08-22-2020, 11:39 AM
(08-21-2020, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are describing a "piling on" incident. I missed that it, and would not likely approve.
If by piling on we all expressed that the accusation was baseless and unfair to make, then yeah?
Quote:I confess I have not seen the "racism" accusation used as a shutdown move very often in this forum. Dino was accused of "blatant" racism at least once. I was too. Wait, maybe twice, if you count being "called out" for "real" racist "behavior." That might have been an attempt to shutdown an opposing viewpoint, as efforts to explain myself were dismissed outright. Others condemned the accusation in both mine and Dino's cases.
Yup, that was me. In one instance I was shown by a rational poster that I was acting in an irrational manner and I consequently apologized. You might have described the incident as "piling on".
Quote:Posters here rarely accuse other posters of racism, but a number do indeed complain about "the race card" and politicizing race as issues. Usually when someone posts an article in which past racial divisions are used to explain or question current issues like gentrification or statistical contrasts between health/educational outcomes for Blacks and whites. But I never viewed that as trying to shut down discussion.
See, you're equating this board with the population as a whole. This is not the case and accusations of racism are frequently used to shut down the arguments of others.
Quote:"Shutdown" happens when one side decides the other cannot be argued with, even as the other side continues to present rational, evidence-based arguments. I think when such threads appear, they make some posters "feel" personally accused, even when they are not directly addressed. I have myself at least once been accused of accusing someone of racism, though that person could never produce the offending statement. Both claiming others are racist and claiming oneself "accused" could be desparate shutdown tactics, I suppose. But they are rarely used.
Unfortunately, we may be in the Dill doesn't see it so to him it never occurred territory in this regard.
Quote:Baseless accusations are tolerated in this "environment" though. The people making them rarely "feel" they are baseless. On my view, they become baseless when those who make them refuse any supporting evidence beyond a sweeping gesture at "posting history." Then it's clear they just want to accuse but not risk engagement and accountability. Impossible to regulate this sort of thing, beyond noting when it occurs, since many baseless accusations are harmless and ignored anyway.
Oh indeed, such as the incident I was discussing with Hollodero (not you btw). That was certainly a baseless accusation.
Quote:Some flaws with the "true racist" definition above. To be consistent we'd have to say that slave masters who interacted daily with their house slaves in the antebellum South, literally living with them, were not true racists because they had "something to do" with their slaves. Or maybe there is an unstated premise here maybe that true racism requires "hatred"?
This argument is ridiculous to the point of being offensive. No rational person could extrapolate that position to the patently absurd lengths that you did in this section.
Quote:Anyway, your definition could have some political consequences now, e.g., normalizing/excusing Trump behavior. We know that he has "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts" and it looks like he acts on them, e.g., in matters of immigration policy.
How is his immigration plan racist? Are we going to hear the "Muslim ban" trope again?
Quote:But if he is not a true racist then someone could rationalize that he/she is not voting for a true racist and truly racist policies, perhaps? Don't think a "leftist" racist could do that.
We don't know that as one has yet to be in power in this country. We could look at China though, were such racism is rampant. Oh, and don't forget the genocide.
Quote:What if "true racists" are not the problem today, but people who just have "a lot of racist opinions and thoughts"?
Who said they aren't "a" problem? The certainly aren't "the" problem, but I don't think any one problem is "the" problem.
Quote:I think there are few "racists" at any point in the political spectrum who view their racism as "racism"-- except on the right. Left-wing "racists," if there be such, tend to fight against racism, so that raises the question of how "racism" is defined here, not to mention the "right/left" spectrum.
This section is so insanely partisan and biased that I don't think you'll ever be able to claim a position of objectivity again. You honestly don't think left wing racists exist? But if they do exist they only fight against racism? This would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. I can tell you from personal experience, that the most racists statements and actions I have ever witnessed were all committed by blacks or hispanics (usually directed at the other) none of whom would be described as "right wing" by any measure of the word.
Quote:If there are a lot of people out there who are "not racist" but their thoughts are "colored" by it, can we be sure that such thoughts don't also color their voting practices? Their response to current social issues? E.g. --
Of course they do, which is a problem. It doesn't make them racist though, no more than the older black woman, who said an incredibly racist thing to me with zero ill intent, is a racist.
Quote:I'm not sure anyone calls racism the "sole determinant of this disproportionality." Nor why we should expect to see it "across the spectrum" if it were. What spectrum? In other so-called "races"?
I suppose you could give us some proof otherwise? The correct term to use would be ethnicities, btw.
Quote:Most would agree there is something wrong "when~7% of the population commits over half of the murder." There is a public debate over why such disparities. And that debate will influence elections and policy.
Is there? You'll have to point out where that's occurring because I have yet to see it. If you mean the BLM movement, they don't discuss the issue. They have a position that allows for no discussion.
Quote:You say "the left," the group(s) which have fought for and won the racial equality we have, refuses to address the issue as a whole, and now stands in the way of resolving racial problems in the US.
I thought it was the Republican party that ended slavery? Didn't they also get the 13th amendment passed? That was a rather important move for "racial equality", no?
Quote: iBy"limiting" discussion to systemic racism or some such? But there is another group which does see the whole problem? Who are they? "The Right"? Those who have traditionally opposed racial progress? What do they see that completes the explanation? How is the disproportion explained by not-racists whose views may only be colored by racism?
As I explained in my post above, neither side gets it right on this issue, and for different reasons. As for your allegation, that someone out there is discussing this issue, the whole issue, in an honest and open fashion, please kindly point me in their direction. Somehow I think the example you do provide, if you provide any, won't be very compelling.
