Carpe's Civics Musings

[seer]

Since I have not done this, I have no response. "Every" is a superlative. Superlatives are seldom true.

When I asked for examples of Systemic racism that is exactly what you did. The because an employer may not choose a particular sir name it must be racism not merely bias or preference.

You are seriously asking me how "I consciously/unconsciously self-select to include people in my social circle on the basis of the color of their skin" can be racist? Really? The conscious form is the very definition of racism. The unconscious form is the very definition of "implicit bias."

So all these Latino and black college students who self-segregate are racist? Perhaps they are just more comfortable with more culturally like minded people.

So our problem apparently lies in definitions. You have quoted one definition of the term, which focuses strongly on superiority/inferiority. The one I tend to use is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

That definition is broader and does not require the inferior/superior assessment. All it requires for racism to exist is exclusion/inclusion on the basis of a characteristic that has nothing to do with the context being discussed. So if I am putting together a group of people to have an exchange on "effective skin treatments for black skin," narrowing the group on the basis of skin color is not a racist act. If I am deciding who is and is not in my social circle, and my basis is skin color, skin color is not an attribute that necessarily impacts the ability to have a relationship. Introducing it is a racist act if it is conscious, and implicit bias if it is unconscious.

The difference in our definitions of "racism" accounts for why you see me as "seeing racism under every bed," and why I see you as advocating for racist positions. Your circle of "racist acts" is smaller than mine because of the different ways in which we use the word "racist." It is the area that falls outside your circle but inside mine that is our dispute.

That is why I don't accept your definition, since it is a moving target anything can be labeled racist. Even white silence is now considered racial violence.

[shunyadragon]

Simply repeating an assertion that does not address the question put forth indicates an inability on your part to answer.

Maybe you should try again.

Simply repeating an assertion that does not address the question put forth indicates an inability on your part to answer.

Maybe you should try again.

[rogue06]

Simply repeating an assertion that does not address the question put forth indicates an inability on your part to answer.

Maybe you should try again.

The behavior that you insist on displaying is counter-productive to making your case.

[shunyadragon]

The behavior that you insist on displaying is counter-productive to making your case.

The behavior that you insist on displaying is counter-productive to making your case.

[Mountain Man]

That is why I don't accept your definition, since it is a moving target anything can be labeled racist. Even white silence is now considered racial violence.

What else would you expect from a relativist?

[carpedm9587]

You realize that this leftist white fragility poison is actually causing more division and racism, right?

No. This mantra was first introduced (as best I can tell) by Daniel Horrowitz, who went on to mentor Stephen Miller in the approach: "how to respond to social justice and civil rights proponents by turning their language on themselves." The act of calling out racism and implicit bias and privilege does not "cause racism." You do not "cause racism" by the simple act of pointing out racism and implicit bias.

Where I suspect we DO agree, is that a person or organization can cause racism by taking racist approaches to solving racism and implicit bias. That is why I find affirmative action so repulsive. All it does is adopt a racist approach to try to deal with a racist problem, perpetuating the very thing it seeks to address.

Look at the race relation poll numbers since the rise of BLM from 2012 to now -- record sharp decline. It's no skin off my nose because I have no family and can physically defend myself. But is that really the environment you want your black children to grow up in -- an environment of race hostilities and distrust?

Poll numbers tell you what attitudes are; they do not provide you with causation. The correlation of the rise of BLM with the drop in race relation poll numbers does not mean that BLM caused the drop. The world is a little more complex then your simplistic assumptions, and several other factors have been at play since that time.

By way of example, there is a strong correlation between talking to plants and plant health. For years, it was believed that the act of talking somehow improved the health of the plant. Maybe it was the carbon dioxide being exhaled. Maybe it was proof that plants have an emotional basis that benefits from being talked to. The reality was nothing of the kind. It turns out that people who talk to plants are simply generally ore attentive of the plant and more aware of its status and needs, so they take better care of them. Talking had nothing to do with plant health - it was merely an indicator of a particular type of person: one who tended to do a better job of caring for their plants.

[rogue06]

The behavior that you insist on displaying is counter-productive to making your case.

Facepalm stooges.jpg


Reduced to engaging in nothing more than a version of the childish game of

[shunyadragon]

Facepalm stooges.jpg


Reduced to engaging in nothing more than a version of the childish game of

The behavior that you insist on displaying is counter-productive to making your case.

