By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - $5,000 anti-racist dinner parties

Pemalite said:
KLAMarine said:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

Or hows about both or neither? Why does everything require a binary answer?

KLAMarine said:

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

Skin colour/race don't actually have anything to do with being a criminal.

Socio-economic situation tends to have the largest influences on who turns out to be a criminal.
I.E. You grow up in the slums, with family who are bogans... Chances are you are going down a certain path statistically.

By that same extension, those who are of colour tend to be in poor socio-economic areas due to in part... Discrimination or lack of opportunities, educational, work or otherwise... Arguably those of colour in poor socio-economic areas tend to have stronger family ties which keeps family units together.

Another issue is those migrating (Illegal or legal) from Mexico (Or anywhere for that matter) fall into the trap of lacking nationally qualified skills to take up anything more than low-paid unskilled work.
Same issue exists here, one of my old trainers migrated from Britain and she had 10+ years of experience as a teacher, sadly it meant squat in Australia and she had to go back to University to gain the degrees she was already competent in, in the meantime she was doing minimum wage work.

Here for example Aboriginals also tend to suffer at the hands of systemic discrimination.
For example years ago I went for a job interview and one of the other guys who I have known for a long time was Aboriginal and had qualifications in health that easily surpassed my own and he put on a strong (Arguably stronger) showing in the group interview, yet wasn't selected for some unknown reason, could be more to it, but really said allot about the employer at the time.

As for police... I can only talk about police officers I have worked with... So strictly limited to anecdotal. - And generally, they don't give a shit what your skin colour is, they are trained to protect themselves first and foremost, then protect their fellow crew, then protect the general public.

For example at any structure fire, police are always on scene and if an officer is near me, they will always keep a hand on the gun, doesn't matter if my job involves saving lives or not, doesn't matter if I know them or not.

"Or hows about both or neither? Why does everything require a binary answer?"

>Sadly, some people see everything as black or white and ignore all the many shades of gray in between.



Around the Network
Hiku said:
sundin13 said:

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them.  

That strategy has been prevalent among conservatives for a long time.

That the societal problem isn't the actual problem, but the people calling it out/trying to solve it are the real problem.
Some common examples I'm sure you see every day:

- You want universal healthcare like every other developed nation? No, we can't do that, because it'll be worse.
- Wear masks and social distance? No, it's just the flu, and a hoax. It infringes on my rights and the economy will be ruined.
- Reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming? No, that'll just ruin the economy, and it's a hoax.
- Properly tax billionaires? No, they'll just move to another country, so lets give them a 300 trillion tax break instead.
- Ban assault rifles? That will just make things more dangerous for law abiding citizens. We need more guns.
- Unions for workers? No, that'll make workers sufffer more.
- Trump supporters storming the capitol building? No, those were mainly lefties.

And then of course, calling out racism is the actual racism.

And this is so far removed from the thread i dont know what to say. How does black people going around attacking asians have anything to do with white people??. How is a white person saying that a person who is saying such a thing is racist himself. Maybe you can explain better.



zero129 said:

And this is so far removed from the thread i dont know what to say. How does black people going around attacking asians have anything to do with white people??. How is a white person saying that a person who is saying such a thing is racist himself. Maybe you can explain better.

Half of this thread has been devoted to the question of whether it is valid to attribute some degree of blame to white supremacy over some of the recent violence against the Asian community, including attacks with African American actors. If you wish this point to be explained to you, all you really need to do is read through this thread.



sundin13 said:
zero129 said:

And this is so far removed from the thread i dont know what to say. How does black people going around attacking asians have anything to do with white people??. How is a white person saying that a person who is saying such a thing is racist himself. Maybe you can explain better.

Half of this thread has been devoted to the question of whether it is valid to attribute some degree of blame to white supremacy over some of the recent violence against the Asian community, including attacks with African American actors. If you wish this point to be explained to you, all you really need to do is read through this thread.

Your points explained nothing to me as your too biased in your opinion that all todays problems is white peoples faults. You even called me a "White Supremacist" for having the point of few you cant blame everything on whites. If anything his few fits me more as your the bully who was calling names i pointed out something and you try point me as the bully..



zero129 said:
sundin13 said:

Half of this thread has been devoted to the question of whether it is valid to attribute some degree of blame to white supremacy over some of the recent violence against the Asian community, including attacks with African American actors. If you wish this point to be explained to you, all you really need to do is read through this thread.

Your points explained nothing to me as your too biased in your opinion that all todays problems is white peoples faults. You even called me a "White Supremacist" for having the point of few you cant blame everything on whites. If anything his few fits me more as your the bully who was calling names i pointed out something and you try point me as the bully..

