Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,232
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Why would you object to any of these definitions?
-
Features
Politics City of Seattle: White people are cannibals
- Thread starter Metaphor
- Start date
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Seattle is one of the most left leaning progressive cities in the country. At least in the local media especially our local NPR station everything negative about non whites is attributed to racism.
Latinos were ht harder than whites by COVID, racism of course.
Native American women disappear from a reservation and ti does not get the same attention a mussing persons gets outside the reservation. Must be racism. Ignoring the fact NA live on reservations that by treaty are independent nations to a large degree with their own law enforcement. Now missing NA are part of the amber alert system.
Post Floyd white city employees were required to attend race classes.
Latinos were ht harder than whites by COVID, racism of course.
Native American women disappear from a reservation and ti does not get the same attention a mussing persons gets outside the reservation. Must be racism. Ignoring the fact NA live on reservations that by treaty are independent nations to a large degree with their own law enforcement. Now missing NA are part of the amber alert system.
Post Floyd white city employees were required to attend race classes.
thebeave
Contributor
One objection would be that these definitions seem to only consider whites as the source and/or the beneficiary of the racism, and PoC as the victims. Here in the Bay Area, we're seeing a rise of racism against asians, including physical assaults and even deaths. Much of which is perpetrated by young black men. Nothing to do with white people. Yet in discussions about racism, it almost always seems to focus on white people being the problem, when in reality it can be people of any race/color. It's propaganda.
I did not post them to indicate agreement or dissent. I posted them to correct Copernicus' seemingly mistaken belief that Seattle was using the dictionary definition of 'racism' in their training programs.
But, no, I don't agree with Seattle's definition of racism, because I use the dictionary definition of racism.
But isn't that the point of cultural Marxism? Who, Whom? It's a feature that White people are always and forever the baddies. Singular hatred of (straight) White people is what keep's the left's coalition of the margins from fracturing.
It's horrible. Look at the definition of institutional racism. This is what I've been complaining about for ages--the concept that disparate results prove discrimination. Note that something which is beneficial to the company but favors white people is considered racism. Fact: Minorities are more likely to have a criminal record. Fact: Companies do not like to hire criminals. Conclusion: Institutional racism by that definition.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,118
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The issue is that once they have gone through all due process and are not committing crimes, they are no longer criminals. Criminals are people that commit (active, present tense) crimes.
I am more of a criminal than many people applying for jobs today and my employer is aware, but not in a way beyond hearsay, that I am a criminal today.
In the past I even committed what is technically Telecommunications Fraud, and served probation for it. I'm pretty sure my employer is aware of that one.
People have a right to get beyond their pasta, which is why "banning the box", and the legality of "the box*" is institutional racism.
Why should society be able to force companies to not discriminate against those whose sentences are fulfilled?
Because society has an interest in not magnifying criminality through continued destitution.
*The box on an employment form that asks about past, inactive crimes for which the sentence is fulfilled en todo
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I see. You said "You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use." I read "critical race theories" into that, since "critical theories" doesn't refer to any particular theories, but "critical race theories" would. So, provide me with an example of "critical theories" that use those exact definitions. What group of theories were you talking about? I've never seen a definition of "racism" like that before. It confuses a real definition with what appears to be a specific example of racism in the author's mind. It looks to me like the author was more interested in shocking and provoking a reaction in the reader rather than instructing. I've been in classes like that before, and I've never seen any definitions like that. I still don't think that Diemert is going to make a case that he was discriminated against on the basis of training material that contained definitions like that. After all, a strong case can be made that whites have discriminated against blacks and other racial minorities in America. It's hard to say that the reverse has been much of a problem at all for the majority white population.
Critical theories refer to critical theories.
I don't know what to tell you. That definition of racism is a feature of critical race theory.
Critical race theory | Examples, Public Schools, History, Tenets, & Criticism | Britannica
Critical race theory (CRT) is an intellectual and social movement and a framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is a socially constructed category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color. Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal...
www.britannica.com
But whether it is a feature of CRT or not, I have to express again it beggars belief that you have not heard this narrower, political definition of racism, though I accept that your initial post linking to the RSJI materials makes more sense if you did not understand that.
