The fact that your response to my lack of certainty on the point is to say anyone who disagrees with you is "incredibly ignorant" is pretty much a solid demonstration of the problem. I mean, it's slightly better than saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, as many other pro-BLM people might, but it's not that much better. Why would someone want to have a conversation with you about race if that's your starting point? Sounds like an exercise in being condescended to until they accede to your perspective, and not much fun. For that matter, why would you want to have a conversation with someone who you've decided, ab initio, is "incredibly ignorant"? Sounds like an exercise in pulling your hair out, and also not much fun.
Okay, so if someone says to you that they believe that vaccines cause autism, do you sit there with a completely open mind and think "Well I'm sure this will be completely logical and convincing," or is your first thought likely "This person is an anti-science doofus?" If you're the former, then I guess congratulations, you're a better person than I am, but I think most people come to any discussion with preconceived notions about the other side based on past experiences, researching the other side, etc.
What I got from his post was that "uncle tom" race-traitor co-opted concepts don't exist in White or Asian cultures, when in fact while an "uncle tom" type might be branded as "too white" by some black persons (in this hypothetical), there are white people slagging on other whites for being "too black".
What I got from his post was that "uncle tom" race-traitor co-opted concepts don't exist in White or Asian cultures, when in fact while an "uncle tom" type might be branded as "too white" by some black persons (in this hypothetical), there are white people slagging on other whites for being "too black".
But it's not a comparable action. It's the cultural equivalent of putting Black Face by a White person on par with White Face from a black person.
That is patently untrue. Black culture has been co-opted time and time again. There's even a common racially charged term that replaces the n word with a "w" that people applied to no less than 2 dozen dudes I went to high school with.
What I got from his post was that "uncle tom" race-traitor co-opted concepts don't exist in White or Asian cultures, when in fact while an "uncle tom" type might be branded as "too white" by some black persons (in this hypothetical), there are white people slagging on other whites for being "too black".
I meant more along the lines of being "less black". As in, if you go to school and get a buttoned down job you're not as black, you're selling out to the man. You see this in Native communities a lot too, I think it's a reason a lot of people don't leave the reserves. Asians on the other hand are expected to get good jobs, there's no concept of being "less Asian".
Obivously you can argue that these attitudes stem from historical mistreatment of blacks and natives, which is true, but I feel that it's a harmful sentiment to try and move forward for those two groups specifically.
Saying "What did you expect? Being so anti-racism, and anti-bigotry, and forcing (ugh) inclusiveness and promoting love over hate? Of course people are going to hate you!"
I'd rephrase that as: "If you foster group political identities for groups A, B, and C, while villifying group D, don't be at all surprised when group D starts deliberately acting like a group and enters the fray." While we can come up with all sorts of ethical reasons why A, B, and C deserve to villify group D, and why it's unjust for group D march under a group banner like A, B, and C, the simple fact is it's going to happen. When you divide people into groups, and encourage them to identity with those groups, you will get conflict. Always. And if the political stakes in the struggle are high, that conflict will get ugly.
Catholics and Protestants were at each other's throats for centuries. Fought wars that left millions dead. Persecuted and tortured and oppressed one another. Within living memory the parents of a Catholic girl would strongly disapprove of the notion of the her marrying a Protestant boy. Today, that conflict has more or less disappeared. Why? Because religious identity became less important.
The only way to reduce group conflict is to minimize the importance of group identity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
In your opinion, what's the single largest factor in 'black culture' not 'taking responsibility for their children' and not 'prioritizing education'?
I'm no expert. There does seem to be an honour culture at work that makes young men strive to impress other young men rather than the wider community. This is one of the consequences of boys raised without dads, so there's obviously a multi-generational effect at work.
But it's worth noting that the level of family breakdown we're seeing is fairly recent (last 60 years or so). Families were of course broken up during slavery, with terrible consequences. But African Americans had established pretty stable family structures by the early 20th century.
I'll also point out that we're also seeing the same trend towards single parenthood in poor and working class whites, with the same devastating effect. So whatever culture is making men neglect to stay and raise children, while women continue to have children such men, it's not restricted to black Americans. But since it does effect blacks disproportionately, it's in their interests to address it.
Since Asian American families show substantially lower rates of single-parent families than White Americans, maybe it would be worthwhile to compare the two to understand what Asians are doing right. Is it cultural prohibitions against drug and alcohol use? Greater involvement of grandparents in family support? That high value placed on education? I don't know. But this issue is too serious to shy away from uncomfortable findings.
I'll turn around and pose a question to you. Why the resistance to the notion that both external and internal factors shape the outcomes of groups and individuals? Surely you've seen individuals in your own experience who have had some say in how their lives turned out - who weren't simply empty vessels acted upon by irresistible social forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
So I take it your against affirmative action then?
Beyond educational subsidies for disadvantaged groups, yes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 11-10-2016 at 01:29 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
By all means lets just gloss over what's happening right now in the US and debate about semantics.
Reading through these is saddening.
Even taking some of the stories with a grain of salt, given the sources, doesn't change the abject negativity and hopelessness being expressed.
It is times like these that I look around and am grateful to be a Canadian.
We are far from perfect, and there is no question we have our differences in opinion, but the cultural mosaic that defines our country, versus the melting pot that defines the U.S. is in stark contrast since Tuesday.
Give a stranger a smile today, folks, and have a safe long weekend.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
Okay, so if someone says to you that they believe that vaccines cause autism, do you sit there with a completely open mind and think "Well I'm sure this will be completely logical and convincing," or is your first thought likely "This person is an anti-science doofus?" If you're the former, then I guess congratulations, you're a better person than I am, but I think most people come to any discussion with preconceived notions about the other side based on past experiences, researching the other side, etc.
You're comparing unjustified opposition to a scientific position, which is developed based on a scientific process, to a sociological diagnosis? Come on, man. This is politics. It's human interaction. There's a huge difference between these things, and you do not have all the right answers when it comes to culture, society, and morality. There's an argument that there are no right answers - I reject that argument, personally, but the fact that it's even defensible should tell you something about the landscape we're dealing with here.
And again, you're doing the same thing repeatedly. You might as well have compared my lack of certainty about the relative importance of various causes leading to disproportionate violent encounters between police and black people to a lack of certainty about whether the Earth is flat. Leaving aside your own erroneous level of certainty and Mill's warning about dead dogmas... do you not get how insulting, how condescending that is? Again, why would anyone who doesn't already agree with you want to talk to you about this stuff, given the way you talk about it?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I meant more along the lines of being "less black". As in, if you go to school and get a buttoned down job you're not as black, you're selling out to the man. You see this in Native communities a lot too, I think it's a reason a lot of people don't leave the reserves. Asians on the other hand are expected to get good jobs, there's no concept of being "less Asian".
Obivously you can argue that these attitudes stem from historical mistreatment of blacks and natives, which is true, but I feel that it's a harmful sentiment to try and move forward for those two groups specifically.
ha, Asians mock each other for being TOO ASIAN! you all know what term that is.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
