we have a system that favors blacks, as you need to have a certain the color of skin to obtain certain handouts paid for by all taxpayers, to say certain words that others can't, to ignore the plight of others in favor of the plight of "your people" as if "your people" matter more, and to make assumptions about individuals based on what clothes they wear (police uniforms) and the color of their skins (whites are racists). — Harry Hindu

Do you have document proof that my black skin is favored? Handouts? Oh wait you mean welfare something that favors predominantly white women?

"whites are the biggest beneficiaries when it comes to government safety-net programs like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly referred to as welfare."

See:https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252

Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites? — Harry Hindu

If you want to go there sure per capita but it doesn't cancel out the greatest crimes committed by white historically both in the United States and across the world. Considering you call yourself "Harry Hindu" I would assume you know the well documented treatment of Indians from India and how the British during their tenure there created colorism among the Indian people but I digress. I fail to see the correlation between your mentioning of crime rate and what @Baden was saying.

If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes? — Harry Hindu

Fun fact: Majority of police (in urban communities) think people of color in low income areas are criminal hence the racial bias studies done:

"I’ve had more than one retired police officer tell me there is a running joke in law enforcement when it comes to racial profiling: It never happens . . . and it works. But the problem with trying to dismiss profiling concerns by noting that higher rates at which some minority groups commit certain crimes is that it overlooks the fact that huge percentages of black and Latino people have been pulled over, stopped on the street and generally harassed despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong. Stop-and-frisk data, for example, consistently show that about 3 percent of these encounters produce any evidence of a crime." See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/#Policing

So blacks are doing the same thing — Harry Hindu

If you are an intelligent person please stop with the pluralism in your words. "Blacks" aren't a monolith we all don't think the same. Considering you're talking about generalizations to @Baden it would behoove you to use phrases like "It would appear some blacks" or "some blacks" not "blacks" for starters.

I agree that racism is not the primary problem facing the African American community, — Hanover

As an African-American, I tire when people who don't share my experiences try to examine my experiences through their lens instead of listening and knowing our story.

Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?

Would “positive” racial and ethnic discrimination such as affirmative action qualify as systemic racism? Here in Canada there is the Employment Equity Act which requires federally regulated industries to favor women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities, or in other words, anyone but able-bodied light-skinned men. — NOS4A2

Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?

You're definitely on point

I'd say the school book story is that after MLK racism was solved, more or less. — Moliere

I would also say that is untrue however I believe the "school book" aspect was satire on your part

The police murdered a human being. — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

The color and sex are irrelevant. — Harry Hindu

According to you. The history of my parents, as well as my grand-parents and their parents and so on tell a different story.

The fact that protests happen as a result of a black person being killed when many whites have been killed by the same method indicates that White Lives Don't Matter as much a Black Lives. — Harry Hindu

White lives do matter if we take a historical comparison of the judicial system in their conviction between white men and black men (and women). Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/).

But then there are many more Black Lives taken at the hands of other Blacks, but no protests as a result of that either, so it seems that only Black Lives Ended by Police Brutality Matter is what "Black Lives Matter" really means. — Harry Hindu

This is a common trope many white supremacists use to discount, deny, and deflect to the issues concerning police brutality. Those that ask "what about black on black crime?" I simply respond, there is no black on black crime just as there is no reverse racism. There is only crime, and there is only racism. Black people live in proximity to each other, like whites, and Hispanics and any other demographic. Blacks don't simply go out looking for other blacks simply because they're black, some commit crimes because black people live next to black people so that argument is played and flawed.

"When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable.

When someone commits an act of terrorism against in the United States, which rightfully leads to anger and sadness, no one asks, “Well what about how many Americans kill other Americans each year?” Because that would crazy, now wouldn’t it?"

See:https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/06/stop-using-black-on-black-crime-to-deflect-away-from-police-brutality.html

I'm a bit late to the forum (approximately two years due to being in graduate school) however I can touch upon systemic racism and why it exists and what we can do about it. This is perhaps a topic I greatly touched upon a bit in graduate school especially when it relates to ethnic intersectionality in relation to societal equity. Now in regards to systemic racism we must acknowledge the system to which it spurs from creation since the founding of the 13 colonies (as well as abroad in primarily European societies). Clearly, in the Deceleration of Independence "all men are created equal" with the parenthesis that denotes (except people of color). Fast forward til now we still see this. I have a theory as to what we can do to change systemic racism. The direct action we can take politically is to erect politicians who have everyone's best interest including those among the disenfranchised population.

These politicians must first decriminalize drugs that have placed predominantly people of color in jails, revamp laws such as the differences in sentencing of powdered cocaine users versus crack cocaine users. Provide equitable housing opportunities starting with the banks (as there is research to substantiate the claim that banks deny African-Americans more than whites). Make university education free and/or affordable. Provide occupational opportunities for those in urban communities along with free medical and mental health. This is just the basic. Furthermore, we must implement progressive ideals that have an egalitarian end which must be the futuristic foundation of our society. However, to ultimately change any residual affect that racism can creep its ugly head in, generations must die.

What I mean by generational death is the fact that generations that have propagated racism along with those who have suffered under racism must die. The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. To those who suffered under racism they too must die to prevent any ideas of racial retribution through dissent.

First off, why are you so aggressive? — NKBJ

Me saying what I believe to be nonsense is not aggressive, it was pure nonsense.

Second, what, then, is the POINT of your precious egalitarian movement? — NKBJ

Egalitarianism speaks both on the macro and micro levels of the human condition and seeks to (at least philosophically and theoretically) correcting the problem. For example if I'm going through an issue of race at my job or if there is a law that I find that seems to be biased against my demographic, egalitarianism seeks to undo that issue which in that case we have the "civil rights movement" which seeks to undo the type of racial/social discrimination that affects me and those that are among my demographic. I believe egalitarianism seeks to undo the type of social/political problems all humans face because when we make things a human problem instead of a black or white, male or female issue then we can empathize with each other.

Third, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about feminism. You haven't said anything that convinces me, and I get the distinct impression, it wouldn't matter what I said, you have no interest in understanding or believing my position. — NKBJ

My point is not to convince you, but to discuss. I'm not here to write a thesis on the subject, just espouse my views.

Technology is the result of man's intelligence/intellect, not an extension of it. — Sir2u

I don't see how there isn't an extension of thought/intellect/intelligence in a building designed by an architect.

Man created the technology from nothing and if humanity one day ends up with no technology then it will start all over again. — Sir2u

Depends on which humans survive. If a catastrophe happens and people like the Sentinelese survive I doubt we will see technology of our kind again.

Here we go with the US centrism in everything... — ssu

Of course I'm commenting on the feminism promoted in the United States...

So what do you think about Feminist movement let's say in South Korea, with the minjung feminist movement? Or the women's suffrage movement in Japan? Those women weren't white. — ssu

Because of the lack of intersectionality that exists in western feminism, many women of color around the world have identified oppression in relation to the cultural issues respective to their places of origin. So those forms of "cultural feminism" exist is because the initial waves of feminism didn't address those issues for example the following research article states:

"Many of the approaches that emerged in the “first” and “second waves” of feminist scholarship and activism were not able to effectively engage with questions of culture. Women of color and ethnicity, postcolonial feminists and poststructural feminists, in addition to the questions and debates raised by liberal feminists (and their critics) on the implications of multiculturalism for feminist goals, have produced scholarship that highlights issues of cultural difference, division, diversity, and differentiation. Their critiques of the “universalism” and “culture-blindness” of second wave theories and practices exposed the hegemonic and exclusionary tendencies of the feminist movement in the global North, and opened up the opportunity to develop intersectional analyses and feminist identity politics, thereby shifting issues of cultural diversity and difference from the margins to the center of international feminism."

Source:http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-177

Perhaps by starting with that women's rights have not been an issue only for European whites right from the start? — ssu

Can you rephrase the question?

I don't mind calling some anti-white-patriarchal movement "egalitarianism" — NKBJ

Where did you contrive this nonsense?

