Bye Tim.

The point of, 1) race was an idea before science tried to find support for it, 2) racism based on science was merely a temporary and contingent particular idea of racism 3) the idea won't go away just by using different words, because it's an idea and you cannot police ideas.

The whole "let's be colour blind" our "let's not talg about race" is totally useless and in fact makes it harder to resolve the consequences of current and historic racism. To be anti - racist requires you to understand what racism meant and what it still means today to be able to formulate effective policies against it. A policy "let's not use the word" isn't going to resolve anything except for making people stupid and unaware of the extent of historic and current racism. So, indeed, in my view you're part of the problem.

Clearly you don't understand the conclusion of the article. That's fine.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/

So it morphed somehow into a social construct. — tim wood

Also, come to think of it. I take issue with that as well. It has always been a social construct.

And that will solve what, mr. Word Police? Oh right...

Call it xenophobism or discrimination, people are still going to do it based on how other people look.

This is really too simplistic. Race is a social construct. Race is an idea, not a fact. Saying there is no factual basis for the distinction doesn't make the idea go away and it doesn't make the associations and classifications based on how someone looks go away. It's therefore neither a solution nor the beginning of one.

You want to pretend there are no apples, where clearly there are apples.

Or to put it differently you're suggesting that we should stop talking about unicorns because there's no factual basis for them. Next time I see a picture of one, I'll call it a horny horse.

I'd like to add that the decoration of public space is definitely subject to changing opinion. Why should we accept things that we consider ugly just because of history?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.artnet.com/art-world/most-hated-public-sculptures-591839/amp-page

Yeah, you were totally on the barricades for the Marxists all those years when days ago you were trying to discredit BLM for being started by Marxists. Whatever.

You should give an example. — ssu

NYT sacking of their opinion editor because of complaints from readers. The guy with the Greek sounding name that was a thing for a while. Ivanka Trump. University gets pressured by its clients. University doesn't want to lose clients. People really are over analysing this stuff.

What's the problem with removing a couple of statues? I'm probably the wrong guy to ask because I think the veneration of anybody is just insanity. The idolisation of people who were just as fallible as you and me. I don't like how people look up to successful businessmen, soldiers, politicians or historic figures. They're just men and women. Statues belong in musea, not in the public sphere. All that can be laid at the feet of my fundamental disdain for authority for authority's sake. By that I mean authority that expects respect for carrying the titel instead of earning it through actions.

The Harper letter is funny and so is NOS4A2's idea that the right is the victim of cancel culture. For years, and even to this day, Marxist thought is all but banned in the US. They try to discredit BLM because a bunch of Marxists push a fucking conservative agenda (respect my rights and life!), totally ignoring what they stand for. Now a couple of rabid racists and their enablers are barred from a couple of shows, because - hello - racism is out of vogue (Fucking finally, right?!), and all of a sudden it's a problem. Those cancellations are profit driven and not ideological. It's not a culture war, it's marketing. Live goes on and the racists will retreat in their "cultural norms and values" code and how it's under threat from everything they don't like, which includes leftists and anything with pigment.

It's in a sense baffling that the political creativity in the US is so stunted that their solution to most social ills is "police". It's not as if the policy research isn't available what other solutions are available to combat poverty, community health and crime prevention.

What causes that? Lobbying?

All things considered the Swedes aren't doing too bad considering they haven't had a lock down at all. The healthcare system hasn't been overwhelmed and that's the main thing. Supply lines haven't been disrupted either.

I'm totally surprised though that their economy took the same hit as the other countries in Europe already.

He'll be barely affected.

You've just met the most unreflexive guy on the forum. Was it fun?

He'll also defend Trump forever and is a "I don't see no colour" contributor to systemic racism. Not much there worthy of respect other than him having a pulse.

:rofl:

Of course there is. Most Western societies think parents (man wife), married, 2 kids, a car, a house and a pet. Grandparents away or in retirement homes. The rest of the family is visited. That's become the ideal and it's a historical anamoly.

Grandparents live in your house? What's wrong with you? Two men raising a kid? What's wrong with you? Living in the same home as your niece? What's wrong with you?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=5508484140a84023a1e2d8b080e14d0a#detail

I'll just leave that here and say I don't feel like going through all these motions again.

Alright, lets go with this example. Lets imagine a group called "Men's Bodies Matter" started a nationwide movement that solely concerned itself with women-on-male rape. I mean we're all against rape, right? But what about male on male rape, which happens more to men than women on male? Obviously women on male rape is wrong, but I think we'd both agree the explicit and sole focus only on female perpetrator/male victim would be super bizarre. I'd be tempted to call it an anti-woman movement and I'm not even much of a feminist. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I can see how you're tempted since you have been struggling with BLM as well.

