Why not call it by its real name?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bells, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    Example:
    You take a single blue state and do the best you can.
    1st step is to teach primary school students to shake hands and make it a daily routine upon greeting. All students respectfully shaking all students hands.. no one left out.. Sounds silly? Yep! If you live in a generally hostile society then of course it does.
    Shaking hands generates empathy. Reduces isolation. Generates a sense of equality. team building and promotes self leadership etc.
    Just this one single class exercise done daily can make a world of difference later in life.
    Gotta start somewhere.
    ...just thinking out loud....
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,875
    Okay, that sounds like a good idea. Certainly beats the hell out of standing up and bowing heads for the principal reciting The Lord's Prayer over the PA, while the Muslim and Buddhist children cringe, knowing what to expect at recess.
    But it's still silly, when you throw it up against too many damaged people fighting for too little of everything in a badly skewed system where none of them can win.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    Concentrating on universal behaviors that can generate genuine respect and self esteem without calls to authority (religion etc), gender or race or class or disability at a primary school level onwards would IMO inevitably lead to a more egalitarian society where race, gender, skin color, religion etc. becomes irrelevant as a discriminator.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,601
    And I should probably get the citation correct. It wasn't Rebecca Traister:

    • Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 8 November 2018. http://huff.to/2qd29KY

    I missed when pulling from an old post↗.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,601
    I remember once when someone tried to argue↗ that, "Race is absolutely not the motivation for opposition to Obama, but it is used by some as a tool in the fight against him"; as our conservative neighbor explained at the time, they will "will use any weapon at hand to stop Obama. Not because he's black, but because they believe he's going to destroy what they believe is unique about America." That is to say, nine years ago the Republican argument involved blaming Barack Obama for forcing otherwise decent people to resort to using racism to try to stop him, because he would "destroy what they believe is unique about America". Perhaps that would be policy dependent requisite racism, or to reappropriate one of my own acronyms for the time being, totally unnecessary racist dependency.

    One thing about supremacism in the U.S. is that it has long been a comfortable fallback when the policy argument turns against conservatives. And one reason I might find to venture back toward 2016 is that Sanders has demonstrated a pattern over the period. As we might recall from questions of appeasement, the rising tide that lifts all boats does nothing about sabotage, and for some reason it's really, really important for him to parse out and discard this question of justice.

    Branigin's↱ article for The Root explores the point; Sanders answered the question when he said, "equally important, or more important". If it comes right down to it, he will take more money for "ordinary Americans" and leave the sabotage in place. Indeed, to some degree, he thinks worrying about the sabotage is bad politics. And the thing about it is that he is shameless. The line about how he disagrees, because he has been there: After all this time, Reagan and Bush, Limbaugh, Gingrich and the Revolution, another Bush, war and debt and intrusive government, a broken economy, psychomoral collapse, Boehner's incompetence and McConnell's utter dishonesty ... after all this time and all those voters have been though, and for every reason they said they had for sucking up and accepting the supremacism as a fact of life even though, y'know, they weren't supremacists, themselves, the only thing they have to show for decades of lying to themselves and everyone else is the the supremacism.

    In the end, we might suggest it is a policy-irrelevant racism for Sanders because he doesn't care; those people are a different question than the concerns of ordinary Americans. And for all Americans pretend to be smart and cluck to one another about how people are stupid, and all that, we might expect them to actually learn. So, either those are stupid, or else they really are racists, and no, the latter does not preclude the former so much as require it, but the former does have its own spectrum owing nothing to do with racism aside from the occasional coincidence when it accidentally and stupidly does.

    Or perhaps it is a policy-irrelevant racism because it is a response to policy dependent turds. No, actually I don't quite get how it works. I can see it, if I close my eyes tightly enough, but it's not a maneuver to be attempted lightly.

    And what really stands out is how the racism is always everyone else's. We can tell Bernie is pandering because the process his words represent doesn't really make any sense, nor need they.

    But the GOP's racist campaigns either had their effects or not. If not, then they have nothing to do with walkback or context. If they did have their effects, though, then we might wonder why.

    We know about conservatives. But these “white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American"? If they're not soul-sold to the Republican Party, then what is their excuse?

