If they aren’t explicitly racist, or they are not exclusive to this or that race, but are to be applied evenly to each and every individual, they are not racist, They are race neutral. — NOS4A2

What kind of fuckstickery is this shit? You think policies need to declare themselves to be racist in order to be racist? Fuck off. You're not this stupid, from which one can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.

I deleted it. It was a two line thread, one of which was a vague, largely undefined question. Please refer to the site guidelines about starting threads to see the kind of threads that are acceptable here.

Comrade Trump, bringing the people together :strong: :

"Protests have significantly shifted public opinion on race, creating potential political allies for a movement that was, within the past decade, dismissed as fringe and divisive. It also highlights how President Trump is increasingly out of touch with a country he is seeking to lead for a second term: While he has shown little sympathy for the protesters and their fight for racial justice, and has continued to use racist language that many have denounced, voters feel favorably toward the protests and their cause.

A survey of battleground states critical to November’s election largely mirrored the national results. Fifty-four percent of voters in those states said the way the criminal justice system treats black Americans was a bigger problem than the incidents of rioting seen during some demonstrations. Just 37 percent said rioting was a bigger problem, though Mr. Trump and his allies have tried to discredit the protests by focusing on some isolated incidents of violence.

It has not worked."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/us/politics/trump-biden-protests-polling.html

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.".

I can't tell if we're picking on theists or not picking on them enough :fear:

In any case I don't think there is any bright line dividing theology from philosophy; from the thread titles you gave as examples alone, at issue in each seems less the positing of God as an answer than a question about the nature of God or the divine. I do agree that theological discussion tends to be of a lower quality than other discussion, but this is largely contingent, not of essence. And certainly bad-faith discussion is certainly not limited to religious folks - if only!

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.

:chin:

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

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.

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.

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.

Consensus is the true objective for real change to be successful. — ssu

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 are made for kindergarten children.

Has it occurred to you yet that you're the most racist, classist, sexist, hateful poster on the forum? Nobody brings up race more, nobody brings up gender more, nobody brings up class more than you. Nobody prejudices against groups like you, nobody characterises people by their groups like you.

There's no reason to be charitable towards you just because you claim about the real issues. Same as there's no reason to be charitable towards people who burn and loot shit or beat or kill because they claim to care about the real issues. You can deludedly praise yourself while participating in the same group-based prejudicial bullshit that constitutes the problem, however, people shouldn't be wasting their time taking you seriously. — Judaka

Good. I don't want charity from people like you. I want you to seethe and writhe and bitch.

Why this obsession with consensus? Consensus is not a political value. It is completely agnostic as to whether things remain terrible, or whether things improve. Actually it's worse: insofar as the material situation is terrible, the call for 'consensus' is a call to stall change, to compromise on it, and to continue the shitty way things are. I mean it when I say: consensus is poison. Forget about it. Nobody wants 'consensus' with a society that kills black people at outrageous rates. Nobody but those brought up on Disney movies want that. Hell, even Disney movies kill their bad guys. Consensus is anti-political crap. To quote MLK:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Your arguments are those of the 'white moderate' who wants 'peace' - in your case, 'consensus' - for its own sake - a 'greater stumbling block than the Ku Klux Klanner'.

Yeah imagine why thinking in terms of individuals in a thread on systemic racism is not an utterly stupid thing to do? :chin:

Yes, but we - mods - can't follow every thread with a fine toothcomb and curate them that way. Decent OPs generally make for decent discussion, and its a rule of thumb that has been proven mostly effective. We probably lose some good stuff because of it, but again, it's a balanced compromise we have to make.

The Lounge sucks. It's current existence is indeed a kind of pragmatic compromise. I don't like it, but it's better than having tens of people a week whine about why their (poor quality) thread was deleted. The old forum had a dedicated place for actually terrible threads - I think it was called the black hole or something - and it was an absolute clusterfuck, like, it made me nauseous even skim reading it. If not that, and if not outright deletion, the lounge atm serves as a kind of purgatory whose existence is necessary for keeping the main page at least somewhat of OK quality.