Remember you are the one that romantically believes the Republican Party today is the 'Party of Lincoln.' Look up Republican President Hayes and what he did to Reconstruction after the Civil War.

[seanD]

No. This mantra was first introduced (as best I can tell) by Daniel Horrowitz, who went on to mentor Stephen Miller in the approach: "how to respond to social justice and civil rights proponents by turning their language on themselves." The act of calling out racism and implicit bias and privilege does not "cause racism." You do not "cause racism" by the simple act of pointing out racism and implicit bias.

Where I suspect we DO agree, is that a person or organization can cause racism by taking racist approaches to solving racism and implicit bias. That is why I find affirmative action so repulsive. All it does is adopt a racist approach to try to deal with a racist problem, perpetuating the very thing it seeks to address.



Poll numbers tell you what attitudes are; they do not provide you with causation. The correlation of the rise of BLM with the drop in race relation poll numbers does not mean that BLM caused the drop. The world is a little more complex then your simplistic assumptions, and several other factors have been at play since that time.

By way of example, there is a strong correlation between talking to plants and plant health. For years, it was believed that the act of talking somehow improved the health of the plant. Maybe it was the carbon dioxide being exhaled. Maybe it was proof that plants have an emotional basis that benefits from being talked to. The reality was nothing of the kind. It turns out that people who talk to plants are simply generally ore attentive of the plant and more aware of its status and needs, so they take better care of them. Talking had nothing to do with plant health - it was merely an indicator of a particular type of person: one who tended to do a better job of caring for their plants.

BLM came to prominence around 2012-2013. One explanation is that a social media movement, which bases it's arguments on false facts about police killings -- i.e how Michael Brown was killed -- caused the perception of race relations between blacks and whites to suddenly deteriorate. Correlation doesn't always mean causation, but it often does, and we can assume causation here unless you have a better explanation for that sudden decline. Do you think the perception of race relations between blacks and whites sharply deteriorating is a net positive for society? Do you think increased animosity between whites and blacks will solve the issue of racism or make it worse?

[carpedm9587]

When I asked for examples of Systemic racism that is exactly what you did. The because an employer may not choose a particular sir name it must be racism not merely bias or preference.

Your claim is that I labeled "every instances of preference" as systemic racism or bias. That is, of course, false. I have not. And choosing a surname is, as I'm sure you know, not the issue. Isolating a race (assuming certain names are indicative of a greater likelihood of being that race) is the problem and is indeed a form of systemic racism.

So all these Latino and black college students who self-segregate are racist?

If the basis of their self-segregation is race/ethnicity, yes.

Perhaps they are just more comfortable with more culturally like minded people.

If the basis of their self-segregation is cultural familiarity, then no racism is present.

That is why I don't accept your definition, since it is a moving target anything can be labeled racist. Even white silence is now considered racial violence.

No - not anything can be label racist. Racism occurs when the basis for accepting/rejecting an individual is their race in a context where race is irrelevant to the decision being made. I provided examples of what does and does not meet the definition. Unfortunately, your much narrower definition permits socially unjust situations to continue and perpetuate, and is the primary reason you keep tripping into racist points of view, all the while denying they are racist. I can see your dilemma. Personally, I would prefer to use the wider definition, which seeks to create as level a playing field as possible between people of different races. The same concept can be extended to gender or ethnicity, or to any other characteristic.

The bottom line is a fairly simple one: accepting/rejecting people on the basis of a characteristic that has nothing to do with the context of the decision is simply unjust. Saying, "well I like it that way," doesn't make it less unjust. When the issue relates to a fundamental right, the problem is even worse.

[carpedm9587]

Following on the discussion with Seer, this podcast addresses some of what I was attempting to say, specifically about the role of intersectionality in the overall discussion of privilege.

[carpedm9587]

BLM came to prominence around 2012-2013. One explanation is that a social media movement, which bases it's arguments on false facts about police killings -- i.e how Michael Brown was killed -- caused the perception of race relations between blacks and whites to suddenly deteriorate. Correlation doesn't always mean causation, but it often does, and we can assume causation here unless you have a better explanation for that sudden decline.