I did not assert that "all todays problems [are] white peoples faults", nor that you are a "'White Supremacist' for having the point of few you cant blame everything on whites". Perhaps you should read through the thread again, taking care not to let your own personal biases color your interpretations. You seem to be reading what you want to read, and no amount of explanation can overcome such a barrier.

To understand, you must first seek to understand...



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

If I was a business owner who secretly conspired to only hire white workers, would you call this white supremacy? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this is against the law and I'm doing it without government backing: government would have perfect grounds to prosecute me for breaking the law actually.

I'm just trying to figure out your odd definition of 'white supremacy' which requires government backing of some sort... It seems very weird...

It might be against the law, but would the government do anything about it? A lot of companies have a tendency to hire white workers over others. Short of having a line in the hiring hand book that says "hire only white people", it's incredibly difficult to prove.

KLAMarine said:

One should never take a hatchet to a problem that requires a scalpel.

My so-called lazy take is one that urges caution. One can try to find trends by excluding the many variables at play in every police interaction but those many variables are ALWAYS a factor. The lurking variable is always a threat.

Mass assessment must always yield to the personal one-on-one assessment: some police shootings are Walter Scotts. Others are Ma'khia Bryants.

Both cases involve black victims BUT their individual circumstances vary drastically. Of course, as far as some studies would be concerned, both would go down as instances of blacks being killed by police.

We should never take the lazy route by placing two variables on the same graph and calling it a day. We should always give all shootings their due one-on-one.

A lot of left wingers will try looking at a single incident and try to figure out whether it's racist or not, and it's something that I take issue with. In general, it's not something that you can do. 300 million people comes with lots of random events, with all kinds of different variables. And it does happen that police officers have shot at unarmed white people.

What you have to do is look at the trends. Looking at 300 million people gives you an average that should be similar, unless there's some biases.

Why is it then that black people seem to be so much more likely to be in these situations where they're more likely to be shot? Is there some societal bias that puts them in that situation or are the cops more biased against them?

"It might be against the law, but would the government do anything about it? A lot of companies have a tendency to hire white workers over others. Short of having a line in the hiring hand book that says "hire only white people", it's incredibly difficult to prove."

So where does this leave us? I secretly hired only white workers even though government has put in place laws forbidding such actions. Is it white supremacy?

I would say so, government backing or not. In a previous post, you stated:

"White people attacking black people by itself doesnt constitute white supremacy. White people being backed by a white government while attacking black people constitutes as white supremacy."

I don't like your definition. This definition means Dylann Roof's murder spree was not an act of white supremacy...



Erm, nevermind. Sorry, misread the context I was responding to, but can't find a button that lets me delete this post.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 06 June 2021

sundid said:

[3] I believe I have been fairly consistent on this point, so I'm not sure what concession you believe I made. Either way, I'm glad that we agree.

As for your assessment of CRT, I am not an expert on the subject, but the writings I have read have not been incompatible with your criticisms. I similarly don't agree with these ideas (at least in the manner you have stated them) and as you said, it is on the individual making the claim to prove the claim. It may very well be true, however I have yet to see evidence of these claims being fundamental to CRT.

[4]: I agree that we largely agree. I don't disagree with your first point (and I said explicitly in my last post that I agree that there is not one single cause) and your second point is...complicated. It is a nuanced position and I would be the first to say that the simple slogan does little to convey that nuance. I'll just run through a couple thoughts real quick:

-"Defunding the police" to me, largely means shrinking the responsibilities of the police. The police should not be tasked with solving every societal ill, and we as a society need to decide what needs an armed response and what doesn't. For example, I don't believe traffic enforcement needs an armed response. "Defunding the police" is largely about expanding the ecosystem of law enforcement (and thus expanding it's funding), with separate bodies taking certain responsibilities away from the police, allowing the police to decrease in size.

-"Defunding the police" also reflects the long-term goal of reducing the necessity of reactive crime prevention. By investing more in proactive crime prevention (improving education, housing etc), the goal is that crime and other societal ills will decrease which will allow an organic decrease in police funding. 

-"Defunding the police" speaks to our societal priorities and is largely about deprioritizing policing as a means of fighting crime. It seems that the response to crime is always "throw some cops at it", which has led to massive police budgets paired with underspending relative to many other priorities that should be considered important. Policing should never really be seen as a long term solution so at some point, we as society need to agree to invest in our communities instead of policing them (I believe the difficulty of this comes in part from racist ideas about "the dangerous minority"). This speaks to your last point. I agree that in theory it shouldn't be an "either-or" proposition, but in reality, I don't believe it is feasible to increase spending to the ideal levels without making cuts. 