I don't agree with your condemnation of feminism, obviously. I think your view of feminism is simplistic. — NKBJ

Nope. Actually there is writing that supports the view that the lack of intersectionality in feminism is what has drawn less members of women of color in different communities.

Ok, but its still not terrorism. At the end of the day nobody was physically hurt.

I think you might need to look up the definition of "victim". — whollyrolling

It wasn't a terrorist attack. Jussie hurt nobody but himself and ultimately his career case closed not sure why you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Jussie for all intensive purpose was the victim concocted story or not.

Does anybody actually know why he was let off? I'm finding a lot of theories, but nothing concrete about the decision to drop the charges. — NKBJ

"The Cook County State's Attorney's Office dropped all charges against Smollett on Tuesday but released little about why it abandoned the 16 felony disorderly conduct charges.
The lead prosecutor in the case said they reviewed the case's facts and considered Smollett's volunteer service in the community as well as his willingness to forfeit his $10,000 bond. He also noted that Smollett had no prior felonies and wasn't a danger to the community.
"That to me sounds like a deferred prosecution," Coates, the former federal prosecutor, said.
"It is quite common," she said. "Prosecutors thinking about reviewing the evidence decide that maybe a criminal solution or criminal prosecution is no longer the most effective way to reach justice."

Source:https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/entertainment/experts-jussie-smollett-why-prosecutors-dropped-charges/index.html

The actual details are sealed so we may never know the intimate details as to why, but apparently this is a case of deferred prosecution which happens often apparently.

It's not a terrorist attack if the only victim was the person who started the hoax in the first place. The only setback was the time and wasted resources.

Why are you tagging me in relation to an irrelevant news article? Please don't do that. — S

It's relevant to the point I was making. Don't tell me you're from England when you have dog shit in your yard. If you're going to have the dialectical point of view of arguing on the position of the West superiority, make sure you cover the issues in your neck of the woods.

It should happen much less if we are better, and since it in-fact happens much less, is less culturally acceptable then yes the west is better on that issue. — DingoJones

Of course I acknowledge it happens less, but the fact remains it should not happen period. On top of that at least in my country we tell the world we are a "Judeo-Christian" society and yet I see it way differently.

Technology doesn't philosophize, and technology can't save us from cataclysm indefinitely. — whollyrolling

Technology is an extension of man's thought. You destroy that you destroy every trace of man's genius. Again, we are talking about a catastrophe.

We were arguing over your original claim — S

What was my original claim?

Yes it does. — S

Again, your English so obviously your bias is showing. I'm of a minority class and obviously I see the position differently than you do I think we need to address that.

That's another fallacy of irrelevance. Possibly poisoning the well. — S

Ah another fallacy because I brought up something that happens in YOUR country?

Muslim acid attack victim abused online after she leaves hospital

"Last week a 16-year-old boy was charged over five linked acid attacks which took place in just 90 minutes on 14 July.

But despite suspects being identified in 60 per cent of cases, the vast majority never even reach court."

Source:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/acid-attack-london-resham-khan-trolled-out-of-hospital-online-abuse-a7854146.html

Nope, I've acknowledged that sort of thing, and it is still not even close. — S

Assault is assault whether you're killing people or putting your hands on someone. Fact is, it shouldn't happen period if we are better.

You should just retract your original claim, as there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than of you successfully defending it. — S

I don't need to retract shit. I know from my own personal as well as professional experiences of what I've seen.

I live in England — S

Oh that explains it. I see how your media deals with Meghan Markle, and the acid throwing incident (a Muslim girl reportedly had acid dowsed on her face).

and I distinctly remember seeing a giant poster about it with my own eyes by a train station in my town a number of years ago. — S

Yes that tells me a lot of "what you know."

What are "we" doing to gay people that even comes close to throwing them off buildings or performing public executions?! — S

We are still assaulting people for what their orientation is, or what their racial makeup is. Point is we are still hurting people for a makeup they didn't choose. Did you know there were three historically black churches in the states that were burned down and the person that did it was a son of a cop and did it with racism in his heart? I still live in a society where people are will to hurt other people because of their phenotype. Yes we are very much more "liberal" than the Muslim countries in those regard but in others, we are still very much behind.

I remember a campaign about trying to get school children to think about using the word "gay" as an insult. — S

I don't. What campaign is this and where since you remember?

I've found that what they want is basically utter submission — yupamiralda

To what?

Basically every decision I make is judged according to a "medication working/medication not working" binary. — yupamiralda

If your behavior is maladaptive do you wish for them to say nothing?

In addition to everything else you have said you have to understand that there are clients I've seen that had grandiose thinking in which they believe they don't need medication but obviously because of their history and the present symptom of grandiose thinking they may do things that may not produce the desired result. But the thing is I cannot give an objective opinion because I don't know you. But you must understand that there are people with psychological conditions that do try and convince therapists they are well and they aren't. Maybe that is why you come into conflict with them, however that is not me saying you aren't/weren't well.

I see

The burning of the Alexandria library was a technological and philosophical catastrophe, and it didn't make philosophy disappear. Short of extinction, there's nothing to stop philosophy in its tracks. — whollyrolling

We are talking about an asteroid hitting earth which results in a catastrophic event.

Philosophy doesn't require technology, — whollyrolling

It does today because humanity very much depends on technology. We also depend on technology to deflect asteroids from hitting earth.

I specifically said culture. — DingoJones

Ok so we're back to culture and not laws even though media wise, Shari'ah Law is to blame for the killings of homosexuals. Ok so you're now saying that Muslim culture is inherently more aggressive towards homosexuals, atheists, etc?

Second, there no need to pick a country, as Im not talking about the countries laws. — DingoJones

See my above response...

Third, how do you know where Im getting my information? — DingoJones

Because your information is not academically based, nor is it true from a cultural standpoint and besides, your comment in reference to Muslim society is indicative of a layman's understanding of the Muslim faith. It's armchair scholarship at its best. You're trying to articulate to me about Muslim culture on a global scale to someone who has traveled and has been immersed in it. In other words, what you know or what you've seen in the media is totally different than what is in the real world.

Finally if I'm going to make an assumption how do I know your views are not coinciding with reality?

You have not one thing academic to substantiate your claim. Your dialectical propositions are not precursors to what is plausible. You need to substantiate this with evidence, not conjecture to convince me its truth.

What you're proposing has already happened, and here we are. — whollyrolling

No it hasn't. I'm talking about a catastrophe with all of our knowledge, and technology as we have today because it is from technology that we have advanced much in philosophical knowledge regarding the world.

Sure. It was the "It is of no value" that bothered me. — Banno

Didn't mean for it to bother you. Let me rephrase in saying that feminism as a stand alone philosophy is of itself valuable to those who see value in it. For those who do not see the value of the general understanding of feminism, like myself their identification with it based on their own experiences may not see the value in relation to themselves.

My wife's disability and her advocacy linked me up to feminism and hence to gender issues, sexuality, institutionalisation, the plight of First Nations people and so on. — Banno

That's fine, but just because you identify with feminism on that basis does not mean its a blueprint for me to identify with it, I thought I made that clear why I choose to not identify with it.

Is your argument that feminism does not effect you, therefore it is of no value? — Banno

"Black Feminism" does affect me because for one I'm black, and two, the sexual oppression that black women have historically as well as currently face affects me indirectly because of society's negative portrayal of the oversexualization of black women (A great example of this is the porn site "Ghetto Gaggers") through pejorative categorizations that I too, am a part of.

Contrast to that when a white woman declares she is a feminist and cites her issues in society although my gender (not me specifically) is a part of the problem, society still sees me in human value as unequal to a white woman--still (the economic gap between a white woman and black male is indicative of this). So the issues I currently face such as systemic racism is at the forefront of the war I continue to fight and until my demographic can achieve absolute full human status in the eyes of the society I live in, so-called feminism (or white feminism) does not greatly affect me.

I must be misunderstanding you.

I'm more impressed by Martha Nussbaum. It better reflects the view of justice over mere equity reflected in the picture I posted. — Banno

I would have to look her up. Sorry in undergrad in my women's philosophy course my professor was a staunch advocate of the writings of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon. Needless to say, I hated feminism because of them in undergrad.