No - we can't. You have no basis for that assumption. I don't know what causes you to think that you do, but we cannot assume that correlation shows causation, especially when discussing something that is so rife with multiple active variables including the beginning of the second term of a hated/maligned black president, the expansive rise of social media options and their use, the increased dominance of video cameras and cell phones as well as the use of body cameras by police, and the list goes on and on and on.

Just because an assumption fits your worldview does not justify making it.

Do you think the perception of race relations between blacks and whites sharply deteriorating is a net positive for society?

No - but I am far less concerned about the "perception" than I am about the underlying reality (although the former can sometimes cause the latter).

Do you think increased animosity between whites and blacks will solve the issue of racism or make it worse?

Initially, probably make it worse. But we have to look at the basis for the increase. If the basis is anger because a long-term injustice is being called out and those who engage in it are angry about it, that is not a basis for ceasing to call it out. By that philosophy, we can never point to an injustice because those who are perpetrating the injustice will pretty much always be angry about being called out.

[carpedm9587]

At the request of the moderators, I will stop providing the link to the source posts for my posts in this thread. My hope was that folks would cross over and engage in an "outside the bubble" debate, making my bubble as well as yours "less bubbly." It was not my intent to "advertise" my Facebook page. My apologies if I offended anyone. I will keep the conversations separate going forward.

Meanwhile, some thoughts about Covid and our current situation:

I find myself thinking about the whole Covid situation, and I find myself getting angry. Yesterday, 204,179 Americans were classified as "newly infected" and 1,999 Americans died of this virus (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries). Our 7-day average new-case-rate is 172,205. Our seven-day average death rate is 1,481. We have experienced the equivalent of a 911 every other day since the end of last week.

And still, the voices from the right that dominate the news cycle are pushing forward a false narrative and filling the airwaves and social media with disinformation.

"It no worse than the flu!" Are you blind? In what year do you ever remember the need for refrigerator trucks parked at hospitals to house the bodies of those who died due to the flu? In what years have you seen ICUs filled and sometimes overwhelmed with victims of flu cases? In what year has the flu ever killed more than 62,000 people? The last time we saw anything like these things was the so-called "Spanish Flu" in 1918, which killed an estimated 650,000. Although vaccines date back to the late 18th century, the flu vaccine did not appear until the 1940s. And modern medical technologies were not available to the citizens of 1918 America.

"Mask don't work! My friend wore one and still Covid." If we apply that logic consistently, then we should get rid of seat belts because sometimes people die wearing one. We should get rid of airbags because sometimes people die even with one in the car. We should get rid of gun safeties because sometimes guns still accidentally discharge. We should stop inspecting the U.S. food supply because sometimes bad food still gets through. We should stop teaching our children because sometimes they don't learn. We should stop giving people medicine because sometimes it doesn't help. Who on earth ever said "wear a mask and you won't get Covid?" The message is "wear a mask and you help prevent Covid." That is a fact. It has been studied, demonstrated, and shown consistently.

"They told us not to wear masks in March!" Yes, they did. So what? They were scarce back then and the fear was the public would swarm the supply (remember the toilet paper?) and healthcare professionals wouldn't have enough. They also didn't think cloth masks were effective. They were wrong. Deal with it. Since then it's been studied, the supply of masks has increased, and cloth masks have become plentiful. Wear them.

"All the numbers are fake." If you have slipped that far into conspiracy land, there is basically no point in having a conversation. It must be nice to conveniently be able to simply wave away any information that doesn't fit nicely into your assumptions.

"You're impeding on my civil liberties." Oh for Pete's sake, grow a pair. Young men and women have been asked to give their lives for their fellow citizens and have done so willingly. You're going to whine because you don't want to wear a piece of cloth on your face? Shame on you. And your civil liberties end (or at least are bounded) when they cost someone else's theirs. We are in a pandemic. Your right to go maskless pales by comparison with the hundreds of people losing their right to live!

"It's mostly old people and sick people dying, and they would have died anyway. We shouldn't be counting those as 'Covid deaths.' It just inflates the numbers!" Who on earth appointed you the judge and jury for people who have not even been convicted? Someone who is sick or elderly and facing only a few years, months, or even weeks of life has as much right to those years, months, or weeks as you have to yours. Dismissing them because the count is not high enough is preposterous, and an amazing assertion for a community that claims to have "respect for all life." If Covid denies someone those years, months, or weeks, then Covid has contributed to their death - period.

