Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Akka]

I don't support affirmative action or POC-exclusive spaces. I don't support bullying white people over their race.

However I am a proud anti-racist, and will associate myself with most other people with this cause. Tremendous counter measures need to be taken against the world's climate, and I believe in simultaneously taking those measures while also fighting racism.

I'm in agreement on this part (I'd add that fighting economic inequalities and the concentration of wealth and power that the capitalist system of today cause would be much more efficient than any amount of racial-specific laws).

However I think no further countermeasures than saying "hey stop it" are necessary to combat racial prejudice against white folks.

It's not about "prejudice against white folk" or "prejudice against black folks". Obviously the level of oppression between both is not comparable (at least in the West), but as I said before, it's about the principle.
If you refuse the principle of judging someone on the colour of their skin, then the colour itself is irrelevant.
If you tolerate this judgement because one side is more powerful than the other, then you basically admit that the principle itself is okay, and that's the power relationship which is undesirable, and it completely displace the debate and sabotage the idea that racism is not acceptable.

Still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how we get rid of centuries old racism if we're not allowed to engage on the subject of race. Starting to think its not communication difficulties.

Engaging the subject of race is not a problem. Discussions and exchanges are always welcome, and nobody has said it shouldn't be done (though the obsession about it clouding the reasoning is certainly a problem).
Going for racially biased policies is pretty different from engaging a subject, though, just like discussing about killing is pretty different than going out and stabbing someone.

 

[Akka]

I could have made snarky answers to many part of the post (especially the one where you admit you're doing a terrible job at manipulating ), but as satisfying (in a petty way) as it would be, it still would mainly stall any communication.
So I'm just going to focus on the two very big issues :

Either one of us can just say "well you're a newspeak totalitarian and you're changing the word for your own agenda"

No, and it's the very central point, not "either of us can say" that. I'm not redefining the word, I'm using it in the meaning it DOES have right now, and has had for decades, and is described by dictionaries. You're the one attempting to replace this meaning with another definition, which has been specifically tailored for the agenda you're defending.
It's neither comparable in premises nor in process, and it does betray a very specific mindset.

And back you are again talking about vague concepts without ever having any intent to practically apply them, which is completely pointless. There is literally no point in wasting thought on something that you never intend to affect in the real world.

It's very important to grasp the basic concepts, because the rest flows from them. That's the difference between philosophy and religious dogma, one defining morality because it's looking for concepts and making deductions and reasonings from them, the other just blindly accepting a set of rules.

If you don't understand why something is good or bad, then first you've no legitimacy about saying if it's good or bad (it's just an argument of authority, "it's bad because I/my God/my lord/my friend/this random throw of a die/Chuck Norris says it is"), and second you're very liable to fall into the typical pit trap of all fanatics, which is to end up defending and doings things which are the polar opposite of the original idea (like religions are so prone to do).

Even for practical implementation, it's capital to get the concepts. To be consistent, to be fair to others - if you just go with your bias, you'll just implement your own brand of oppression and prejudices in the end, while thinking about the consequences of a concept makes for a universal rule applied to everyone equally.
I find it pretty revealing that you consider reflecting on ideas as "wasting time".

 

[Senethro]

Engaging the subject of race is not a problem. Discussions and exchanges are always welcome, and nobody has said it shouldn't be done (though the obsession about it clouding the reasoning is certainly a problem).
Going for racially biased policies is pretty different from engaging a subject, though, just like discussing about killing is pretty different than going out and stabbing someone.

And some people think that cities that are flooded should get disaster relief, not that disaster relief money should be equally divided between all cities.

Race based policies are necessary because you can't change the mind of everyone to suddenly not be racist, but you can write laws that prevent racists having the power to harm others.

What anti-racist actions or efforts in the past have been in line with your Principle?

 

[Akka]

And some people think that cities that are flooded should get disaster relief, not that disaster relief money should be equally divided between all cities.

Cities on the coast X suffer twice as much from floods than cities on coast Y. I think, as such, that we should divide all relief money between cities on the coast X and nothing to the cities of coast Y, regardless of them being flooded or not.

In fact, I'd say we should only use the word "flooded" for cities on coast X, not those on coast Y, which just sometimes see abnormal levels of water, obviously not the same thing.

 

[Senethro]

Chop chop goes the quote edit and the question goes unanswered again.

I really don't think its communication problems.

