There Is a Black Man in the White House and He Isn't Pushing a Broom or Carrying a Tray.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You didn't point out a problem. You claimed there was one.

Even so, my thought experiment is allegedly designed to teach you about yours at another level, just like how your thought experiment was allegedly intended to teach something to Athena.

Since you don't know what my thought experiment was designed to 'teach' and you've got no desire to participate, how about you let AA answer?

She is free to answer, just as you are free to answer mine, except she is not here and you are.

As for your own thought experiment, I can hazard a guess at what your message was, but I'm not a mind reader. Unlike you.

You can answer. It's cool.

 

[ZiprHead]

Lazy bugger. I bet he is out of a job soon; they will get a woman in to replace him, and she will get those floors swept and drinks handed around quick-smart, you'll see.

And then she'll falsely cry "Rape!".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I did not expect you to say they were both racist. It's clear your beliefs about the word 'racist' would prevent that. But answer my question, please.

Are the two magistrates doing something equivalently morally abhorrent, or is one worse than the other?

If they are engaging in discriminatory practices, then they are both morally wrong. I am not sure how you make evils equal, I don't know how to measure units of evil. I think I know the answer you are looking for but it will take longer explain than I have right now. I have to run an errand in a few minutes, but I will be back a little later, if you can wait.

In a world where all things are equal, then I suppose so are they.
Of course in a world where all things are equal, why would either of them discriminate based on race? The answer is they wouldn't.

What you wish to discuss is not a hypothetical but an impossibility. Pray tell, why?

 

[KeepTalking]

No.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Does having a black president, black billionaires and millionaires, black folk on juries, black folk on the voters rolls, etc., mean that racism is over?

No why?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If we have all these black millionaries, why don't they just pay off the corrupt cops to have them do their jobs in an honest and non-biased manner?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I sorta figured racism was officially over with the creation of Hootie and the Blowfish.

I always thought it was that black country singer.

 

[Metaphor]

In a world where all things are equal, then I suppose so are they.

No: I did not say a world where 'all was equal'. I said the circumstances of the defendants who the judges see are equivalent.

Experimental researchers do this all the time. They set up a mock jury situation and create two conditions, where the only difference is the race (or sex, or attractiveness, etc) of the 'defendant'.

But, since you misunderstood my question, I'll ask it again:

The wider world is exactly as it is now. In this world, there is a black magistrate who is harsher to her white defendants compared to black defendants because she is racially bigoted against white people. Please don't derail by asking how we know she's harsher. I'm telling you she is.

Is what this magistrate is doing any morally different to what a white magistrate who was racially bigoted against black defendants would be?

Of course in a world where all things are equal, why would either of them discriminate based on race? The answer is they wouldn't.

Huh? Why did anyone ever discriminate by race?

What you wish to discuss is not a hypothetical but an impossibility. Pray tell, why?

I asked you to answer a hypothetical. You and Don2 have refused to answer, although you've carried on plenty with 'objections' to the hypothetical.

 

[Trausti]

No: I did not say a world where 'all was equal'. I said the circumstances of the defendants who the judges see are equivalent.

Experimental researchers do this all the time. They set up a mock jury situation and create two conditions, where the only difference is the race (or sex, or attractiveness, etc) of the 'defendant'.

But, since you misunderstood my question, I'll ask it again:

The wider world is exactly as it is now. In this world, there is a black magistrate who is harsher to her white defendants compared to black defendants because she is racially bigoted against white people. Please don't derail by asking how we know she's harsher. I'm telling you she is.

Is what this magistrate is doing any morally different to what a white magistrate who was racially bigoted against black defendants would be?

Of course in a world where all things are equal, why would either of them discriminate based on race? The answer is they wouldn't.

Huh? Why did anyone ever discriminate by race?

What you wish to discuss is not a hypothetical but an impossibility. Pray tell, why?

I asked you to answer a hypothetical. You and Don2 have refused to answer, although you've carried on plenty with 'objections' to the hypothetical.

Maybe try to understand it from their religious perspective. Only White people, and especially cis-males, are born with original sin of Whiteness™. Hence, only White people are flawed and must seek repentance. Yet, as the sinner cannot be truly absolved of sin until death, White people cannot help but to live sinful lives. On the other hand, non-White people are not born with original sin and thus are not flawed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No: I did not say a world where 'all was equal'. I said the circumstances of the defendants who the judges see are equivalent.

Ohhhhhhhhh. I didn't get what you were saying.

Experimental researchers do this all the time. They set up a mock jury situation and create two conditions, where the only difference is the race (or sex, or attractiveness, etc) of the 'defendant'.

But, since you misunderstood my question, I'll ask it again:

The wider world is exactly as it is now. In this world, there is a black magistrate who is harsher to her white defendants compared to black defendants because she is racially bigoted against white people. Please don't derail by asking how we know she's harsher. I'm telling you she is.

Is what this magistrate is doing any morally different to what a white magistrate who was racially bigoted against black defendants would be?

