I find that the right believes more is at stake and will make allies with even the rottenest knaves if their goals align enough, whereas the left will merely excommunicate you and ruin your life for disagreeing a little. — ToothyMaw

I do not believe that is an accurate representation of either side. The right says - proclaims, shouts, pounds, screams, buys expensive advertising and mobilizes ruthless propaganda campaigns to convince its supporters - that these are the issues at stake, while the leadership not only knows that to be false, but blatantly breaks every one of the rules and damages every one of the institutions they're campaigning to 'protect.' As for excommunicating those who disagree with the core leadership -- How do you think they became as locked in step as they have in the last 20 years? What happened to the moderate conservatives? And Liz Cheney?
Is not making alliances, or giving concessions of principle to the "rottenest knaves" really a weakness in a political party? Doesn't having goals that are aligned enough with the rottenest knaves - let alone supporting the rottenest knave's lies and false claims - make one a fellow traveler?
Which Democrat's lives have been ruined for a small difference of opinion? life Is deleting a thread really equivalent to rape- and death-threats?

It's very difficult to treat your enemies absolutely fairly and to apply the golden rule towards them every time, regardless of how atrocious and nasty their actions have been. To forgive them totally for all the actions they performed which resulted in friends and fellows that had their lives severely damaged or totally destroyed. I think it's incredible when people can be so forgiving towards the nefarious rich and to right wing extremists, but I also understand those who cannot be so forgiving.

I appreciate your measured reply.

I do not believe that is an accurate representation of either side. The right says - proclaims, shouts, pounds, screams, buys expensive advertising and mobilizes ruthless propaganda campaigns to convince its supporters - that these are the issues at stake, while the leadership not only knows that to be false, but blatantly breaks every one of the rules and damages every one of the institutions they're campaigning to 'protect.' As for excommunicating those who disagree with the core leadership -- How do you think they became as locked in step as they have in the last 20 years? What happened to the moderate conservatives? And Liz Cheney? — Vera Mont

So many republicans had no desire to see Trump become president, yet the Republican party has supported him through all of his idiocies, falling into step with a clear megalomaniac as easily as you might join a friend for coffee. You might view this as rule breaking, and it is to a certain degree, but it also demonstrates that the right tends to come together despite small, or large, differences in views.

And I maintain that the right, at least in the US, has a greater desire to preserve the institutions we have in place. Take for example the fact that many on the right pushed back against what they thought was the literal defunding of police departments, because of their (correct) intuition that anarchism doesn't really work.

You could say that this actually hurts the police, or society at large, because we could divert funding to hire more social workers or something - I don't disagree.

Is not making alliances, or giving concessions of principle to the "rottenest knaves" really a weakness in a political party? — Vera Mont

No, but try to adopt a nuanced view on race, attempt to discuss it with candor, and see how quickly you get declared a bigot or a white privilege denier.

Or you could make a joke about dongles.

Overall, I think you are presenting a dichotomy I don't agree with; one can find common ground with people one does not totally agree with merely for the sake of progress - and the differences in views among leftists are largely magnified by a tendency to moralize inherent to the left that is both good and bad.

edit: by "moralize" I mean to reform to make more moral, and not to speak on moral matters with an unjustified sense of superiority.

It's very difficult to treat your enemies absolutely fairly and to apply the golden rule towards them every time, regardless of how atrocious and nasty their actions have been. — universeness

Yeah, and the right doesn't seem to care what you do at all so long as you toe the line.

To forgive them totally for all the actions they performed which resulted in friends and fellows that had their lives severely damaged or totally destroyed. — universeness

If the citizens of the US, be they left or right, actually cared about our government not ruining lives, they would have voted out the neoliberals and fascists for the many atrocities committed against people in other countries. Selling weapons to Saudi-Arabia so they can blow up brown people halfway across the world? No noise.

I think it's incredible when people can be so forgiving towards the nefarious rich and to right wing extremists, but I also understand those who cannot be so forgiving — universeness

Honestly, I have little forgiveness for them myself, but I at least try to understand, some of the time, why they do what they do.

And I maintain that the right, at least in the US, has a greater desire to preserve the institutions we have in place. — ToothyMaw

Some of the institutions. The ones that serve their agenda. Like heavily militarized police forces to keep the mob from protesting economic and political disparity and the privatization of everything from drinking water to highways. And some institutionalized falsehoods, like celebrating the Civil War. They're not real big on preserving institutions like the universal franchise or the separation of powers or a free and independent press.

So many republicans had no desire to see Trump become president, yet the Republican party has supported him through all of his idiocies, falling into step with a clear megalomaniac as easily as you might join a friend for coffee. You might view this as rule breaking, and it is to a certain degree, — ToothyMaw

Yes, I would call the support of armed insurrection 'rule breaking to a degree'. But I was referring to your specific examples of abortion racial equality, on the right-wing rhetoric is so egregiously mismatched with the actual behaviour of its leadership.

Take for example the fact that many on the right pushed back against what they thought was the literal defunding of police departments, because of their (correct) intuition that anarchism doesn't really work. — ToothyMaw

That is less an example of defending institutions than of deliberately misrepresenting the position of the other party. A tactic not unusual to the right. Was anarchism advocated or even mentioned by the left? Whence did that term enter the discussion of police funding? Why is anarchism never an issue when de-funding public services that don't carry guns?

No, but try to adopt a nuanced view on race, attempt to discuss it with candor, and see how quickly you get declared a bigot or a white privilege denier. — ToothyMaw

Some people have certainly expressed rigid views on forums. But I am unaware of any Democrat having been ostracized by the party, or left unsopported in mid-campaign for expressed a nuanced view on anything.

but it [supporting the disastrous Trump] also demonstrates that the right tends to come together despite small, or large, differences in views. — ToothyMaw

It does now. They drummed out dissenters large and small, starting back in the Nixon years, with further purges under Reagan and Bush II.

Yeah, and the right doesn't seem to care what you do at all so long as you toe the line. — ToothyMaw

I agree but they get scared when the masses start to sharpen their proverbial pitchforks.

If the citizens of the US, be they left or right, actually cared about our government not ruining lives, they would have voted out the neoliberals and fascists for the many atrocities committed against people in other countries. Selling weapons to Saudi-Arabia so they can blow up brown people halfway across the world? No noise. — ToothyMaw

Such people must then accept their lot and suffer in silence or find their voice, find courage and fight for a better world against the nefarious rich and powerful. Them's the choices!

Honestly, I have little forgiveness for them myself, but I at least try to understand, some of the time, why they do what they do. — ToothyMaw

Sounds fair minded to me. I think some seek wealth and power because they find the world quite a scary and unpredictable place, so they try to protect themselves and their nearest and dearest by becoming wealthy enough to place them in gated, secured communities, where they can enjoy privileged lives. Some inherit status and wealth due to dynastic nefarious ancestors, who were very good at playing money trick game and they came to believe that proved they were chosen because they were superior to most and deserved much more than anyone from the 'masses.'

Some of the institutions. The ones that serve their agenda. Like heavily militarized police forces to keep the mob from protesting economic and political disparity and the privatization of everything from drinking water to highways. — Vera Mont

Ideally protestors would not even come into conflict with said pseudo-military police departments. But I don't see anything wrong with the police doing their designated jobs and preventing innocent people from having their businesses and homes ripped apart by angry mobs, swathes of whom could feasibly be construed as verging on militant. Not BLM activists so much as the looters and opportunists that took advantage of the situation.

Killer Mike summed it up when he said that the people need to make a difference with their votes; it is paramount to first build up your house and make it strong to effect lasting change - even if you, understandably, want to see shit burn.

Yes, I would call the support of armed insurrection 'rule breaking to a degree'. But I was referring to your specific examples of abortion racial equality, on the right-wing rhetoric is so egregiously mismatched with the actual behaviour of its leadership. — Vera Mont

I wasn't referring to that specifically, but yes, not denouncing armed insurrections is pretty horrible, even if they don't all necessarily support it.

I would say the right largely follows through on the promises they make, or try to, it's just that so many right-wingers don't understand just what those promises mean; I think it is more that right-wing politicians act contra to what right-wingers actually want as it affects their lives, even if the politician's objectives are met.

For instance, many right-wingers want less taxes because no one likes being taxed. So apparently that is a reason to not have socialized healthcare. Right-wing politicians have no issues with following through on denying us universal healthcare, and they are successful in their opposition to it. Those right-wing voters have no conception of the fact that it would save them money, and if they do, they deny it because they have been indoctrinated into the taxes = bad mentality and just repeat debunked talking-points.

That is less an example of defending institutions than of deliberately misrepresenting the position of the other party. A tactic not unusual to the right. Was anarchism advocated or even mentioned by the left? Whence did that term enter the discussion of police funding? Why is anarchism never an issue when de-funding public services that don't carry guns? — Vera Mont

My point was that the right is quick to act on perceived threats to the current order - far more so than the left. Anarchy, although perhaps not anarchism, would be the direct result of the state no longer having a monopoly on violence, and the right, despite, and also in line with, their tendency to form militias, seems to understand this - that more is at stake than just equal treatment of minorities, although the equal treatment of minorities should always concern us.

In fact, the existence of well-regulated militias is an expression of the right's respect for authority, often times promising to uphold order if order is lost. I have no idea if those militias could actually be effective without heavily centralized command like an army, or if they would abuse their power, but they reflect, somewhat paradoxically, the right's respect for order, I think.

Some people have certainly expressed rigid views on forums. But I am unaware of any Democrat having been ostracized by the party, or left unsopported in mid-campaign for expressed a nuanced view on anything. — Vera Mont

I have been accused of being racist, or a useful idiot for racists, for mentioning black-on-black violence, even though I acknowledge that it is often invoked to draw attention away from the atrocities people of color have, and sometimes still do, suffer for being of color. I argued that it was valid to bring up because murder is murder, even if police brutality is more obviously indicative of an institutional issue than a black man killing another black man.

It does now. They drummed out dissenters large and small, starting back in the Nixon years, with further purges under Reagan and Bush II. — Vera Mont

Right. My history is not that great, and I don't read as much as I should, but I'll take your word for it.

Ideally protestors would not even come into conflict with said pseudo-military police departments. — ToothyMaw

I wasn't referring to protesters. I was referring to the institutions and constitutional rights that the right actually protects. They only seem to support thos institutions that carry guns. Not the public school system, not the right to protest, not fair and free elections, Air Force, yes; APHIS, no; BOP yes, BLA, no; CIA, yes; CDC no; DHS, yes, HHS; EC yes, EPA, no. ...
And I really don't want to get into the details of who initiates conflict between police and protesters in a non-ideal world.

Killer Mike summed it up when he said that the people need to make a difference with their votes; it is paramount to first build up your house and make it strong to effect lasting change - even if you, understandably, want to see shit burn. — ToothyMaw

Sounds nice. I'm sure it sounds especially nostalgic to the many thousands of people disenfranchised by Republican state voting legislation and systematic voter intimidation. I wouldn't be astonished if some people were irate about being prevented from voting and then told: It's all your fault for not voting.

My point was that the right is quick to act on perceived threats to the current order - far more so than the left. — ToothyMaw

That's correct! All entrenched power is quick to defend itself from reform. The more lopsided the disparity between haves and have-nots, the more violently the haves respond to any challenge to their entrenched power.

I have been accused of being racist, or a useful idiot for racists, for mentioning black-on-black violence, — ToothyMaw

By whom? The entire left as a political entity with the power to destroy your life, or by some anonymous poster on an internet forum? It's quite a long way down the scale of harms from being eaten.

Am I a racist if I think black on black crime is worth accounting for when discussing race issues? — ToothyMaw

I don't use the terms "racist" or "racism." I don't think they're useful. But... if you and I were having a discussion about race, and if the first thing you brought up was black on black crime; or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth; that would tell me something significant about whether I can trust your judgement on racial issues.

tolerate — ToothyMaw

Interesting word choice! Would you like to reconsider it?

I don't use the terms "racist" or "racism." I don't think they're useful. But... if you and I were having a discussion about race, and if the first thing you brought up was black on black crime; or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth; that would tell me something significant about whether I can trust your judgement on racial issues. — T Clark

For myself, I think the first discussion should be about some form of reparations, honestly, and from there we could find some solutions to the problems of police brutality, disenfranchisement, and black-on-black crime - the last of which I think, although less obviously than police brutality, is the result of racist institutions and generational poverty on a level many don't fully understand. So yes, making a big fuss about black-on-black crime when people are talking about police brutality and poverty is pretty often a diversion from legitimate challenges to entrenched power, despite what I may have argued in the past.

edit: okay, it is pretty much always a diversion from challenges to power, I totally admit that. Sorry for downplaying it.

I don't use the terms "racist" or "racism." — T Clark

I think it is okay to use those terms as long as one understands the weight behind them.

Interesting word choice! Would you like to reconsider it? — Agent Smith

You'll just have to tolerate my word choice, as I have no idea where you picked that out in my OP. Maybe try to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, Smith?

I wasn't referring to protesters. I was referring to the institutions and constitutional rights that the right actually protects. They only seem to support thos institutions that carry guns. Not the public school system, not the right to protest, not fair and free elections, Air Force, yes; APHIS, no; BOP yes, BLA, no; CIA, yes; CDC no; DHS, yes, HHS; EC yes, EPA, no. ...
And I really don't want to get into the details of who initiates conflict between police and protesters in a non-ideal world. — Vera Mont

Good point. If the right cared about all institutions and the well-being of everyone in the country, regardless of skin color, they would give more support to those institutions. I agree. And yes, often times the police initiate against the protestors. I acknowledge that.

Sounds nice. I'm sure it sounds especially nostalgic to the many thousands of people disenfranchised by Republican state voting legislation and systematic voter intimidation. I wouldn't be astonished if some people were irate about being prevented from voting and then told: It's all your fault for not voting. — Vera Mont

If voting is not sufficient then what would you advocate for? Some sort of upheaval? It seems to me there would be a maximum rate of transformation that our institutions could handle without a rupture. Or so my intuition tells me.

That's correct! All entrenched power is quick to defend itself from reform. The more lopsided the disparity between haves and have-nots, the more violently the haves respond to any challenge to their entrenched power. — Vera Mont

Yes, agreed again. Good point.

By whom? The entire left as a political entity with the power to destroy your life, or by some anonymous poster on an internet forum? It's quite a long way down the scale of harms from being eaten. — Vera Mont

I'll have to comb the internet for some more extreme examples if I am to defend that. Yes, I have only been censured by anonymous posters, and that is indeed far from having one's life ruined.

But it annoyed me.

If voting is not sufficient then what would you advocate for? — ToothyMaw

Another shift? Okay, let's take one step back. I didn't say voting is not sufficient. I said they were prevented from voting.

many thousands of people disenfranchised by Republican state voting legislation and systematic voter intimidation. — Vera Mont

This is one of the major issues the Domocrats are trying so hard to remedy, against such strenuous opposition from Republicans. You are aware that a faction even wants to rewrite the constitution, to take more rights away from citizens?

Duvall opposed legislation that would have added South Dakota to 19 other states calling for a gathering known as a convention of states, following a plan mapped out by a conservative group that wants to change parts of the United States’ foundational document. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-spends-big-in-state-level-effort-to-change-u-s-constitution....

More on who eats whom:

The campaign against Duvall was part of a more than $600,000 push in at least five states earlier this year by the group, Convention of States Action, and its affiliates in Republican primaries to elect sympathetic lawmakers who could add more states to its column. Much of the money comes from groups that do not have to disclose their donors, masking the identity of who is funding the push to change the Constitution.

what would you advocate for? Some sort of upheaval? — ToothyMaw

A major overhaul is somewhat overdue. What I would advocate for, were I a US citizen, is major reform of the electoral system. It had some serious flaws at the outset that were not effectively addressed by amendments. And the interpretation of those amendments is within the domain of an increasingly political judiciary. And the problem of states' rights, which has been causing cracks and breaches in the union from its inception, has grown into great yawning fissures. Then, there is systemic ethnic discrimination, inequality of access, disparity of influence, the ubiquitous influence of money in all matters political and legal, the lobbies, the vested interest blocs, the corruption, the hostilities and the incredibly poor information available to the voting public.
Yup, an upheaval sounds about right. I'd prefer it be a political one, rather than armed conflict, like last time. The US never recovered from that civil war; the opening salvo of Part II is not that far off.

But it annoyed me. — ToothyMaw

Completely understandable. I don't much like being upbraided, reprimanded and labelled, either. It happens a lot; has been happening for 20 years, and it still annoys me.

okay, it is pretty much always a diversion from challenges to power, I totally admit that. Sorry for downplaying it. — ToothyMaw

I understand the point you were making and I generally agree. On the other hand, just as you've noted, those unwilling or unable to acknowledge our racial history often bring up subjects to downplay it's impacts.

I don't use the terms "racist" or "racism."
— T Clark

I think it is okay to use those terms as long as one understands the weight behind them. — ToothyMaw

I was speaking for myself, not criticizing your word choice.

It really is difficult to discuss American politics and societies (all of them, north to south pole) without some mention of race, racism, the theory and practice of discrimination based on one's continent of genetic origin. It has played such a significant - often decisive - part in the formation of our present nations, it's simply unavoidable. And when we don't talk about it, we still keep running up against it in the dark. Better, I think to discuss than not - but it's hard to do without acrimony.

It really is difficult to discuss American politics and societies (all of them, north to south pole) without some mention of race, racism, the theory and practice of discrimination based on one's continent of genetic origin. It has played such a significant - often decisive - part in the formation of our present nations, it's simply unavoidable. And when we don't talk about it, we still keep running up against it in the dark. Better, I think to discuss than not - but it's hard to do without acrimony. — Vera Mont

Yes, tensions over race are palpable in the US, or so I have found. I have had a variety of roommates, and honestly it seems to me that all of the best and worst qualities are equally dispersed across racial and ethnic lines, even if there are different cultural conventions more or less commonly observed by certain races or ethnicities.

Even though people of color commit more crimes in general, I think people with empathy realize that there are extenuating circumstances and screeching at them about their culture accomplishes nothing. Uplifting oneself can be like being expected to win a race one has not only not been prepared for, but also the details of which are unknown. The goals and aspirations of a person, and their ability to achieve good things, hinges upon the conditions they are born into, and what they are taught. But even the idea of the status of being uplifted itself is problematic - what is it to be uplifted? Is it to be more like white people? I don't think so.

I have had a variety of roommates, and honestly it seems to me that all of the best and worst qualities are equally dispersed across racial and ethnic lines, — ToothyMaw

I don't think either character or culture factor into prejudice. It's a political construct. If you look back through history, you see the pattern of where and by whom racial stereotypes were manufactured, and to serve what purpose. (Obviously, consolidation of power, land acquisition and monetary gain - but you can find a much more specific motivation for each campaign.)

Even though people of color commit more crimes in general, I think people with empathy realize that there are extenuating circumstances and screeching at them about their culture accomplishes nothing. — ToothyMaw

I'm not sure how much empathy is required if you begin with accurate and relevant statistics. What percent of the entire population is what racial designation? (I use designation distinctly, rather than origin or makeup, because the DNA is inextricably mixed)
What percent of the population belongs to the top 0.1% of income? What's the ratio of ethnicities in that percentile? How about the top 10% What percent lives below the poverty line? What is the ratio of ethnicities in that bracket? What percent of each distinct ethnic designation is or has been systematically barred from political representation, education, home and business ownership, employment opportunities and advancement? What percent of which ethnic group has been regularly attacked, arrested and harassed by police? What percent of arrestees has access to adequate legal representation? (No, I do not mean the frazzled, inexperienced public defender with 119 clients and no support staff!)
Now, where are the crime statistics collected and reported? Not at the point of occurrence, but at the point of sentencing. Do we know how many of the accused are actually guilty? How many pled out so they could get out of jail and make a living top support their families? How many well-off perpetrators got away with the very same crime?
The US justice system is not in mint condition at the moment. I'm not sure you should be drawing your conclusions about society from its performance.

I totally acknowledge that the justice system is severely flawed, but I have trouble believing that there are such confounding factors that people of color don't genuinely commit more crimes. Honestly, it doesn't matter, however, because my point is more so that many ignorant people believe that people of color commit significantly more crime, which appears to be true, because of their culture alone, and disregard other factors.

I mean, if you can provide a little bit of evidence that there are confounding factors that make it merely appear that people of color commit more crime, I'm totally open to amending my position. I know, for instance, that drug legislation in the 80's attempting to target the use of cocaine unfairly targeted crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine.

However, the statistics say that people of color commit more violent crimes too, and I can only explain that through culture and the lens of historical and institutional oppression. But we should always keep in mind that nobody must deal hard stuff or commit violent crimes really ever - there is always a choice, even if you are disadvantaged and disenfranchised. The choice is just harder.

I'm not sure how much empathy is required if you begin with accurate and relevant statistics. — Vera Mont

The empathy factors in in people understanding that people of color who live in low-income, high crime areas cannot merely pull themselves up by their bootstraps - and neither could they in the person of color's shoes. But yes, from an analytical standpoint, the information resoundingly indicates that people of color are disadvantaged.

But even understanding the statistics and information, some people are incapable of the sort of cognitive empathy you outline in your post - they see the statistics and claim that they are misleading, or they just block them out totally upon realizing they contradict their own position.

I totally acknowledge that the justice system is severely flawed, but I have trouble believing that there are such confounding factors that people of color don't genuinely commit more crimes. — ToothyMaw

You can believe as you please. I asked about exact numbers - and they're not as easy to find or correlate as 'popular wisdom'. I'm saying the statistics that are readily available from law enforcement agencies do not accurately reflect the proportional rate of criminal activity among all ethnic groups. That it would take a much deeper and wider research to discover the actual proportions.

I mean, if you can provide a little bit of evidence that there are confounding factors that make it merely appear that people of color commit more crime, I'm totally open to amending my position. — ToothyMaw

I mentioned a few factors. All law enforcement disproportionately targets minorities and the poor. So do prosecutors, because they have political campaigns to look good in. People identified as Black make up 13.6% of the overall population, but 19% of the poor; while Hispanics are 19% of the population and 24% of the poor.
If for no other reason, the poor are easy to catch, easy to intimidate and easy to convict. With a clearance rate below 50%, police forces are seizing every easy win. They're over-gunned, undermanned, undertrained as a general rule, and in many police forces, the leadership encourages a siege mentality, treating the population as the enemy. It also happens that poorest states have the highest Black and Hispanic populations and the most trigger-happy police forces. But more importantly, there is this:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/15/see-if-police-in-your-state-reported-crime-data-to-the-fbi You can't always go by the police reports.

The empathy factors in in people understanding that people of color who live in low-income, high crime areas cannot merely pull themselves up by their bootstraps - and neither could they in the person of color's shoes. — ToothyMaw

This is also true... of white people, as well. But empathy is not very useful if it doesn't translate to voting for better social services and fairer taxation.

No, but try to adopt a nuanced view on race, attempt to discuss it with candor, and see how quickly you get declared a bigot or a white privilege denier. — ToothyMaw

Ok, let's try. I'll start with a personal anecdote. My daughter aged 4 was a highly articulate, outgoing confident child able to engage children and adults in conversation and eager to relate to friends and strangers alike. She was thus very keen to go to school. But within a couple of weeks of starting school, she started to demand that her (white) father take and collect her, rather than her mixed race mother,
and then, one evening, she cutoff all her long frizzy hair and hid it under the bed.

Now where I personally would like to draw a hard line is at the point where anyone whomsoever tries to make a comparison between this kind of experience, and being called a white privilege denier. And that is why this conversation becomes difficult. We are supposed to be having candid discussion about race, but even before it has begun, you have brought forth the terrible injustices that white folks have to put up with. So where do we go from there?

you have brought forth the terrible injustices that white folks have to put up with. So where do we go from there? — unenlightened

We all hopefully move towards a better realisation that the race/cultural competition amongst the poor regarding which culture/colour is the most criminal is EXACTLY what the nefarious rich want.
Whilst they run away with the cream, the poor are mostly at war with each other over mostly scraps from the tables of the rich and powerful, very low-level opportunity and resource. In most 3rd world countries, it's at the level of basic sustenance.

I mean, if you can provide a little bit of evidence that there are confounding factors that make it merely appear that people of color commit more crime, I'm totally open to amending my position. — ToothyMaw

How much of what someone like Donald Trump or Elon Musk or The King and Queen dynastic families do, would be considered criminal, if we even got to know about even some of the truth of it?
How many corrupt police and military personnel exist RIGHT NOW? Globally?
How many corrupt civil servants in positions of significant authority?
How many corrupt politicians RIGHT NOW?
Who gives a shit what colour they are or what culture they were born into or whatever creed drives them etc. These are the criminals we should be really worried about, not the small fry amongst the poor.

White people rule most of the world imo, so the biggest, nastiest criminals are probably white but who cares?
Is a Chinese dictator any better or worse than a Russian one or an African one or the one called Trump who was president of America?
Bad behaviour has no colour, creed or cultural imperative.