 

[Ryika]

I don't even see where the problem is supposed to be. A law can be colorblind and at the same time tackle race issues. Just create laws that don't discriminate and help individuals of any group who need help, and there you go.

Of course that only works as long as people don't start redefining the meaning of the word racism, and actually look at individuals, and not at groups.

 

[Senethro]

Ok, but how many decades after the civil rights act and voting rights act should african americans keep having to wait?

What effective "colorblind" measures have taken place in the past? What advantage do they offer now? (aside from being pleasing to akka for being mentally tidier)

Edit: I'm put in mind of this tiresome old windbag of a mature student while i was at uni who said feminism should disband and reform under a humanism label that was more ideologically pleasing for him. Anyone who remained a feminist was secretly a ********. While I could appreciate that a humanist cause might be more inclusive, it is also diluted by people who are not invested in specific causes and looked like erasure of who made progress in the past.

 

[luiz]

Ok, but how many decades after the civil rights act and voting rights act should african americans keep having to wait?

What effective "colorblind" measures have taken place in the past? What advantage do they offer now? (aside from being pleasing to akka for being mentally tidier)

Having to wait for what?

Also, the US never tried a colorblind solution to racism. It went straight from Jim Crow to race-based solutions and discourse. While no country in the world is free from racism, I think those that adopted a more colorblind approach have far less segregated cities, far more mixed marriages, and generally far less racial tension. So why not give it a go?

 

[Ryika]

Keep waiting for what?

 

[REDY]

Compensation for slavery?

 

[Ryika]

Compensation for slavery?

How many years has the average black person of today been a slave?

 

[Senethro]

Keep waiting for what?

For achievement of a reasonable degree of equality.

 

[Senethro]

How many years has the average black person of today been a slave?

You're buying into the main tactic of many nations that steal land, lives and labour. Big crimes often take longer than a human lifetime to resolve.

 

[REDY]

How many years has the average black person of today been a slave?

I think it doesnt matter. Its about how white americans can start with a clean shield. Now all its achievements are under shadow of repression past.

 

[luiz]

For achievement of a reasonable degree of equality.

That will never happen as long as several other inequalities that have nothing to do with race remain in place. Consider the difference in average income and education between someone from Mississippi and someone from Connecticut, regardless of race (that is, you can compare a white person from MS with a white one from CT and a black one with a black one). Now look at the percentage of black people on each state. Even if there was no racism whatsoever at present, geography alone would mean significant differences in income, education, health, etc.

 

[Ryika]

For achievement of a reasonable degree of equality.

I would say for Black Americans outside of the ghettos, that's already a thing. Not perfect of course, but no law will arrive at that status, as people's opinions don't change because of laws, they change over time, and as older generations die off.

The rest is mostly a problem of class, amplified by race of course, but at its core a class issue.

You're buying into the main tactic of all nations that steal land, lives and labour.

Yeah, that's what nations do, so what? Want to go back trough all of history to make up for the fact that borders have been in flux forever? Or just in this one case?

 

[luiz]

You're buying into the main tactic of many nations that steal land, lives and labour. Big crimes often take longer than a human lifetime to resolve.

How about the crime committed by those that captured and sold the slaves to the European merchants? Who will pay reparations for those? Modern African nations?

 

[warpus]

What effective "colorblind" measures have taken place in the past?

That's the thing, the U.S. doesn't really spend much money on its poor. Nothing too effective has been done because nothing has been really tried. Y'all like your low taxes and spending money on infrastructure and social safety nets is "socialism" and bad, so nothing ever gets done. And then people say "See, it doesn't work".

 

[Senethro]

That's the thing, the U.S. doesn't really spend much money on its poor. Nothing too effective has been done because nothing has been really tried. Y'all like your low taxes and spending money on infrastructure and social safety nets is "socialism" and bad, so nothing ever gets done. And then people say "See, it doesn't work".

I fully agree with this but would go further and say that the attitude of "I don't want my tax money to go to Those People" is a non-trivial factor. Hence phrases like "welfare queens".

 

[Akka]

Chop chop goes the quote edit and the question goes unanswered again.

I already answered the second question in a previous post, and my parallel with the cities and the flooding is actually kind of an answer, showing how our different approaches work when it's about fixing a problem - and it tends to illustrate which one makes more sense and which one doesn't.

I notice you didn't comment on how your own example blew up in your face. But hey, chop chop chop, right ?

I really don't think its communication problems.

The problem between fanatics and non-fanatics is rarely about communication, and usually about the fanatics' lack of critical thinking.