On the surface, no. BUT if you go deeper, depending on your moral slant, the black magistrate could be seen as worse BECAUSE she knows how harsh and debilitating discrimination can be and would be expected to show more compassionate than the white magistrate. OTHO, she herself may see herself as subverting the system and balancing the scales in her own twisted way. She may see so many black defendants throughout the system get the short end of the stick, that she feels that by finding judgement against more white people, she is actually meting out justice. The white magistrate may be worse if you look at it from the perspective that s/he is not only feeding the existing system on injustice, but with each finding of guilty, making that system stronger so that it may do more damage. Within a system of white supremacy, white supremacist actions ripple further and damage more lives because the system amplifies the initial action. And that which does more damage in many moral systems is that which does more evil.

Of course in a world where all things are equal, why would either of them discriminate based on race? The answer is they wouldn't.

Huh? Why did anyone ever discriminate by race?

Either to establish hierarchy or to perpetuate it. There are books on the subjects and plenty of web articles. Whiteness Studies is based on the study of why this all began. If you are interested, I can post links.

What you wish to discuss is not a hypothetical but an impossibility. Pray tell, why?

I asked you to answer a hypothetical. You and Don2 have refused to answer, although you've carried on plenty with 'objections' to the hypothetical.

Part of that came from not understanding what you were asking. Part comes from residue from previous encounters.

 

[Metaphor]

On the surface, no. BUT if you go deeper, depending on your moral slant, the black magistrate could be seen as worse BECAUSE she knows how harsh and debilitating discrimination can be and would be expected to show more compassionate than the white magistrate. OTHO, she herself may see herself as subverting the system and balancing the scales in her own twisted way. She may see so many black defendants throughout the system get the short end of the stick, that she feels that by finding judgement against more white people, she is actually meting out justice. The white magistrate may be worse if you look at it from the perspective that s/he is not only feeding the existing system on injustice, but with each finding of guilty, making that system stronger so that it may do more damage. Within a system of white supremacy, white supremacist actions ripple further and damage more lives because the system amplifies the initial action. And that which does more damage in many moral systems is that which does more evil.

Why do you think people object to the hypothetical white judge being called 'racist' whilst refusing to call the hypothetical black judge racist, for the exact same actions, with the exact same malice, with the exact same power relationships over the defendants?

About 70% of people who die from intimate partner violence are women, so fatal intimate partner violence is gendered -- women are more at risk. Is it less morally evil to kill your intimate partner if he's a man, because at least you're not contributing to the 'toxic masculinity' culture where men feel entitled to abuse women's bodies?

I don't think it's less morally evil. Intentions are everything. That's why I find the sociological definition of racism not only inaccurate, but also morally dangerous. When a woman of colour, who hashtags #KillAllWhiteMen defends her actions by stating I can't be racist, she is attempting to divert moral culpability from her morally abhorrent act. To say racially bigoted actions from minorities don't really matter is to perpetuate the idea that -- surprise -- racially bigoted actions don't really matter.

Of course they matter. And it matters what they're called too.

Racism is racism is racism.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

On the surface, no. BUT if you go deeper, depending on your moral slant, the black magistrate could be seen as worse BECAUSE she knows how harsh and debilitating discrimination can be and would be expected to show more compassionate than the white magistrate. OTHO, she herself may see herself as subverting the system and balancing the scales in her own twisted way. She may see so many black defendants throughout the system get the short end of the stick, that she feels that by finding judgement against more white people, she is actually meting out justice. The white magistrate may be worse if you look at it from the perspective that s/he is not only feeding the existing system on injustice, but with each finding of guilty, making that system stronger so that it may do more damage. Within a system of white supremacy, white supremacist actions ripple further and damage more lives because the system amplifies the initial action. And that which does more damage in many moral systems is that which does more evil.

Why do you think people object to the hypothetical white judge being called 'racist' whilst refusing to call the hypothetical black judge racist, for the exact same actions, with the exact same malice, with the exact same power relationships over the defendants?

About 70% of people who die from intimate partner violence are women, so fatal intimate partner violence is gendered -- women are more at risk. Is it less morally evil to kill your intimate partner if he's a man, because at least you're not contributing to the 'toxic masculinity' culture where men feel entitled to abuse women's bodies?

I don't think it's less morally evil. Intentions are everything. That's why I find the sociological definition of racism not only inaccurate, but also morally dangerous. When a woman of colour, who hashtags #KillAllWhiteMen defends her actions by stating I can't be racist, she is attempting to divert moral culpability from her morally abhorrent act. To say racially bigoted actions from minorities don't really matter is to perpetuate the idea that -- surprise -- racially bigoted actions don't really matter.

Of course they matter. And it matters what they're called too.

Racism is racism is racism.

I think it is a common understanding of the word, many people use it that way, and by doing so, they allow the racism debate to devolve into a game of I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I? Then instead of discussing how to keep students of color from dropping out of school, we wind up discussing a single hypothetical black guidence counselor who is changing white student grades in order for them to flunk, or some other such nonsense.

You see, as long as you allow certain white people a way to avoid talking about white people and white racism, they will take it. They will turn a thread entitled WHITES, WHITENESS, AND THE WHITENING OF GOODNESS into a 67 page treatise on why black people deserve to be shot by the police.