Well, you know what to expect then.

This is incredible textbook stuff, but if a layman wants to vomit up some thoughts, which might be pretty interesting, but don't conform to such a useful model, can't he do it? If he does, and it's profound, but too woo-woo, he'll be smashed into the trash compactor of the dreaded Lounge, will he not? — Noble Dust

Yes. No vomit thoughts here, and no woo-woo. I don't know why anyone would even want that sort of stuff here.

A rule of thumb is this: effort in, effort out - and we expect some effort. That 'know thyself' is a classic topic (for instance) is not enough for it to be a thread. That a topic merely 'is of interest' is not good enough. We don't need a hundred threads saying "Plato: discuss" - even if Plato is a giant of philosophy. A thread ought to provide some meat for people chew on, perhaps and ideally a line of reasoning, a elaboration of confusion (if any), some explanation of position, etc. If you don't write a thread with at least a little bit of substance, you can expect it to be deleted or moved. It's not much to ask for. The standards on this forum are lax.

Again, much of this has been dealt with before, and is linked to in the site guidelines. @Baden's https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op is an excellent reference point.

And I'll simply post the rules of starting threads in that are pinned at the top of the board, which we are, quite frankly, lax about enforcing:

Don't start a thread unless:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.

I won't comment on the God thread, it's too long and I didn't make that decision. As for the others:

(1) Know Thyself is barely a thread. Frankly it ought to have been deleted if it were up to me.

(2) 'Style': Again, barely a thread. Contains no argument, just an assertion, based on anecdote. That it was moved to the lounge and not deleted is again generous.

(3) WLDM: this is almost entirely anecdote and personal story. It's not philosophy. It really does belong in the lounge.

(4) Evolution of Tech: this seems like a borderline case. The opening line that "Absolutely all the inventions so far, no matter how sophisticated, serve directly or indirectly to ancient desires, almost instinctive" is prima facie strange, if not highly contestable, but the thread just takes it as a given and tries to roll from there. The OPs responses in the thread were weirdly dogmatic as well. I'll grant that this is neither here nor there.

Can you provide some examples of which threads you had in mind? Genuine question.

Again, not a word from you about the changes that have already taken place, and more utter irrelevancies about other times and other places.

Eh, Heidi was a provincial philosopher with a couple of interesting ideas here and there. Would give away his entire corpus for a page of Hannah Arendt.

Violence conducted by cops or whites towards blacks matters, but violence conducted by minorities towards business-owners or whatnot - is just a distraction. — BitconnectCarlos

No - your posts, in this thread have been a distraction. They are single-minded and seething in hypocrisy.

Ok, it's nice to know that you'd consider that if you or a family member were assaulted by an angry minority who was angry about racial injustice that it would just be a distraction. Thank you. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, this is not about me or your fantasies. Stop, or simply shut up.

No, it's entirely irrelevant. A further distraction to match your other distractions to cover over your hypocritical, unprincipled, partiality.

Like, when a discussion of systematic racism veers into a discussion of ... Jeffrey Dahmer? Like, why the hell are you even here? All this is trash.

Why do you keep resorting to fantasies?

And Western civilisation is built off the back of slavery, genocide, and material expropriation. Not sure why anyone should give a shit about it.

Actually, the shops should be more responsible. They should have known not to open up in such a violence prone area. I don't know why they aren't taking responsibility for their own destruction. They can't just go around blaming everyone else for their own bad decisions.

Luckily, this isn't about me, and I have the lucidity not to fantasize that it is.

Ah, #allviolencematters #bothsides. Maybe next you'll be asking me about why no one is speaking about white lives. I bet 'you don't even see color'.

At the end of the day I care about individuals getting what they deserve. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, no you don't. You care about some individuals getting what they deserve. There's nothing principled about your 'care'.