I missed the part where there were issues with you with English being your second language.

do you see any parallels? Any advice for someone who feels their actions are constantly monitored whether by government entities or private jerks? — ZhouBoTong

Can you elaborate? I'm sorry brain is not working properly.

Hm. So long as the umbrella keeps the rain off, I don't see much point in the distinction. — Banno

Good point.

That's an odd comparison - an individual to a movement. — Banno

No it's not. Let me help you.

For example I believe any social movement that develops from the oppression of a minority group, that movement is speaking for that group, and any support of that social movement is basically a declaration of alliance of said movement. So when a feminist says "feminism is egalitarianism" it is not. Feminism addresses the social and economic oppression that WOMEN experience. Egalitarianism addresses EVERYONES oppression and experiences and seeks to create a system to rectify oppression of EVERYONE thus addressing everyone's experiences.

This is why I made the point that feminism doesn't address the issues of black Americans or even black people in the diaspora. If you learned the history of feminism it didn't arise from the civil rights movement or from black women, it came from disgruntled, disillusioned, white women who sought to address their social issues in society. Thus is why there is no feminism (per se) there is white and black feminism because the general feminism does not address the double oppression women of color face. This is why I believe egalitarianism prevents the splintering or schism of ideas within feminism. So instead of calling it a black feminism or feminism (which is indirectly white feminism) feminist feminist movement, why not call it a movement that seeks to address the oppression of all women in all facets of society which is why I think naming it egalitarianism ought to solve that.

I don't know what capabilities you have that might have been frustrated; fatherhood, caring, family role, employment... — Banno

Right, and I can't say the same for a woman or any woman. I can only ally myself with the goals of women which is social equality, but I cannot experience what they've experienced nor do I wish to impart what I think what they experienced and address it with a male mentality, it is wrong in so many ways. This is why I think men's rights and women's rights are two sides on the same coin.

And that's rather the point of feminism; that gender ought not frustrate one's options. — Banno

Well I just disagree from an academic position, considering being heavily immersed in the writings of Mackinnon and Dworkin. I think on paper and in some lectures it would appear that way, but on the surface and as expressed (from my point of view) publicly, feminism is about achieving equality, but maintaining feminine identity. So long as problems remain feminine and masculine and not a human problem it will never be seen as equality.

Its not even a part of the culture in the west — DingoJones

And neither is it in all 50 Muslim countries or Muslim dominated countries. All Muslim countries have various laws both from the local governments and federal governments. Although Shari'ah Law embodies most of them, some laws based on for example which province you live, there are laws based on social conduct. Not all laws concerning homosexuality are based on the laws as you see in the news like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Iran. If you're going to examine and critique the Muslim position regarding homosexuality and the Islamic opinion in relation to its jurisprudence, its better to have a general understanding of the different laws in those Muslim countries because there is no universal consensus.

In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. — DingoJones

Which countries?

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. — DingoJones

I'm not Muslim, it doesn't offend me. What offends me is people who aren't learned in Islam or Islamic culture have a general consensus of what its like and their only recourse is the news media.

That's not for me to say. I don't know about you. — Banno

Thus is my point about feminism..

I see it as part of the umbrella but not THE umbrella.

You address a bigger problem by talking about a different, smaller problem. Thats not the pot and the kettle. False equivalence. — DingoJones

Nope, I didn't.

Why? Is there something problematic or unclear here? — Banno

As I said:

To supplant humanism or egalitarianism with gender based equality called feminism? — Anaxagoras

How is egalitarianism a form of hypermasculinity?

For a personal question to you as a black man who has lived under the oppression of systemic racism (in the early portion of my life) which benefits white men and women, how does feminism affect my social experiences as a black male? In addition, how does the adoption of feminism address those issues that I have dealt with?

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities. — Banno

Can you elaborate? I'm curious about your comment.

People as a whole would benefit from displacing hyper masculinity and fragile masculinity. — Banno

To supplant humanism or egalitarianism with gender based equality called feminism?