Again, I don't know what to tell you. The political definition of racism as something only non-whites in America can be the target of is not a new invention of 2022. It's been on the boil for decades.
The compulsory training classes, although indeed demeaning to white people, is only part of Diemert's complaint. It really sounds like you want him to lose, no matter what happened to him.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,838
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Would you agree with this about child sex offenders who have to register in the neighborhood? Should all past crime be expunged after they have done their time? And if they don't have to put their crimes on the employment form, what prevents anyone looking at neighborhood listings?
The post in which ex-offender Jarhyn demands society ought force employers to not discriminate against ex-offenders.
Quelle surprise.
I know you hate the US Constitution, but a good lawyer can make an argument citing the 8th Amendment about that.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,118
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
They're registered. Having their name on a public register is part of their due process. That's like saying "Do you believe people currently living at a work camp have a right to their employers not knowing they are currently hiring someone on sentence?"
All past crime should be forgotten past the end of due process.
Some things, like "touches children", everyone has a right to know about, and the due process reflects that.
If it's not part of due process such that due process reveals it (such as mandatory offender registries), then it's not entirely under free speech to reveal. It is defamation and targeted harassment, especially if it is announced persistently and publicly, and there is no obligation to report.
Quit playing at incompetence. I will refuse to believe that this is not all obvious fare.
Employers should have a right to choose.
Sounds like you did some sort of hacking. Done young that doesn't say much about someone's trustworthiness later down the road as an employee.
And "sentence is fulfilled" doesn't mean they aren't a considerably higher risk that "never committed the crime".
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Uh-huh. I didn't misread it. You mistyped "critical race theories" and then tried to avoid backing up your claim when called on to do so.I don't know what to tell you. That definition of racism is a feature of critical race theory.
Critical race theory | Examples, Public Schools, History, Tenets, & Criticism | Britannica
Critical race theory (CRT) is an intellectual and social movement and a framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is a socially constructed category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color. Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal...
There is nothing in the Britannica article to substantiate your claim that the Seattle definitions are the "exact definitions" as those used in "critical theories" [sic].
It actually doesn't beggar my belief that you tried to weasel out of backing up a claim that you simply made up. We've been down that path before. My initial post was made to somewhat agree with the point that the program may have given the impression that racism was just about white people discriminating against blacks. It was an extremely flawed definition. I think that the lawsuit, however, needs to show that the plaintiff himself was somehow discriminated against, not just that the program had some flawed materials, which, BTW, had absolutely nothing to do with the way critical race theory defines racism.
You don't know what to tell me, because you have nothing whatsoever to tell me. The definition on that web site is unusually flawed, IMO, and has nothing to do with the way that we normally define racism. My guess is that the author was trying too hard to make the definition relevant to just white-on-black racism, which is one of the most common forms of racist behavior in the US. It was a mistake to frame it that way, but that's where they went. That whites have discriminated against blacks throughout the entire history of the US and are still doing it today is actually beyond dispute.
I think that his case should get a fair hearing, and I don't particularly care whether he wins or loses. For all I know, he was discriminated against, but he is the plaintiff. He needs to prove it to the satisfaction of a court. I certainly don't like the definitions that I posted here for the purposes of discussion, and I think that they bolster his case that he felt he was in a hostile work environment. I don't think we should read too much into his case just from the public disclosure of his side of the story. He still needs to prove that he personally was discriminated against in some way.
No, I didn't. If I'd meant to restrict it to CRT, I'd have typed 'CRT', which is easier to type. I said critical theories, because I meant critical theories. Critical theories (like queer theory and CRT) aim to:
They are distinctly politically activist theories.
Putting 'sic' after 'critical theories' does not make you appear clever, Copernicus. It exposes your ignorance.
The program didn't give that impression from the material, as if the program really all along had the dictionary definition in mind, but the illustrative material was so poorly worded that it just happened to look like they had the political, critical theory definition of racism in mind.