    (It's that assuaging argument I don't really want to account for because it's so damn stupid, but their excuse is other people's racism. People don't respond to what others are thinking; one responds to what one thinks another is thinking. If voting for an African-American for the first time in their lives makes them uncomfortable, it's because of other people's racism, or something like that. Does he really want to admit to his brother that he voted for a ―....)
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Branigin, Anne. "Why Some Black and Brown People Can’t Trust Bernie Sanders, in 1 Quote". The Root. 31 October 2017. TheRoot.com. 13 November 2018. http://bit.ly/2qLBfeY
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Wow that is the most amazing coupe out I have ever seen, ok then "What do you count as major media? Please"

    Well to half of Americans its name-calling, and they vote. Not enough people are going to come out and vote for us simply because we "accurately and meaningfully labeling aspects of politically significant worldviews" but enough people will come out and vote against us for "name-calling."

    And then Trump won.

    Because people call them racist?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    To a third of Americans it's namecalling, and many of them vote.
    You have it backwards, according to the polls and votes.
    1) Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin.
    2) The opposite. The Dems tried the bothsides, mealy mouthed, let's all be friends approach for thirty five years - and lost the States as well as the Federal government.
    The Dems didn't even take the racial vote suppression and racial machine fraud to court as a civil rights violation.

    Meanwhile, Trump is no big change - he's just Rush Limbaugh with inherited wealth. He's a standard issue 1992 talk radio Republican.
    Who?
    "People" call Trump voters racist, call racist policies and arguments racist, in these little forums and lefty blogs - why would the average nonvoter (who is more left and liberal than the average voter, remember) take that as personal namecalling? It's not even a noun.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Well the excuses, aside from the normal political appeasement, have ranged from 'racism is natural' to it being a 'self esteem issue'..

    What people won't do, I suppose..
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    Or you could go back to 2006, 1996, or 1986 - and substitute Clinton, or any major Democratic establishment politician, for Sanders.
    If you want to talk about this "pattern".
    Or you could stay with 2016, and talk about the betrayal inherent in the Clinton Koolaid folks's dissembling and excuse mongering - phrases like "now is not the time" come to mind.

    Now has never been the time since Reagan, apparently.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,875
    Maybe --- if you could ever institute it uniformly over all the schools of all the federation, and get a mixed population in all the schools.
    But it might just as easily become an empty ritual, like standing for the anthem; motions that people go through, that mean nothing, like paying lip-service to equality while promoting even greater inequality. Propagating the Big Lie.
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,311
    still a fucking liar i see. i said implicent bias is natural and it has racist and sexist outcomes. you've now resorted to saying psychology is bs. congrats to being at the same level as gun nuts and other extremists

    this how you lose your arguments bells. you take a minor statement about race or gender and blow it up. quoting a follow up is dishonest but you given up on honesty. its more important to lie and smear anyone who dares disagrees with your royal highness.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    You are forgetting the people that don't vote but can be enraged to vote.

    Oh so trump is not president then? You need to account for the fact that a ignorant bigoted North Dakotan has nearly three times the voting power a Californian. If you can't comprehend appealing or at the very least not pissing off people in the right places at the right times, then you are not going to get elected.

    Seem to work for Obama, twice.

    Yeah sure, so?

    Yeah but now as president. And no you are wrong, Bush Jr, was moderate compared to the nationalist alt-righter the republicans now field, Bush "its voodoo economics" Sr. was practically liberal compared to what the republicans now field. So 1992 talk radio is now their party central party Senates.

    First of all are you saying I can't google and find CNN, BBC, MSNBC, etc, etc, calling it racist? Second what matters is the nonvoters that can be inspired to vote. What inspires the average non-voter to vote is Bernie and economic justice, what inspires the right-ish wing non-voter to vote is "they are calling you racist!" This is a matter of fact, Trump won on the "SJW are coming for us, she called you deplorable" platform. Look we can call them what ever we want, but politicans got to operate with tacit and optics. There is no mass of ignorant morons on the left that can be rallied as effectively around hate, even hate of haters, as there is among the right, so namecalling, or what ever you want to call it, is just not going to be as productive for us, or worse counter productive. Sure it makes you feel good to call them names, here in your hugbox, but out there most people simply do not operate as you do. Outthere the most effecti talking points are economic justice in the rural areas, and social justice among urbanites, and foucs on policy solutions, healthcare, wage growth, infrastuture, issues like climate change and immigration are harder, and out and open animus against "cis white males" is tactical sucide.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    If you are too timid, manipulative, or fuzz brained, to say anything that might piss off a Trump voter, you don't deserve to get elected. And the nonvoters can see that.
    That's not what worked, for Obama.
    I'm remembering that nonvoters are more liberal and lefty than voters, on average. And that Republicans already devote huge effort to enraging everyone who can be enraged like that - there's very little left in that pool.
    Just farther along - everything the Reps have been doing has been on the table, in their agenda, since Reagan. W's government was a pack of nationalist alt-righters as well.
    Starting in 1980, that would be.
    Takeover of the House in 1994; retook the Presidency in 2000; Mitch McConnell has been a leader of the Republican Senate since 2003, a Senator since 1985.
    What doesn't inspire the average nonvoter to vote is mealy mouthed PC dissembling intended to manipulate them. They already know the Trump voters are racist, after all.
    The comparative dearth of ignorant hate-driven morons outside the Republican Party means accurately labeling the Republicans as such isolates them - makes a clear distinction for the undecided to observe, and demonstrates competence along with reliability in the labeler.
    Since in my life I have spent far more time in such company than you have, and since unlike you I can read graphs and statistical tables, I can tell you how the people you are talking about operate: the Trump voters are unreachable writeoffs, and the large body of nonvoters despise indirect, manipulative, and PC language used to describe things they know perfectly well.

