Double standards regarding racism

[Jolly_Penguin]

Words have meaning.

Many words, including this one, have multiple meanings. A lot of people define "racism" as racial prejudice. You define it as requiring claimed superiority. Again, its semantics, so I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Defending things that are harmful is indeed a bad thing. But it would seem bad to also inject false motives of people, just to make it a race issue.

Discrimination based on race is a race issue. Isn't it? What are you saying here?

 

[laughing dog]

You are playing at semantics without a purpose. You can call it "racism" or you can call it mere bigotry and prejudice. In either case it is wrong to practice and wrong to defend.

So is rape, but rape is not racism. Words have meaning to enhance communication. There are people who wish to redefine words for their own rhetorical/political purposes. Conflating bigotry with racism.

And RavenSky/Laughing_dog being all upset about Derec misstating somebody's name, while giving the blatant racist (Yes, I call it racist) behaviour mentioned in the OP a pass because of skin colour (itself racist) is what is most striking in this thread.

What is most striking in this thread is your blatant hypocrisy. First, after all, if bigotry and prejudice are just as wrong as racism, why misuse the term racism to describe bigotry and prejudice? There is no evidence that this woman thinks whites are inferior to blacks.

Second, the obvious mischaracterization in order in the defense of the deliberate bigoted and prejudiced dig by Derec is fascinating coming from an self-avowed fighter against bigotry and prejudice and promoter of civil discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which means this WoC retreat isn't a double-standard or racist or any of the other hair-on-fire freak out you started this thread with.

However, for the organizer of the retreats to say that men or women should not be allowed to have passports would be sexist, just like the statement by Andrea X is racist af.

You claimed this, but it was nowhere in the article.

There are all kinds of retreats - men only, women only, christians only, gay only, WoC only, yoga enthusiasts, hiking enthusiasts, rape survivors, corporate/company retreats... almost any type of group you can imagine.

There is nothing racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory or double-standard about it.

Sorry Derec... your thread fails.

I don't see those as comparable.

What you are describing (except WoC) is a positive selection process--those with attribute <x> are welcome.

What Derec is talking about is a negative selection process--only those without attribute <x> are welcome.

The former is usually not discriminatory, the latter is almost always discriminatory.

Note that WoC is equivalent to not-white and thus really an example of the second group, not the first group.

 

[Vork]

Which means this WoC retreat isn't a double-standard or racist or any of the other hair-on-fire freak out you started this thread with.

However, for the organizer of the retreats to say that men or women should not be allowed to have passports would be sexist, just like the statement by Andrea X is racist af.

You claimed this, but it was nowhere in the article.

There are all kinds of retreats - men only, women only, christians only, gay only, WoC only, yoga enthusiasts, hiking enthusiasts, rape survivors, corporate/company retreats... almost any type of group you can imagine.

There is nothing racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory or double-standard about it.

Sorry Derec... your thread fails.

If there were white only retreats *with political content and activism* involved, I'm thinking it could easily be controversial. (The OP issue involved "political education seminars" which I'm guessing is basically intended as some sort of political activism.)

But again, I'm all for black only retreats, or white only retreats, and you would need to look at the exact kind of message being promoted to say that something is wrong.

 

[Vork]

Words have meaning.

Many words, including this one, have multiple meanings. A lot of people define "racism" as racial prejudice. You define it as requiring claimed superiority. Again, its semantics, so I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Defending things that are harmful is indeed a bad thing. But it would seem bad to also inject false motives of people, just to make it a race issue.

Discrimination based on race is a race issue. Isn't it? What are you saying here?

The real meaning of racism? Apparently, it's wanting immigration laws enforced. If you want laws upheld, you are just a terrible bigot.

 

[RavenSky]

Which means this WoC retreat isn't a double-standard or racist or any of the other hair-on-fire freak out you started this thread with.

However, for the organizer of the retreats to say that men or women should not be allowed to have passports would be sexist, just like the statement by Andrea X is racist af.

You claimed this, but it was nowhere in the article.

