sever prejudicial matter as to making the fair application of the laws without due vigilance impossible? Doesn't that concern you? Do you understand why it concerns me and so many others?
Sure the status quo of laws may be injust, but that doesn't mean it's racist, even if it produces segregated results on racial lines. There can be perfectly reasonable other reasons to hold the status quo outside of racial motivations. But I'm not even saying that I support the status quo of laws, certainly not what I know of American ones, only that there should be a distinction made there between racism and unequal results on racial lines. Failure to draw that distinction is concept creep, and quite frankly jumping into desired conclusions. A person can be non-racist and still support the status quo of laws, even if it produces unequal results on racialized lines.

[...] but what you claim you are guilty of is also a subset of racist attitudes according to the left [...]
What do you mean by this? What did I claim I was quilty of?
 
I can obliviously point to the systematic racist outcomes in the American system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-still-segregated-even-after-fair-housing-act
I grant you this point. City level segregation in the US might be at an all time low, but neighborhood level segregation is at an all time high. But is segregation in and of itself a bad thing? Why? Is there something inherently wrong with being forced to live around minorities? I guess you could argue that it leads to discrepancies in income or socio-economic status, but then this becomes a question of which came first, chicken or the egg.
I don't doubt for a second that African-Americans are incarcerated more. But the question here is, why is that? Is it because they're unfairly targeted, or because they commit more crime? Victimization surveys suggest that it's because they commit more crime.
If you think unequal school opportunities and redlining are false narratives then you've deceived yourself. If you choose to read some on the topics you would understand otherwise.
Yeah, I've read a lot about this topic. TL;DR schools don't matter nearly as much as you think, and while banks do discriminate against black applicants with the same credit score, in terms of actual likelihood to default it completely evens out (black applicants are more likely to default than white applicants of a given credit score).

Oh dear, some messages here are very distressing, I'm sad to see people still deny racism is real (I find the same thing with sexism denial too), and even seeing things like talking about IQs is really just absolutely disgusting. I can understand how when you're used to your privilege it can really be hard to understand how other people struggle in ways you don't understand, but you also do have enough resources where you can learn about things, and you can listen to people without dismissing what they're saying or telling them their wrong (that's your privilege in action again). You have policies like affirmative action and such not to give minorities and women advantages, but to help close unfair gaps, because added obstacles are totally real.
But then the question here becomes about whether or not those gaps are "unfair". I believe that we should guarantee equal opportunities to women and minorities, but I do not believe that will result in equal outcomes. Or are you arguing that as a white male, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this, and that I'm just supposed to accept whatever policy proposals you decide to come up with because I just wouldn't understand?
Like imagine you're a black child in school, and you have a friend who's white. Imagine both of you act pretty much the same and you have similar histories at school, but you two do something silly and cause trouble. You know you're much more likely to be punished severely and suspended than your white friend is? And then going further, if you're black and you commit a crime, you're much more likely to receive your maximum sentence and go to prison longer than a white person who did the same thing as you and has a criminal history identical to yours, and that's racism. You don't get the benefit of the doubt white people do, and you're less likely to hear back from your resumes even when you have equivalent work experience and education, just to name a few things. But over and over again I'm saddened seeing people just keep denying these things, and there are so many more, if you listen to African American communities (and same goes for women) and really listen and try to understand, you can see what life is like in someone else's place and your understanding of our world will improve, and then maybe you might agree something needs to be done.
This thing about blacks being more likely to be suspended simply isn't true [1][2]. It's just that black kids misbehave more often. The thing about harsher sentences is also a myth [3]. As for the call back myth, it would seem that black applicants are less qualified than their white counterparts [4]. Look, I've heard all these things before, I just don't think that they stand up to scrutiny
 
@HoloDoc, I was surprised you "liked" his Malthusian post in the Yemen War thread, I hope you now realize that post was a Trojan Horse to start talking about the...uh...main ideas in his post in this thread, right?

It is a waste of time debating with him, is a scientific racist committed to the idea of legit biological distinction between the races.
Look, I know you will never accept this, but I do genuinely care about Yemenis. I do genuinely think that we should send them aid. I'd just prefer if they would have never gotten into that kind of situation to begin with.

IQ also depends on opportunities. In USA you need crapload of money to get university education, so it's no wonder that whites on average have more opportunities to climb up the social ladder.
Unless you believe that low IQ is some inherent feature of black people, which would be a completely different argument.
As far as university admittance goes, thanks to affirmative action, it's actually easier to get into university for minority students (unless that student is Asian, in which case it's actually harder). As for the cost of university, it would seem like white students have about as much debt as minority students have when measured upon graduation [5].
 
That's one of the reasons why opinions from the past should be taken with a grain of salt. The world is a rapidly evolving place, what was said in the past might not necessarily apply in the future.

It is sometimes said each generation has to reinvent things like democracy.

Maybe things like how to deal with races/different peoples also has to be reinvented? Maybe at least on a personal level...
 
But is segregation in and of itself a bad thing?

In a country where segregation by race is also very closely tied to segregation by socioeconomic status.. Yes, very bad. These people aren't segregating because of a desire to, they are doing so out of a need
 
I grant you this point. City level segregation in the US might be at an all time low, but neighborhood level segregation is at an all time high. But is segregation in and of itself a bad thing? Why? Is there something inherently wrong with being forced to live around minorities? I guess you could argue that it leads to discrepancies in income or socio-economic status, but then this becomes a question of which came first, chicken or the egg.

I think we can all agree that the egg came first. It's more a question of how much social engineering we're justified in applying to the chicken in response to where the egg was laid. Or something.
 
In a country where segregation by race is also very closely tied to segregation by socioeconomic status.. Yes, very bad. These people aren't segregating because of a desire to, they are doing so out of a need

I think we can all agree that the egg came first. It's more a question of how much social engineering we're justified in applying to the chicken in response to where the egg was laid. Or something.
Maybe I should rephrase that. Do people want to segregate themselves because minorities actually commit more crimes and have a lower socio-economic status, or do minorities have a lower socio-economic status and commit more crimes because they're segregated? It would seem to me like it's the first one (I can prove differences in IQs and crime rates). For the second one, I don't know if something like that is even possible to prove
 
Probably both? Again not really a chicken/egg question, just a feedback loop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom