I think at some point dialogue doesn't do much, that is when your basic premisses are totally different... no amount of argument will change that, because those basic values are not a matter of rational argument or dialogue to begin with.
— ChatteringMonkey
We usually believe that our basic premises are totally different, and we believe our own strawmen depictions of the other. Some people want and have to see their fellow people as enemies. — ssu

Sure, but it's not merely a wish for antagonism. There are real differences, in temperament... and also in societal position. Seeking a consensus only works if interests and basic values at least align to some extend I think.

And even if we were to try to look for a consensus between two opposing sets of ideas, it's by no means clear that a compromise between those sets is always better than any of those sets separately. To give a dumb example maybe, would Apple sofware and Microsoft sofware be better operating systems if you were to mix them together as a compromise? I don't think so. In compromising maybe you avoid some tensions, and that can be a reason, but you probably also lose some of the integrity that a certain set of ideas has as a self-contained whole.

Huh? No, the objective is that black people aren't murdered by cops in public on film - among other things. Not these shitty meaningless slogans that made for kindergarden children. — StreetlightX

Wow, you mean to go back to the subject and not go on replying to your bombastic yet confused "consensus is poison" views? Fine.

So is talking about "US police using excessive force" OK or does that anger you too much? Can with systemic racism also be mentioned systemic inequality, systemic povetry and crime? Police training, policing strategies? Or is talking about them a sign of avoiding the issue or hidden racism itself according to you?

In compromising maybe you avoid some tensions, and that can be a reason, but you probably also lose some of the integrity that a certain set of ideas has as a self-contained whole. — ChatteringMonkey

Seeking consensus doesn't mean inherently mean compromise. I think your view here is that if you make something in the democratic process and find a point that the majority can agree to do, usually it's some kind of compromise. What I referred here to "consensus" is something different. There is a consensus that openly racist views and classic racism, not just bigotry, isn't tolerated. Hundred years ago it really wasn't so.

Huh? No, the objective is that black people aren't murdered by cops in public on film - among other things. Not these shitty meaningless slogans that made for kindergarden children. — StreetlightX

I think you're missing the point ssu is trying to make. Of course you need consensus. It's precisely why, despite good beginnings you say this:

Some here think there's a huge transformation underway, yet I'm not yet sure about it. It's positive though. — ssu

I suspect, you're not sure because you're not sure there's consensus in enough governmental bodies to make an effective and lasting difference. Or that the momentum that's causing a lot of people to change their opinion, or maybe not so much change but to have the white moderate majority finally speak up, will get lost.

In any case, I think we can agree that far reaching reforms of police that is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike is better than such reforms only being supported by Democrats. Or that it becomes an identity politics issue and as a consequence automatically marginalised.

Seeking consensus doesn't mean inherently mean compromise. I think your view here is that if you make something in the democratic process and find a point that the majority can agree to do, usually it's some kind of compromise. What I referred here to "consensus" is something different. There is a consensus that openly racist views and classic racism, not just bigotry, isn't tolerated. Hundred years ago it really wasn't so. — ssu

Okay, but that consensus about classic racism wasn't reached by merely talking to eachother. It was the result of a hard fought battle, and not only metaphorically.

Wow, you mean to go back to the subject and not go on replying to your bombastic yet confused "consensus is poison" views? Fine.

So is talking about "US police using excessive force" OK or does that anger you too much? Can with systemic racism also be mentioned systemic inequality, systemic povetry and crime? Police training, policing strategies? Or is talking about them a sign of avoiding the issue or hidden racism itself according to you? — ssu

I have no idea what you're babbling about here.

In any case, I think we can agree that far reaching reforms of police that is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike is better than such reforms only being supported by Democrats. Or that it becomes an identity politics issue and as a consequence automatically marginalised. — Benkei

I don't care about either democrats or republicans, both of whom can all drown in the ocean for all I care. And no, we really don't need consensus at all. MLK, at the time at which he gave give much-loved-by-kumbyah-types 'I have a dream speech', was one of the most despised men in America - had approval ratings in the low 30s or something. After he was murdered, cities across the US broke into riotous rage, which culminated in the civil rights act of 1968. And the year before in '67, the 'long hot summer' of riots, equally destructive, culminated in LBJ's Kerner Commission to acknowledge the role of deep social inequity as a cause of the riots. You don't need consensus. You need them to shit their pants so they do what they must despite not wanting to.

There was no 'consensus' between segregationist America and blacks - the segregationists simply lost, they were beaten and vanquished (not counting the re-embodiment of segregation along economic and geographic lines). Apartheid in SA did not disappear because of 'consensus' - it disappeared despite consensus, because the white population was under international attack and shaming. No one cried for 'consensus' when they bombed the fuck out of Berlin and liberated the Jews from camps. Fuck. Consensus. Consensus is in every case a retroactive fairytale, told to soothe and prevent further action. You don't wait for consensus - you drag it out of people kicking and screaming when they can't do anything else. If the democrats and republicans 'reach consensus' it will have been because they could not do otherwise.

In any case, I think we can agree that far reaching reforms of police that is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike is better than such reforms only being supported by Democrats. Or that it becomes an identity politics issue and as a consequence automatically marginalised. — Benkei

Or part of the so-called "Culture war". To portray this as being part of a "culture war" is the way to try to marginalize this (and as you said, identity politics). Fox News is all over it. Yeah, I know, it's watched just by old people, but old people tend to vote and what they have their focus on the next elections.

Okay, but that consensus about classic racism wasn't reached by merely talking to eachother. It was the result of a hard fought battle, and not only metaphorically. — ChatteringMonkey

That's true, but those times are really far away. You don't have eugenics departments in the university anymore.

Let's think about the present. According to Pew research center:

84% of black adults said that, in dealing with police, blacks are generally treated less fairly than whites; 63% of whites said the same. Similarly, 87% of blacks and 61% of whites said the U.S. criminal justice system treats black people less fairly.

Others might disagree with me on this subject, but I think change can happen peacefully on the matter. How this majority view is used to reform the system is the big question.

I have no idea what you're babbling about here. — StreetlightX

I genuinely believe you don't, Aussie.

It's funny - in fact sad, really - that these debates have been going on for so long. There's this great clip of James Baldwin, debating some Yale philosophy professor whose name no one remembers but for this moment of humiliation, when the professor wheels out the classic line - heard here so many times already - about 'why must we always concentrate on color?'. Baldwin, using FACTS AND REASON DESTROYS SAID CUCK YALE PROFESSOR.

Fuck, yeah. :cheer:



I think street is bang on about consensus. Sometimes it needs to be forced rather than reached.

Okay, but that consensus about classic racism wasn't reached by merely talking to eachother. It was the result of a hard fought battle, and not only metaphorically.
— ChatteringMonkey
That's true, but those times are really far away. You don't have eugenics departments in the university anymore. — ssu

No, the problem is systemic racism now. And like with overt racism, I don't think a real solution to this problem will come from dialogue alone.... some pressure is needed for that it seems to me, in one form or another.

84% of black adults said that, in dealing with police, blacks are generally treated less fairly than whites; 63% of whites said the same. Similarly, 87% of blacks and 61% of whites said the U.S. criminal justice system treats black people less fairly.

Others might disagree with me on this subject, but I think change can happen peacefully this time on the matter. How this majority view is used to reform the system is the big question. — ssu

Majority view that there is systemic racism, is not the same as a will to do something about it, especially not if doing something about it will cost said white people something.... which I think it necessarily will since the problem is in part economic.

It's a bit of a tangent but since you're coming now from the individualist side on these topics I'm wondering about how some things works in your moral framework. What do you make of the right to self determination? — Benkei

I support it. If, by virtue of the discussion, we're just talking about groups I'll deal with groups but it's not my ideal method. I deal with individuals whenever possible. If we're talking about macro-level issues like international relations we do need to shift lenses.

:chin:

Something something these people only speak the language of private property and lives are otherwise meaningless something something.

I was watching this last night and it illuminates somewhat the difficulty that some possibly white people have with this kind of discussion. I'm not sure how I feel about this happening in schools, but it's interesting to consider the reactions of the children in relation to this thread.

So it starts with a test for unconscious racial bias, which you can find online if you are interested in your own possible bias. Having established that most of the class had some bias, they were separated into a white group and a non-white group. It was immediately obvious that the non-white group were at ease talking about race, ethnicity and culture, whereas the white group were uncomfortable.

There is an inversion that takes place for whites, whereby when race is the topic, they are suddenly at a disadvantage. When the children do the privilege walk exercise, everyone starts to see how the disadvantage that has been inverted operates in favour of white folks every day. It is upsetting to realise.

No wonder half the 'solutions' proposed by non-blacks is "what if we just stop talking about race :hearts: :starstruck: :flower: ". Well no Chad, but it's no accident that it's the 'solution' that just so happens to make you feel the least uncomfortable. Because we all know the real issue over racism is assuaging white anxiety.

Because we all know the real issue over racism is assuaging white anxiety. — StreetlightX

Well it's crap I know, but actually this is the real issue, because it's not a problem of minorities, only for them. So how are we going to convince what appears to be a majority of people on this site for intelligent people, that their attitudes are the problem? How can we convey to them that the fantasy of white history as the global benefactor is one they can survive losing, that white privilege, like male privilege confers only a false sense of superiority, and that only a properly level playing field makes the game worth winning?

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I defined these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now — Bob Dylan

how are we going to convince what appears to be a majority of people on this site for intelligent people, that their attitudes are the problem? — unenlightened

That's exactly what the whole argument about systemic racism is trying to avoid. The idea that it's white people's attitudes to blacks that's the cause of the problem. Something nice and 'culture-friendly' that we can sort out with a few kindergarten lessons and some well chosen children's books. Not something like the consistent failure to do anything about housing, employment, healthcare, social care... All of which are policies responsible for the systemically racist injustice, plenty of which are as ignored by rich black CEOs as by rich white CEOs.

Getting us white men to recognise and declare our privelidge is nothing more than a mumbled apology, and no less empty of real value. The idea of recognising white privelidge is just another distraction, if I come to you on my last crumbs of food, homeless and desperate, I don't want an apology for how I got there. I want food, a house, and some opportunity.

We need to get away from the idea that inequality among the underprivileged is the problem, it's not, its just a description and a function of it. The problem is that the category exists at all.

Something nice and 'culture-friendly' that we can sort out with a few kindergarten lessons and some well chosen children's books. Not something like the consistent failure to do anything about housing, employment, healthcare, social care. — Isaac

False dichotomy, I'd say. Why is there a consistent failure to do anything? Because there is a very strong commitment to the notion that there is nothing wrong, and if there is, it is all those lefties and others banging on about race. And for fuck's sake let's not pretend that black CEOs are a big problem here.

Why is there a consistent failure to do anything? Because there is a very strong commitment to the notion that there is nothing wrong, and if there is, it is all those lefties and others banging on about race. — unenlightened

No. I think it's because a lot of powerful people are making a lot of money out of the underclass, a necessary component of any capitalist system. The fact that they can then use their media, lobbying and society influences to come with post hoc rationalisations for why things are that way is secondary. Stress policing (the current focus) is a necessary consequence of an underprivileged class, incarceration is the 'final solution' to a class of people given little option but crime or nothing. Equalising the race of those affected is not the challenge.

for fuck's sake let's not pretend that black CEOs are a big problem here. — unenlightened

I never even mentioned the scale, its the focus I'm talking about. CEOs {wealthy and powerful} are the problem, the underclass are the victims. Framing it as white men are the problem and non-white women are the victims is missing the point, and in danger of thereby missing the solution. Systemic racism is (should be) just about pointing out that this division disproportionately puts blacks (and women, since you mentioned them) in the underclass and whites (and men) in the CEOs {the wealthy and powerful}. It should not confuse a description of the problem with the identification of the solution.

I think it's because a lot of powerful people are making a lot of money out of the underclass, a necessary component of any capitalist system. The fact that they can then use their media, lobbying and society influences to come with post hoc rationalisations for why things are that way is secondary. — Isaac

It isn't secondary at all. If it was secondary, they wouldn't bother. The problem is social and psychological, and both aspects are equally important. Teaching people to recite platitudes without changing politics is futile, but trying to change politics without changing minds is impossible.

I condone violence. Stand your ground, wimps! Someone violating your human rights? See the bastards to their graves pronto. — unenlightened

This got me accused of being a crazy leftie, but it was intended as a parody of right wing extremism - presumably because the context was 'rioters' rather than 'businesspeople defending their property rights'. It is a very natural hypocrisy that CEOs like to teach, and I like to try and unteach, because it is part of how the inequality is maintained in a democracy.

It isn't secondary at all. If it was secondary, they wouldn't bother. The problem is social and psychological, and both aspects are equally important. Teaching people to recite platitudes without changing politics is futile, but trying to change politics without changing minds is impossible. — unenlightened

I understand, what concerns me is do we refute, one at a time, the stories told to excuse the existence of an underclass, or do we just dispute the story that there should be an underclass at all. This is the concern of many left-wing commentators, that disputing the 'race' narrative deflects from disputing the neoliberal narrative.

Why can't we dispute both? I think, the identification of perpetrator/victim groups outside of economic or political enfranchisement just creates a deflection. The wealthy or the enfranchised might well be in one of the victim groups (so that's him/her absolved of all responsibility), if not then they get to absolve responsibility by a sufficient display of contrition. And why would they do any more? These are people who can walk right past a homeless person and buy some plastic piece of shit they didn't even need. They can perform the most astonishing feats of self-excuse. It's important that we keep the most urgent issues in their face, not provide them with fully-formed excuses to avoid them.

So how are we going to convince what appears to be a majority of people on this site for intelligent people, that their attitudes are the problem? — unenlightened

Yes, people not endorsing or condoning looting and violence obviously is the huge attitude problem they have here. The reason, I guess, has to be their utter ignorance about the issues at hand thanks to their white priviledge, their false understanding of history and/or their hidden racist tendencies they have not have had to come to terms with. No other reason can exist, right?

Interesting recap of a recent study on the correlations between race, police violence, and class:

"Feldman found that “the rate of police killings increased as census tract poverty increased,” with the level of police killings in the highest-poverty quintile more than three times that of the lowest-poverty quintile. In layman’s terms, you’re overall more likely to be killed by a police officer if you’re working-class or poor. Given this country’s long and continuing history of intense racial oppression, it’s little surprise that black and Latino people are more likely to live in high-poverty areas than white people: Feldman observes that “median census tract poverty was 9.4% for whites compared to 18.7% for black and 16.8% of Latino individuals.”

The paper then examines the relationship between poverty quintile and police killings across racial demographics. What Feldman finds is notable: the correlation between poverty and susceptibility to fatal police violence that exists for white people is much stronger than for black and Latino people. In other words, white people who live in the poorest neighborhoods are at high risk of getting killed by a police officer, but black people are at high risk everywhere.".

The full report, for anyone who wants the details.

Definitely worth reading.

Yes, people not endorsing or condoning looting and violence obviously is the huge attitude problem they have here — ssu

That's not remotely what I am saying. What I am suggesting is that there is a disparity between the condemnation of violence in defence of the human right to fair and equal treatment, and the support of violence in defence of property rights. As you are so clearly a man of peace, no doubt you also condemn the use of violence to defend property rights, in which case you will support and applaud my efforts to point out the need for even-handedness in these matters, so as to minimise the tendency to violence.

What Feldman finds is notable: the correlation between poverty and susceptibility to fatal police violence that exists for white people is much stronger than for black and Latino people. In other words, white people who live in the poorest neighborhoods are at high risk of getting killed by a police officer, but black people are at high risk everywhere.". — StreetlightX

You should forget the Native Americans. And there's how the systemic racism shows itself.

As for the police killings, even if more whites are killed, for African American proportionally twice more are killed. For the police to use force is far more likely in an encounter with an African American than with a white person. In a country with more firearms than people the police basically behave as engaging with a possible Taleban fighter. This creates a culture were the police responds with force. Add short training times and distrust in the police and you have many underlying problems.

, FYI, you can link directly to twitter as well, nifty

That's not remotely what I am saying. — unenlightened

That's good.

What I am suggesting is that there is a disparity between the condemnation of violence in defence of the human right to fair and equal treatment, and the support of violence in defence of property rights. — unenlightened

Is it really? I'm not so sure about that. It think that there's a difference between people here rejecting violence and looting and right wing commentators instilling fear of looting and violence with the objective to divide people (for the elections). The latter are the real problem, not the people with ideas similar to PF.

As you are so clearly a man of peace, no doubt you also condemn the use of violence to defend property rights, in which case you will support and applaud my efforts to point out the need for even-handedness in these matters, so as to minimise the tendency to violence. — unenlightened

Coming from a country where you simply DO NOT get a licence for a firearm for personal protection and killing a burglar would likely get you yourself in court, I'm not at all a fan of the "If you step on my lawn, I will shoot" thinking. But I can assure you that I'm not a pacifist, far from it.

The US is a country that has already a huge security system enlarged after the "War on Terror" there just waiting to pick a "credible threat" for it to tackle. I do worry about the situation IF it would get worse. Yet the cities aren't burning, so no need to be too alarmist. Similar rioting happens in France all the time and still Paris is a wonderful city.