There are all kinds of retreats - men only, women only, christians only, gay only, WoC only, yoga enthusiasts, hiking enthusiasts, rape survivors, corporate/company retreats... almost any type of group you can imagine.

There is nothing racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory or double-standard about it.

Sorry Derec... your thread fails.

I don't see those as comparable.

What you are describing (except WoC) is a positive selection process--those with attribute <x> are welcome.

What Derec is talking about is a negative selection process--only those without attribute <x> are welcome.

Your mistake is assuming Derec has described anything accurately rather than through his own biased filter.

Positive selection process: WoC, Christian, men, women, corporation X, hiking...

Or we can twist every single one of them into Derec's ridiculous claim of discrimination: no white women, no non-Christians, no women, no men, no corporation Y, no non-hikers...

 

[untermensche]

Its kind of ironic that these black women are going on this retreat because they "feel unsafe" around white people, yet statistically speaking, they are much safer around white people than they are around their own kind.

There is only one kind. This statement reeks of racism.

They are human.

As human as you. The exact same thing as you.

Confining people to ghettos based on race makes them more vulnerable to members of their race.

Poverty and all that goes with that, like single parent homes, and lack of opportunity leads to crime.

Not being a member of any particular race.

US racists create and allow the conditions that lead to crime to perpetuate so they can use the crime that will naturally occur whenever there is concentrated poverty to support their racism.

 

[Toni]

You think it's stupid?

Unarmed African-Americans are statistically more likely to be killed by police,

I am pretty sure I read that they specifically shown that to be false. Unarmed African-Americans are more likely to meet the police but once they met their blackness does not affect their survival rate. And they meet police more often because their crime rate is higher.

What white pride site provided you with that 'info?'

Actually, blacks are more than twice less likely to be armed when they are shot and killed by police.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12269/full

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Its kind of ironic that these black women are going on this retreat because they "feel unsafe" around white people, yet statistically speaking, they are much safer around white people than they are around their own kind.

There is only one kind. This statement reeks of racism.

They are human.

As human as you. The exact same thing as you.

Confining people to ghettos based on race makes them more vulnerable to members of their race.

Poverty and all that goes with that, like single parent homes, and lack of opportunity leads to crime.

Not being a member of any particular race.

US racists create and allow the conditions that lead to crime to perpetuate so they can use the crime that will naturally occur whenever there is concentrated poverty to support their racism.

Saying "I don't see race" is white privilege.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Saying "I don't see race" is white privilege.

No, not always. I am not white and I often don't see race. I only see it when it becomes relevant or when somebody or group is behaving in a racist way.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Saying "I don't see race" is white privilege.

No, not always. I am not white and I often don't see race. I only see it when it becomes relevant or when somebody or group is behaving in a racist way.

I know, but saying that to untermensche was something I could not resist.

 

[Derec]

There is only one kind. This statement reeks of racism.

It's funny how a statement of fact (that black women are statistically safer around whites than blacks) to you reeks of "racism" but black people saying that they want to get away from whites or that whites should not have passports does not.

They are human.
As human as you. The exact same thing as you.

Nothing in thebeave's statement denies that.

Confining people to ghettos based on race makes them more vulnerable to members of their race.
Not being a member of any particular race.
US racists create and allow the conditions that lead to crime to perpetuate so they can use the crime that will naturally occur whenever there is concentrated poverty to support their racism.

The reasons blacks in the US have much higher crime rates are much more complex than that. However, the fact remains that thebeave's statement is truthful. Even somebody like Jesse Jackson had to grudgingly admit that.
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

 

[Derec]

What white pride site provided you with that 'info?'

Everything that does not fit your worldview is "white pride" now? And btw, that's another racist double standard. Why aren't "black pride", "black power" etc. condemned like white versions are?

Actually, blacks are more than twice less likely to be armed when they are shot and killed by police.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12269/full

Some salient quotes from the study.
"These simplistic findings provided preliminary evidence of an implicit bias effect, but they did not permit us to rule out the potential confounding influence of other relevant variables."
"The Black coefficient is positive but statistically nonsignificant, which means Black civilians were no more or less likely than White civilians to have been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians when they were fatally shot by police. "

This is the part you had in mind:
"Black civilians (b = .88, p < .10) were significantly more likely than White civilians to have been unarmed when they were shot and killed by police, net of other factors. Indeed, the odds ratio indicates that Black civilians who died by police gunfire were more than twice as likely as Whites to have been unarmed, holding all else constant"

The p value, <.1, is actually quite high (requiring p<0.05 is standard) and means that the data is not quite clear. The fact that the two groups showing any difference exhibits such a high p-value means that it is highly irresponsible to draw the conclusion that blacks killed by police are twice as likely to be unarmed than whites.
And besides, unarmed does not mean that the perp was not a threat or that the use of deadly force was not justified.

 

[Derec]

Your mistake is assuming Derec has described anything accurately rather than through his own biased filter.

I have described it accurately and also linked to the video itself where you can hear the racist statements verbatim.

Positive selection process: WoC, Christian, men, women, corporation X, hiking...
Or we can twist every single one of them into Derec's ridiculous claim of discrimination: no white women, no non-Christians, no women, no men, no corporation Y, no non-hikers...

Except that the statements by the organizers leave no doubt that the reason for the retreat is to get away from the hated white people.

Hikers get together because they want to engage in that activity with others who like hiking. Not because they want to separate themselves from non-hikers, who have done enough damage and should not even have passports...

RavenSky, why are you so reluctant to acknowledge black racism even when it is as obvious as in this case?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

RavenSky, why are you so reluctant to acknowledge black racism even when it is as obvious as in this case?

That is a good question.

I predict somebody will come along and say it can't be racism because black people can't be racist because black people lack power, and other squabbles over semantics.

We won't get an actual clear answer to what you area actually asking here.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

If a white person makes the statement that only white people are welcome in a particular group, that is different from saying that black people are not welcome in that group since those not welcome - black people - have been specifically identified, you could say targetted. The former position could conceivably be regarded as a positive statement, the latter as racially discriminatory.

If a black person makes the statement that only black people are welcome in a particular group, that is different from saying that white people are not welcome in that group since those not welcome - white people - have been specifically identified, you could say targetted. The former position could conceivably be regarded as a positive statement, the latter as racially discriminatory.

I struggle to find a distinction between the two. Or, to put it another way, hope lies in regarding the same statements, regardless of people's backgrounds and experiences, as being of equal weight and subject to the same challenge.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's funny how a statement of fact (that black women are statistically safer around whites than blacks) to you ...

That wasn't a statement but instead it had to do specifically with going to a retreat. The fact of interest would instead be how safe is one at a retreat in consideration that those going to the types of retreats in question may have their own non-criminal characteristics, such as educational background, financial affluence, etc.

 

[untermensche]

It's funny how a statement of fact (that black women are statistically safer around whites than blacks) to you reeks of "racism" but black people saying that they want to get away from whites or that whites should not have passports does not.

...they are much safer around white people than they are around their own kind..

What is "their own kind"?

What "fact" are you defending?

Is their own kind an oppressed and segregated minority? A minority that could be legally discriminated against just based on race in my lifetime? A minority that is incarcerated in high percentages?

Don't blame the victims of centuries of white racism for having bad feelings towards whites.

Wait till the playing field is level for a few centuries, it isn't level at all for many inner city minorities, and for many whites born poor too, before you complain about remnants of racism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These two people should go to that retreat:
https://www.bet.com/news/national/2...esults-in-firing-of-applebee-s-employees.html

Big stress reliever!

Of course, the retreat is a bit of a capitalist sham, but that's just reality. Still, something good could come out of it.

 

[Derec]

These two people should go to that retreat:
https://www.bet.com/news/national/2...esults-in-firing-of-applebee-s-employees.html

Big stress reliever!

Of course, the retreat is a bit of a capitalist sham, but that's just reality. Still, something good could come out of it.

I would rather send the wrongfully terminated Applebees employees to a retreat. They did nothing wrong. Have we reached the point that if a black person dines and dashes, it is considered "racist" to call police?