    If you won't say "shit" when you have a mouthful, they won't trust you do deal with it. And they are right, in that respect.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yeah pretty sure Bernie has said alot of piss off a trump voter, and alot of things to appeal to the voter and non-voter alike, how about instead of being focused on pissing people off, be focused on getting people to vote for you or at least have second thoughts?

    Look Clinton called them deplorable, she pissed off the Trump voter, did she not deserve to get elected? Did the nonvoter applaud her?

    And your evidence is?

    Yes, half of americans don't even vote, truely very little left in the pool.

    Yeah yeah so? You do this "they always were like this" arguement often, but it means nothing, your present no solutions. Is the solution to call them racist, will that get us the needed votes to win, is that your arguement? Because it won't. How about we run canidates people can believe in producting laws and policies that will benefit them, "hope and change", and not resort to namecaling stratagies that only work for the right?

    Yeah they already know, pointing out he is racist does not get them a job, or medical coverage or food in their mouths, they want politicans that actually get things done, not namecalling regardless of how blantantly obvious the name is.

    Assuming anyone will listen or care, which they won't, except for those that will be offended for being labeled.

    An appeal to authority and strawman all in one, wow. Please do bring forth graphs and studies showing the non-voters will come out and vote if a canidiate calls people out as racist.

    Even when you call them shit?[/quote][/quote]
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    So what is your reasoning behind the not calling racism for what it is?
    You keep winging and condemning those who attempt to solve your puzzle but offer no answer yourself.
    You have suggested that it be called out for what it is... ok... it is called out... now what?
    You thread question is quite straight forward.
    "Why not call it by it's real name?"

    Well .. what is your answer?
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Speaking of losing arguments..

    You really have to try to have some self control and contain your rage, pjdude.

    Here are your words:

    You either do not exactly understand implicit bias, or you have no idea that the first half of your argument is arguing for a biological standpoint of racism ie, "humans are naturally racist and sexist. We all have subconscious bias in this regard"..

    In other words, you began your argument using the lines out of the scientific racism playbook. Scientific racism is basically seen as being bunk. It's rubbish.

    No, despite your firm beliefs that racism and sexism are "natural", that actually is not the case.

    There is no biological or scientific reason for racism, or race for that matter. But hey, why allow something as small as science get in your way? Eh pjdude? You were on a roll!

    You then followed with that apparently, people have to learn to overcome their racism and sexism, that some is apparently not as bad as others, and that this training does not make someone evil..

    By this point, I was rolling around laughing. But it isn't a laughing matter.

    Do you know why? Because you just presented an argument that has been used by white supremacists for their reasoning behind hating non-whites for generations. It isn't based on fact or science. It's based on pure hatred and bigotry.

    And do you know how we know this?

    Nonetheless, people who want to argue that racism is natural have tried to buttress their position with evidence that racism is in some sense biological. For example: studies have found that when whites see black faces there is increased activity in the amygdala, a brain structure associated with emotion and, specifically, with the detection of threats.

    Well, whatever power that kind of argument ever had--which wasn't much, since the fact that a psychological reaction has a biological correlate doesn't tell you whether the reaction is innate--it has even less power now. In a paper that will be published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Eva Telzer of UCLA and three other researchers report that they've performed these amygdala studies--which had previously been done on adults--on children. And they found something interesting: the racial sensitivity of the amygdala doesn't kick in until around age 14.

    What's more: once it kicks in, it doesn't kick in equally for everybody. The more racially diverse your peer group, the less strong the amygdala effect. At really high levels of diversity, the effect disappeared entirely. The authors of the study write that ''these findings suggest that neural biases to race are not innate and that race is a social construction, learned over time.''


    So you latched onto implicit bias.. Because that shit's natural, yo!