I wouldn't think it's super bizarre. In fact, the Netherlands has (or had) a group solely focused on rape of men by women because it's totally unrepresented and not taken seriously. After all, men are supposed to be stronger. So no, I think it probably says more about what you've been exposed to in your life and the society you live to feel the need to judge people for standing up for an injustice.

There's always something bigger or more important, politically speaking, or we can take the nihilist approach and say it all amounts to nothing any way. Or the third way is just to listen to what people have to say.

If you are worried about black on black crime then do something about it other than telling people who are already working on combating injustice that they should fight another injustice just because to think it's more important. At the end of the day those protesters are doing a lot more than either of us.

The US doesn't have a representative democracy because it works with plurality. People are becoming aware the political system doesn't work for their benefit and the minority that benefitted from it thinks there's a culture war going on. Lol.

I'm not talking to you for your benefit.

self-avowed marxists start disrupting families — NOS4A2

Blatant misrepresentation as pointed out which you refuse to own up to. You don't have integrity or a backbone do you?

Because I believe it is a bad idea. I’m not going to stop them or impede their choices, but I’m not going to support them either. — NOS4A2

How's the act of misrepresenting them as an attempt to make them look bad not an attempt to impede or stop them? Or do you just do that for shits and giggles?

Let's take it as a given that crime and poverty are strongly correlated then black on black violence isn't an issue of race but a consequence of it, or at least I consider poverty of blacks a direct consequence of systemic racism and black on black violence a secondary consequence.

Second, how about white on white crime? People tend to kill people in their own communities. It's not a black pathology of increased violence amongst blacks.

There's also a rather important difference between being murdered by a criminal and being murdered by a cop; the latter isn't supposed to do it, has qualified immunity and for some weird reason is believed in court more readily than regular citizens.

There's more but it's just diversionary and distracting. If victimised men start a "no more rape by women" group, why demand they should protest against rape of women as well, because it's more prevalent? In fact, why do you feel the need to tell people what they should be worrying about?

Yawn. Still dodging.

This is a tiresome deflection. It does not invalidate in any way, shape or form the issue of police brutality.

Edit: here's an analogy: after the twin towers, how many people said "but why aren't you angry and sad about how many Americans kill each other in gun massacres?" I imagine not many.

oh, so they "disrupt families" and at the same time you don't think they "can operate as extended families"? Inconsistent much? You're such a shill for the Trump camp it's getting pathetic.

Or, in a single exercise by the government, they lost 1.4 billion USD.

I'm doubtful the underfunded IRS could've reasonably be expected to do better but even so.

answer the question https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/431583

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. — BLM

I don't think they will begrudge you your nuclear family. It seems to me everybody is welcome provided they support freedom and justice.

nono, don't deflect. We'll deal with what I said (which you again misread) after is it clear you are talking out of your ass when you say "self-avowed marxists start disrupting families". That's neither their goal or something they've done.

Can you admit you misrepresented BLM on that point?

Are they, as you claimed, disrupting families and is that their goal, or were you full of shit as usual?

Just remember that many were arguing prior to COVID-19 that the US would have the best ability to respond and tackle a global pandemic. — ssu

Who argued that but US persons?

If you like this time, how much worse would it have to get to change your mood? — ssu

I don't like the times (global warming, pollution, over fishing, the PRC, mass extinction of species, Russian meddling, Trump and his racist base, I could go on) but I do like what BLM stands for, which is what Trump was referring to with his fascism comment.

Cool saying. Speaking of culture war. According to Trump the US is under attack from "far left fascism". I suppose, in the case of the US, it's a nice change of pace that after years of right wing fascism (under the guise of deregulation and austerity for welfare) that we now get left wing fascism.

The victims of right wing fascism were mass transfer of wealth from most people to the rich elite for the past 30-40 years or so. The victims of left wing fascism so far are a couple of statues and a bit of property damage. I guess I'm all for left wing fascism then.

When self-avowed marxists start disrupting families through their make-believe “villages”, I see trouble. No activist network can substitute for family or community, and no one needs to support a well-funded protest organization to fight against racism. So use your hashtags and fist emojis to your heart’s content. — NOS4A2

Your really can't read can you? They stated "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement". And why would that be? Maybe because 1 in 3 of black men end up in jail at some point in time and the nuclear family is too often not the reality?

They even state in the paragraph before it "we make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children." They're not anti family and they're not trying to replace it but to support them through wider networks, such as, ironically, communities that you actually mention in the very next sentence.

The rest of that post is just silly. Nobody needs to support a well funded political party either. Oh wait.

Why support a cause worth supporting?

It's a myth that politics is dictated entirely by money. — Wheatley

Elections might not but legislation most definitely correlates with who had the money to influence the process.

You had to go and explain it! And here I was looking forward to him making a fool of himself even further... Oh well.

I know what that website says and it doesn't say what NOS thinks it says by incorrectly quoting them.