Mm, telling that all of a sudden the fact of some protestors being black matters, whereas before, 'its just an economic issue' or whatever rubbish. It's vomitus bad faith.

No, I simply don't believe you care an iota about 'humanity'. You're a single-issue energy sink on this topic, and that disproportion of focus tells me everything about the scope of what counts as caring about 'humanity' for you.

I'm not advocating violence. I'm not rejecting it either. I simply think the talk of "violence" - and only a certain kind of violence, perpetrated only by certain people (of a certain skin color), totally disproportionate to the scale and range of everything that is happening - is a total distraction and a hijacking of discourse by people who otherwise wouldn't give a shit. People like you, specifically (in short, I think you, and people like you, are virtue signallers par excellence).

And no, I actually think the protestors should be armed to the teeth. It's one of the few things American cops seem to respect, primarily because they are little bitches who only ever prey on the defenceless - as all bullies do.

Oh look, the indictment of Ahmed Aubery's murderers.

Few people handling the social media pages of politicians in their PR teams having to weigh in their tweets isn't equivalent of "the ruling class shitting their pants". Those making their livelyhoods out of the media circus will naturally be all hyped up, but that isn't everything. — ssu

Maybe begin with the fact that the Minneapolis police department is basically getting gutted and is getting reset from scratch. Or that cities like LA and NYC - cities with some of the biggest and most well funded police departments in the states - have both enacted reforms to both policing and presecutorial processes. Or that numerous other police depratments and banned chokeholds, revised body cam and 'no-knock' raid policy. Or that both republicans and democrats have put police reform on the table of their policy agendas. Or that the murderers George Floyd have now been charged with murder, and the murderer of Breonna Taylor has at least now been fired, and is under FBI investigation. Or that police are getting out of schools all across the country. Or that companies are seeing - just as they did after metoo - reckonings with racist workplace or otherwise toxic workplace culture like like both the NYT, The Philly Inquirer, or Bon Appetit. All sorts of cultural reckonings like the banning of confederate flags at NASCAR, the admission by the NFL that their handling of Colin Kapernick was botched. CHAZ in Seattle - however long it will last before the powers that be look to crush it - has provided a safe place for the homeless to sleep without being subject to 'police sweeps' for the first time in years. The humongous shift in perceptions and acceptance of BLM and racial inequity among American whites. The general shift in the overton window that's leading the displacement of establishment politicians and wins for people like Jamal Bowman in NYC (against whom even Hillary Clinton tried to weigh in). The longer term effects of these shifts in thinking is probably incalculable. I could go on.

So don't tell me about not knowing history when you're completely ignorant of the present. Is the above enough? No, nowhere near. More is needed, far more, and people need to keep pushing, and especially against those like you who have no clue what is happening yet feel qualified to talk on the matter. The only clowns in the media circus are people like you who whine about 1789 yet can't say a goddamn word about the present.

I didn't know it was 1789. — ssu

Apparently you don't know it's 2020 either.

All these efforts to consign problems to the past ('it was bad back then but now everything's better!') are just feel-good story-tales designed to draw attention away from the present state of crisis. Any honest grappling with what is going on now takes as it's starting point the recognition that the crisis is contemporary and the that crisis is current; not some hangover from the past.

And on the topic of 'individual responsibility' - I wonder what responsibility Breonna Taylor should have taken as she was gunned down as she slept. Guess she should have been more responsible for being black.

The ruling class is shitting their pants and if you can't see that you're either not looking or an idiot. Every one of them is scrambling to show some kind of solidarity with the protestors - faked or otherwise. Even a fuckbag like Trump was prompted to gesture his way into some barely-there police reforms. And the display of brutal, racist police forces to quell the riots are just a sign of ruling class weakness.

As for what's going to happen, who the hell knows. Politics is a risk. Things could get worse. Things will probably get worse. But if that change doesn't happen, things will get worse. That one's a given. Meanwhile I'm going to tell everyone worrying about star-striped fabric to go fuck themselves.