    Implicit bias.. Let me guess, you gripped it in your hot little hands because white people see black faces and freak out? Ya?

    The amygdala's response to African-American faces had been observed not just in European-American adults but in African-American adults--who aren't, in this case, the "other." Apparently whatever cultural information was inculcating a particular response to blacks in whites was having a similar effect in blacks.

    Maybe it's time you stopped making excuses. That behaviour is learned. The notion that people are different by skin colour, is learned.

    I get it, it's Bernie and you're a Bro.

    But enough excuses.

    The only loser in this argument, pjdude, are minorities, women, LGBTQ and everyone who does not fit into the people Bernie Sanders does not consider important enough to care about their plight.

    You know, everyone who does not fit into the little box of "ordinary Americans", the more important group he focuses on.

    His statement was not minor. The manner in which people such as yourself bend over backwards to excuse it, shows your own bias. The reason it is not minor is because he is a well known Senator, former Presidential hopeful and he may be running again in 2020. His words matter. His statements matter. His repeated winking at racists, matters.

    You keep accusing me of being dishonest, even when I quote your own words back to you.

    What? You actually thought you could argue that racism is natural and no one would notice?

    Most importantly..

    You thought you could argue that the "white folks" down in America's South, who in our parents generations still viewed blacks as "niggers", won't vote for a black man because of "implicit bias"? Who are you trying to fool, exactly?

    It's real name is racism.

    Why are you so intent on changing the subject, Quantum Quack?

    Do you remember this gem?

    The self esteem of whom?

    Do you know how self esteem is connected to racial discrimination, Quantum Quack?

    I'll give you a hint.

    Ask the victims...

    You know, the people you seem to be ignoring in trying to find reasons and excuses for racist behaviour:
    Poor Bernie Sanders, the famous, powerful rich white dude, who often spouts racist comments and exhibits bigoted behaviour.. But hey, he's really trying! So an A for effort!

    Oh wait, you missed the many many links and articles provided in this thread? You didn't get the memo?

    He isn't trying to acknowledge them. That's the problem.

    So yeah, self esteem.. That's all you've got?

    Naw, you had more..

    "Racial discrimination is not always racist?"

    Heh!

    The Human Rights Commission in Australia have this great little website, explaining racism. It is aimed at children and deals with why people are racist. But it is simple and it provides quite a bit of insight. You should have a look at it.

    And Quantum Quack, "racial discrimination"? Is always racist.

    And do you know how to combat it?

    It's important we aren't just bystanders to discrimination – that we are prepared, whenever possible, to speak out or stand up. We must also support those on the receiving end.

    Failing to do these things risks sending a dangerous message. It risks saying that those who deal out racism have a right to do so, without being called out. And that those who experience racism have to cop it sweet. Drawing the line on racial incidents can be straightforward when it involves an overt act of hatred or vilification. It's more difficult if it involves biased attitudes or misdirected banter. Even more challenging, perhaps, is racism that involves systems or institutions
    .​

    You don't combat it or 'fix it' by making excuses for it as you have been doing repeatedly throughout this thread. By calling it something else, as you have been doing for days now.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    ..and that is your answer to your own question:
    "WHY not call it by it's real name?"
    if I was I'd bother to explain....

    so tell us all, your answer to your question of WHY

    or were you just venting your typical anger and sanctimonious outrage, by not asking a question by asking a question? Are you demanding that it be called by it's real name and not interested in why it's not?


    Racial discrimination is NOT always racist.

    Just a few examples:
    • Doctors use it all the time when diagnosing,
    • Government census etc
    • Clothing retail ~ it is common.
    • Restaurants remember "Italian, Greek, African food....racial discrimination in food is all over the world and is not event the slightest bit racists.
    • Global stats are often racially indicated
    • and so on


    By your own words you would declare a restaurant that had a sign on the door "French Cuisine" to be racist...

    Your apologies accepted...

    What makes racial discrimination racism?
    Answer that and you will get closer to resolving the actual question you posed in the OP.
    I have already discussed my thoughts of WHY and am still waiting on yours.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    edit... not worth the angst.. off topic
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Once again..

    Your response to the question is to call it something else entirely.

    Lack of self esteem..

    But not for the victims. Oh no. For the racists.

    You see, the psychological damage of racism, right near the top, is lack of self esteem.. For the victims.

    You tried to look at the cause and instead of naming racism, or calling it racism. You went with lack of self esteem.

    Over and over and over again.

    Remember this?
    "Converse or inverse racism"..? What?!

    When you argue that racism is caused by "self esteem issues", apparently these are always present for the racists (they are not, had you spent even 5 minutes studying racism, you'd know this), you leave out everything else. You leave out the history of racism, particularly in the American subset and current political climate.