[3] To judge by people's replies so far, I suspect you and I are the only two people here who have any real knowledge of CRT at all, which tells me that many people don't even realize how they've likely been influenced by elements thereof without grasping the simplistic crux of it.

[4] Our remaining disagreement here comes down to what we perceive as "feasible". It comes down, in other words, to a fiscal dispute over what society can and cannot afford, and especially in that context there is, to me, just an intractably neo-liberal sounding logic and essence to the whole "de-fund the police" argument wherein public budgets must be balanced and yet also cannot be balanced by those who can afford to pay like they used to be all the time and thus we must choose between public safety and public welfare, as we just metaphysically cannot have both. Much of the talk around budget reductions for police forces, I've observed, likewise involves a discussion of union-busting strategies because policing is, proponents often contend, an illegitimate occupation and officers aren't really workers. I dunno about that logic.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 07 June 2021

I just want to jump in here and say that one of my university finals papers (UK terminology, probably the same in the US) was Political Theory, for which I had diligently been studying the standout thinkers in modern political theory. Rawls, Oakeshott, Nozick, Dworkin etc. but also feminists like Nussbaum, Okin, etc. This includes, by the way, modern marxist thinkers and critical theorists too. 

The exam comes along and the feminism question which I had prepared heavily had shifted tack and decided to be about critical race theory. (The link between the two ideologies, and presumably why the convenors thought that the question could be swapped in, is not that they're both considered "progressive" or anything like that, but because they both take issue with liberal conceptions of where the realm of political justice ends; ie. feminists argue justice is required within the family to have a just society). The trouble with a question about critical race theory is a problem with language. The question was "Does the pursuit of racial justice require political action beyond the reform of the basic structure of society". It might seem at first that the question is just about a Rawlsian basic structure and whether it is sufficient to secure justice in light of potential sources of injustice (racism) which may exist outside the formal basic structure. 

But in reality it's a totally different toolset. Either it requires that individuals are the subjects of justice, rather than the state, which is bizarre because we describe good or bad individual behaviour as good or bad (morality) rather than just or unjust. Or it requires a conflict-based understanding of the state (and hence of justice) and then we're talking about Marxism (or fascism, like Carl Schmitt - politics of "friend vs. enemy") and, in this example, critial race theory. The liberal language we use to talk about politics, eg. "equality", "basic structure" is sometimes reused by Marxists, fascists, critical race theorists, republican (small-r) theorists, but doesn't mean the same thing. Cynically, one might think that anti-liberal theorists at large love to repurpose liberal ideals "independence, liberty, freedom, equality" to mean siginificantly different things, but command support from (some) liberals nonetheless because of their purportedly aiming for the same goals. 

I didn't answer this question. I was vindicated by the examiner's report which, quite rightly, pointed out that a liberal approach to the question was not sufficient, and that you needed to respond to critical race theory. But in "normal" language this seems like a question that liberal society should be able to respond to. By the way, I use liberal in its true sense (sorry, America) as meaning part of the liberal tradition from Hobbes and Locke as in "western liberal society", not the sense in which people in the USA seem to call left-wingers (and sometimes by extension, critical race theorists!) "gosh darn liberals".  

The point is that Marxist ideologies, fascist ideologies, and even more palatable ideologies like republicanism (again, French kind, not big-R Republicanism) all use words which we, in the anglophone west, understand in their liberal sense, in a profoundly different way. It's like when people read Plato and say "that's not justice", scarcely realising they're talking about completely different ideas which through two millennia of Roman, medieval and enlightenment reinterpretation came to use the same word. 

Enter critical race theory, parasitizing in this way off two centuries of liberal tradition to promote an idea of justice which completely abandons distinctions between individuals and groups. Then you get high-minded liberals paying $5,000 for something they not only don't want to hear, but which clashes fundamentally with their all their political conceptions. They thought, "hey, I'm not conservative, how come I think she's totally mad?". The answer is because she's masquerading as a liberal. 



zero129 said:

And this is so far removed from the thread i dont know what to say. How does black people going around attacking asians have anything to do with white people??. How is a white person saying that a person who is saying such a thing is racist himself. Maybe you can explain better.

I was responding to "However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them."

I don't know how exactly you guys got the conversation to that point, but reading that I was recalling how the Ku Klux Clan (and their supporters) would use the same rhetoric to make a victim of the bully, and a bully of the victim.
And that people commonly use that strategy today as well. (Not necessarily related to white supremacy.)

Last edited by Hiku - on 08 June 2021