Ok, let's try. I'll start with a personal anecdote. My daughter aged 4 was a highly articulate, outgoing confident child able to engage children and adults in conversation and eager to relate to friends and strangers alike. She was thus very keen to go to school. But within a couple of weeks of starting school, she started to demand that her (white) father take and collect her, rather than her mixed race mother, and then, one evening, she cutoff all her long frizzy hair and hid it under the bed. — unenlightened

For me, this is the heart of the matter. I've told the story before of my friend who visited Hawaii for the first time when she was in her 60s. Because her skin color was similar to theirs, she was generally mistaken for a native Hawaiian. People treated her with friendliness and welcome instead of suspicion and disapproval. She says it was the first time in her life she felt at home. Very few of the discussions about race deal with this kind of experience. This is from an article about US Senator Tim Scott from 2016. Scott is a black Republican from South Carolina:

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott gave a deeply personal speech on the Senate floor in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday about the "deep divide" between communities and law enforcement.

While many law enforcement officers do good, he said, some do not. "I've experienced it myself." Scott revealed that he has been stopped seven times in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure. But the vast majority of the time I was pulled over for driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or something else just as trivial."

He described several encounters with police, including one where he was stopped because the officer suspected his car was stolen. He described a similar incident that happened to his brother, a command sergeant major in the U.S. Army. And he told the story of a staffer who was "pulled over so many times here in D.C. for absolutely no reason other than driving a nice car." The staffer eventually traded in his Chrysler for a "more obscure form of transportation" because "he was tired of being targeted."

"I do not know many African-American men who do not have a very similar story to tell no matter their profession. No matter their income, no matter their disposition in life," he said.

He asked his Senate colleagues to "imagine the frustration, the irritation, the sense of a loss of dignity that accompanies each of those stops."

Scott also described walking into an office building on Capitol Hill and having an officer ask him to show his ID even though he wore a Senate pin.

While he is thankful he has not faced bodily harm, he said, "there is absolutely nothing more frustrating, more damaging to your soul than when you know you're following the rules and being treated like you are not."

"We must find a way to fill these cracks in the very foundation of our country," he said.

The senator ended with a plea to his colleagues to "recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of another, does not mean it does not exist." — NPR

Now where I personally would like to draw a hard line is at the point where anyone whomsoever tries to make a comparison between this kind of experience, and being called a white privilege denier. And that is why this conversation becomes difficult. We are supposed to be having candid discussion about race, but even before it has begun, you have brought forth the terrible injustices that white folks have to put up with. So where do we go from there? — unenlightened

I don't think I equated the kinds of experiences you just recounted with being called a white privilege denier or racist. Being called a racist does absolutely nothing to me in particular, although it is mildly annoying.

Your daughter obviously suffered some serious pain there, and I'm sorry to hear that. It indicates that racism is pervasive still - if anyone doubted it.

My complaint now, since writing the OP, about being called a racist, would be mostly that it eliminates conversation, rather than that it causes emotional damage to the one being called a racist.

I've been thinking about something I heard Hitchens say about something Chomsky wrote that sounded about right, and that might give what I'm saying some necessary context.

There is no good reason for racism. No argument could ever be made that could justify treating one race differently from another. Even if it were revealed that there were differences in intelligence, for instance, between races, it wouldn't matter. The shared preferences, the basic elements that make humans human, none of that can be diminished - there is no threat to equity. I think we should keep that in mind when considering what some random ignorant white person has to say.

I mean, they have no chance of providing an argument that can justify racism, so instead of engaging them on their level we should just stay calm and dismantle what they are saying from the point of view that even if they can demonstrate some sort of backwards ass argument that might sound valid, it doesn't matter because it justifies nothing. It is absolutely inconsequential - academically, at least.

I hope that wasn't condescending, and I also hope that your daughter found some cool, open-minded people to surround herself with.

Yes, we all agree, there are corrupt people in power, but you might want to structure your posts such that they can be read more easily. You could be presenting a correct proof for a Millenium Prize problem, and no one would bother to read it.

Fanks fur yir impudent advices, ah try ma best tae type in proper England by ra way and get all ra words pure right but It always good to get advices fae Americans who are known everywhere as better typers of ra England than even the Englander peoples!

Didn't read past the second word.

It's not one's fault than you don't spoke right England.