    America's founding involved seeing human beings as being not human. Their very own constitution had to have an amendment to recognise African Americans and their First People's recognised as human beings and even that was not enough.

    They went through a long period of slavery, Jim Crow laws where African Americans could be hung from lamp posts and trees for doing nothing more than looking at a white woman and your explanation is that it's "self esteem issues"?

    If you had bothered to open up a history book, you would recognise this.

    Generations of Americans did not own slaves because they had self esteem issues. You cannot approach the issues of racism in America by ignoring the history of America.

    Understand now?

    Or are you going to keep changing the subject because of your own discomfort with issues of racism, so much so that you had to make the point of how you were different to an African refugee by taking him to a restaurant that caused him to be so uncomfortable and stared at (which makes your little story even more astonishing, because you are carrying on as though Australians have never seen black and brown people before) and you had to point out the differences in your skin colour to boot. Ya, the meal was a resounding success, because you pointed out your differences because you are different? Because your skin colour makes you different?

    He's not different to you.

    Do you even know what "racial discrimination" actually is?

    Here is a brief definition:

    Racial discrimination refers to discrimination against individuals on the basis of their race.​

    Do you really want to try and argue that it is not always racist?

    What are you even talking about?

    Do you understand what the word "discriminate" means? Discrimination?

    Or are you trying to suggest that a doctor racially discriminating against a patient is not being racist? What? Do you know what happens when doctors or the health care system racially discriminates? For example:

    Racial bias exists in the medical field affecting the way patients are treated and the way they are diagnosed. There are instances where patients’ words are not taken seriously, an example would be the recent case with Serena Williams. After the birth of her daughter via C-section, the tennis player began to feel pain and shortness of breath. It took her several times to convince the nurse they actually took her self-said symptoms seriously. Had she not been persistent and demanded a CT scan, which showed a clot resulting in blood thinning, Williams might have not been alive.[26] This is just one of hundred’s of cases where systemic racism can affect women of color in pregnancy complications[27].

    One of the factors that lead to higher mortality rates amongst black mothers is the poorly conditioned hospitals and lack of standard healthcare facilities.[28] Along with having deliveries done in underdeveloped areas, situation becomes complicated when the pain dealt by patients are not taken seriously by healthcare providers. Pain heard from patients of color are underestimated by doctors compared to pain told by patients who are white[29] leading them to misdiagnose.

    Many say that the education level of people affect whether or not they admit to healthcare facilities, leaning to the argument that people of color purposefully avoid hospitals compared to white counterparts[30]however, this is not the case. Even Serena Williams, a well-known athlete, was not taken seriously when she described her pain. It is true that the experiences of patients in hospital settings influence whether or not they return to healthcare facilities. Black people are less likely to admit to hospitals however those that are admitted have longer stays than white people [31]

    Are you going to suggest that doctors ignoring pain in black people because they are black people is not racist?

    Really?

    Racial discrimination is racist, Quantum Quack.

    Your repeated arguments that it's not is not only devoid of reality, but it is dangerous and frankly obscene.

    Oh wait, you said "when diagnosing".. Ya, Ms Williams really saw the benefits of non racist "racial discrimination" when she was nearly killed, eh Quantum Quack? Is that what you meant?

    Or are you actually trying to put a positive spin on "racial discrimination" by describing, for example, when a doctor is looking at a patient's family history and ethnic background to glean the region of origin to see if they could possibly be predisposed to certain genetic disorders? Not to mention it is another attempt by you to change the subject.

    Only if you are mentally deficient.

    I should be apologising to you because of...?

    What exactly?

    I'll give you a prime example:

    The fact that you think you are different and you went out of your way to make him feel uncomfortable and nervous so that you could point out the fact that you see him as being different to you.

    Not to mention the fact that you have spent close to 4 pages now trying to redefine racism by diminishing it and dismissing it, as well as your repeated attempts to change the subject..

    As I asked you two pages ago, if you wish to discuss something else entirely, then start a thread about it. Stop trying to change the subject of this thread.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,046
    test:
    I went to a French restaurant with 4 friends.
    • one was an Australian Jew
    • one was an Ethiopian
    • one was a Londoner from Britain
    • one was an American Indian
    Next door was an Italian Pizza bar
    We sat and ate , enjoying our diversity of culture and race for about 3 hours with Indigenous Australian music for back ground, and then left ignoring the Italian Pizza bar.

    How is the above racist?
    Which comment is racism?

    Please I need to know if I am a racist....
     

Share This Page