"All we need to do is let everyone get sick and we'll have herd immunity." Have you taken a moment to actually look at those numbers? We are at 200,000 infections a day and 2,000 deaths a day. The 1% death rate put forward from the outset has persisted. To achieve "herd immunity" would require more than half the U.S. population to be infected, and our most infected areas are believed to be approaching about 25%. You are arguing for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Americans. That's not a solution; it's mass murder.

"The solution cannot be worse than the cure. Think of the rise in suicides, child abuse, etc." Yeah, it's going to be ugly, but you are speculating at best. Yes, suicides have risen. Now show me the data that proves it is due to closed businesses, lost jobs, and a faltering economy and not due to the stress of living in the midst of a pandemic that is killing people right and left. Yes, abuse cases are on the rise, and we need to figure that out. Indeed, getting people out and around would do a LOT to help with that. But your choices are perpetuating this pandemic and creating the problem. This pandemic has an incubation period of less than 21 days. Lock the entire country down and we will drive the pandemic to such low levels that standard contact-tracing will become possible again and we can (carefully) reopen. Instead, super-spreader events are happening right and left making things worse for everyone.

The arguments are, in a word, complete bunk. They are also dangerous. They are irresponsible. While those of you pushing forward these arguments are actually acting on them and refusing to work together with your fellow citizens to address this pandemic, people are dying. Some of those deaths are on you. Do you really want to live with that?

[seanD]

No - we can't. You have no basis for that assumption. I don't know what causes you to think that you do, but we cannot assume that correlation shows causation, especially when discussing something that is so rife with multiple active variables including the beginning of the second term of a hated/maligned black president, the expansive rise of social media options and their use, the increased dominance of video cameras and cell phones as well as the use of body cameras by police, and the list goes on and on and on.

Just because an assumption fits your worldview does not justify making it.



No - but I am far less concerned about the "perception" than I am about the underlying reality (although the former can sometimes cause the latter).



Initially, probably make it worse. But we have to look at the basis for the increase. If the basis is anger because a long-term injustice is being called out and those who engage in it are angry about it, that is not a basis for ceasing to call it out. By that philosophy, we can never point to an injustice because those who are perpetrating the injustice will pretty much always be angry about being called out.

You should be worried about the perception, since the "reality" of the cause is clearly debatable. And we've had these debates. You should also worry about the perception when an organization that has had massive influence on this issue nationwide (and about that I'm sure we'd agree) uses false facts about police killings to justify their cause. Any time false facts are used as a premise for an argument should send up alarm bells for all parties involved in the debate, regardless of whether they're pro or con of the movement. If you're okay with your black children having to navigate in an environment of increased animosity between blacks and whites based on issues that are at best highly debatable about its cause, like I said, then so be it. I'd prefer not to see your children forced to experience that, but that's on you and the leftist racist ideology you support and endorse.

[carpedm9587]

You should be worried about the perception, since the "reality" of the cause is clearly debatable.

Of course I am worried about the perception. And the reality of the cause is not debatable, AFAICT, because we lack the data on which to have that debate. That is why I said your assumption is simply unsustainable.

And we've had these debates. You should also worry about the perception when an organization that has had massive influence on this issue nationwide (and about that I'm sure we'd agree) uses false facts about police killings to justify their cause.

Please provide an example of these "false facts." I've been following the stories pretty closely, and most of the "false facts" I see are arising from right-leaning sources.

Any time false facts are used as a premise for an argument should send up alarm bells for all parties involved in the debate, regardless of whether they're pro or con of the movement.

Agreed - if they are actually "false facts" instead of simply "facts I don't want to hear." I will be interested in your list of these "false facts."

If you're okay with your black children having to navigate in an environment of increased animosity between blacks and whites based on issues that are at best highly debatable about its cause, like I said, then so be it.

I am OK with people having to navigate a higher degree of animosity if it is inevitable if we are to get to a place of lower animosity. History tells us that no struggle against injustice comes without resistance and animosity, but that the goal is worth the struggle.

I'd prefer not to see your children forced to experience that, but that's on you and the leftist racist ideology you support and endorse.

I'll let the trolling slide....