Whether you think the definition is flawed or not, the program clearly uses it, and the city of Seattle subjects its employees to it, as illustrated by the material you yourself linked to.
The program had some 'flawed' materials - and it's the material itself that is part of the discrimination. But it was not simply the forced attendance at the program that Diemert complains about, but many incidents over many years.
Of course it has nothing to do with the way normal people define racism. Normal people are not running the course.
Your guess is wrong. The material itself spells out that racism is something that can only happen to non-whites in America. Have you read the material you posted?
Of course he needs to prove it. I never suggested otherwise.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
No, I didn't. If I'd meant to restrict it to CRT, I'd have typed 'CRT', which is easier to type. I said critical theories, because I meant critical theories. Critical theories (like queer theory and CRT) aim to:
They are distinctly politically activist theories.
Oh, give it up. You are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid saying that you were thinking of "critical race theory", which is certainly a type of "critical theory", and you can't give me a single example of any other source using the "exact definition" on that page.
It's obvious that you were talking about a specific "critical theory". We are talking about racial discrimination.
Ok. It "looked that way" to you. I'll take that as an admission that your claim of "critical theories" using that "exact definition" was basically just you being contrary in your response to my point that the definition was inappropriate.
Yes, that's true. Have you given any thought to why I posted it here and said that it bolstered Diemert's case? Could it possibly be that I was saying something you were horrified to think that maybe you might be even slightly in agreement with? I wasn't actually defending the material. I was criticizing it. Or are you the only person who has permission to do that?
So his complaint alleges, but the complaint itself is not proof of anything at all. He still has to present credible evidence to a court in order to make his case. Just getting upset over some flawed material does not constitute discrimination in a training session, especially if he was given ample opportunity to disagree with it. He may have felt discriminated against, but that doesn't mean that he actually was discriminated against. It's possible that he was simply too angry and resentful to behave in a civil manner, and that got him into some nasty arguments. Who knows? Neither of us was there.
I'm not defending the course. Unlike you, I have an open mind about the people running the course. I don't know how the material was used in the training. Maybe it was meant to be provocative in order to provoke discussion.
I have, and I disagree. I don't believe for a second that the authors believed that. I think that they were conflating a general definition with a concrete example of racism in the context of the history of the US. Their class wasn't about an intellectual discussion of racism, say, between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, but I wouldn't be surprised if they considered that a case of racism, too. That's why I consider the definition poorly worded. OTOH, I wasn't there to hear their side of the story. Perhaps that will come out in the trial, if it goes forward.
Good. You somehow left me with the impression that he had already proven his case and that you knew all sorts of details about what had happened but weren't actually reported in the press.
No, I didn't. If I'd meant to restrict it to CRT, I'd have typed 'CRT', which is easier to type. I said critical theories, because I meant critical theories. Critical theories (like queer theory and CRT) aim to:
They are distinctly politically activist theories.
Oh, give it up. You are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid saying that you were thinking of "critical race theory", which is certainly a type of "critical theory", and you can't give me a single example of any other source using the "exact definition" on that page.
Actually, I will give it up. Everybody can see what I typed, and your ignorance.
No. I was being obviously sarcastic. It didn't just 'look like' they had the ordinary definition in mind and stuffed up the explanation. They had the political definition of racism in mind and the material is a reflection of that.
I don't agree with the RSJI's definition of racism; I'm simply conveying to you what they themselves say in the literature they distribute. Literature which you misunderstood, because you had a normal person definition of racism.
Your criticism was off-base. You approached it as if the material had the normal person definition of racism and was just explaining it poorly. That would be bad, but that undersells how malignant the material is. It does not start with the normal person definition at all.
Have you read the allegations? He did disagree with it at first, until that disagreement brought further retaliatory actions against him.
I do not believe you seriously believe that is plausible.
You cannot read that material and think that it is merely a 'normal person definition of racism, but poorly explained giving it implications it shouldn't'.
I'm sorry, but no. You cannot have read the first paragraph on that page:
And thought "oh, they forgot to say white people could be the targets of racism".
No. I'm sorry Copernicus, but no. You are obviously not illiterate. There is no way you can still read this pamphlet - knowing about political definitions of racism - and believe it.
Of course, we already have some evidence - Seattle's RSJI website. What we don't have are the particular slides and training materials for the course he was talking about, but let me put it this way. If the material that RSJI has already willingly made public is anything to go by, it can hardly be imagined that the materials used for training would be 'milder'.
And of course, when people deliver courses (unless they were Zoom recorded), instructors say things that are not in the slides. If the lectures were not recorded, I think Diemert is in a bad evidentiary spot with trying to prove what people said verbally. But there could be some witnesses who remember it.
But I presume there is an email trail for at least some of the events, and I assume he has not simply invented the easily-proved or easily-falsified administrative details (e.g. his pay situation and who was promoted to which roles).
I do not simply listen and believe allegations. But given Seattle is one of the most leftist-progressive cities in America, they do not seem absurd to me on their face.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
That is utterly false, and it proves that you weren't actually reading what I wrote. You just couldn't believe that I was agreeing with you that those definitions were NOT "normal person" definitions, which, IMO, they should have been. You wanted to believe that I was trying to justify those definitions, and you couldn't get it through your thick skull that I was saying that they bolstered Diemert's case. Seriously, you need to go back and reread what I wrote and respond to what I actually did say, not what you were predisposed to believe a liberal would say.
Wrong! I said the opposite of what you are saying here. Go back and read what I said this time.
Therein lies the problem. You reject any interpretation other than the one you want to come up with. You cannot stand the fact that I said something that might agree with something you said. I realize that nothing I say is going to change your mind, no matter how many times I tell you to go back and reread what I wrote. You can quote it and then say that I just didn't mean what I said.
Correct. I read it and concluded immediately that it was not a 'normal person definition of racism'. It was a botched definition that conflated a "normal person definition" with an example of what the author considered a real world example of racism--white on black racism.
Correct. What I thought was that they knew that perfectly well that white people could be the targets of racism, but the author(s) appeared to be confusing a general usage definition of racism with an ideological message that they wanted to send to those who denied discrimination against African Americans was a problem in the US. It was clumsy and stupid to frame it that way, but whoever endorsed that definition really screwed up. The Supreme Court in the US gutted the Civil Rights Voting Act by declaring that racism was no longer the problem that it used to be. That was Chief Justice Roberts' opinion, but it doesn't fit well with the facts that we observe every day. So there has been a lot of pushback against that perception. I saw those definitions as an overzealous attempt to "correct" the record. The author(s) of the definitions simply made things worse.
Fair enough, but I live here. I know that there are liberals who take extremist positions that I disagree with--for example, the entire "defund the police" movement, which I think did a great deal of harm to law enforcement in Seattle. Nevertheless, I am not going to stop agreeing with liberal positions and ideology because some people tend to be more extreme than me, just as you shouldn't stop being a conservative because there are extremist individuals on your side of the political spectrum.
No, you were not agreeing with me. You thought the RSJI was using normal person definitions and it was just 'poorly worded'. You wrote:
It not only 'could be interpreted' that way, that is exactly what they are saying.
I did read it and I've quoted it above. Their definition was not 'poorly worded'. It said exactly what it meant to say according to the definition of political racism they use.
I've already quoted it.
If you concluded that, your first post on the subject was poorly worded and did not convey that.
The authors don't think white people can be the targets of racism. The fact that they don't think any such thing is screamingly obvious because they define racism as something that can only happen to non-whites, quite unambiguously and quite explicitly.
The political definition of racism as something that can only happen to non-whites in America was in academic vogue from the 1970s. The RSJI did not suddenly come up with it.
I did not suggest you stop being a liberal, but it does seem to me you are not familiar with some of the ideas that leftist-progressives espouse.
Also, I am not a conservative. On some issues, I am on what is considered to be the left of the spectrum, and on others, the right.