[Drlee]

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

This oversimplifies the issue. It would be racist for me to assume that "all blacks are violent criminals". It would be folly for me (a white) to walk through East St. Louis late at night.

Do some whites believe that racial equality is simply a matter of income redistribution? Yup. Why? Because that is very frequently exactly how the question and solutions are framed. The conversation goes something like this:

Black people are disproportionately criminals.

That is because they are poor.

Give them jobs and they won't be poor.

There is an education problem in black communities.

That is because they are poor.

It is hard to give good paying jobs to poorly educated people.

Give the schools more money and they will do a better job.

Then they can get jobs?

Maybe.

Why maybe?

Because white people do not trust them very much.

Why?

Because many of them dress, talk and act like gangsters.

Why?

Because criminal behavior is enshrined in modern black culture in America.

Why?

Because they are poor and can't get a job so criminal behavior represents upward mobility and power to them.

So basically we should give them money and they will not longer be criminals?

Well maybe.

So why give them money?

Well basically so they will stay in their own communities and not fuck with us very much.

And that will work?

It has so far.

But that is no solution.

It is not that much money.

[Tainari88]

Hindsite I don't have a lot of time so I will make my points more succinct about racism. Ben Shapiro in many videos and in many broadcasts through Breitbart news and other right wing media has diminished the suffering of other groups and people because he refuses to acknowledge that they personally have felt pain and rejection in a society that socially and many times legally discriminates against them for no reason except for being poor, being black, Latino, transgender, etc. He is a very bright man and well educated and of great intellect and articulation. But he fails to realize that discrimination is something done on a large scale. It is not about one or two individuals. It is about an overall social force that in subtle and not so subtle ways rejects and excludes people. Rejection is something painful for everyone. Most people don't take rejection well. Especially when it pertains to things they don't have any control over---such as living in a body that is male but having a feminine tendency or preference in brain chemistry and makeup, and being of a different somatic look rather than a European look or some such difference. He gets very upset with people who overtly discriminate against Jewish people in an overt way. Because he identifies with that. He should extend that sense of empathy with all people feeling discriminated against but he doesn't because he is self admitted libertarian style of rightist. And they always focus on their own interests as a primary source of judgment. I happen to think we have self deluding programs in all of US. All of us are to some degree self deluded and if you allow yourself to believe wholly in such things and not step back from the self delusion and be at least aware you might hold some prejudices that are based on shit and not on objectivity? You fall into error. Like a corrupted computer program that went bad.

I am aware I get a visceral reaction to tattoos. I looked to an experience in my past that might have triggered that reaction. I found it. I realized it might not be objectively adopted--you got to come up with a remedial program that says to your own visceral reaction...whoa, Tainari, you are not being objective. Better Come up with a 'remedy' to your lack of objectivity. That is what racists fail to do. That remedial situation.

I think Pants of Dog has to realize that keeping the KKK, Neo-Nazi skinheads and others from not venting what is in their psyches and minds openly is a mistake. You need to let them vent. But--they need to be challenged all the time. They need to be confronted. And as Nelson Mandela famously said in his trial with the Apartheid Regime in South Africa "You can't avoid conflict. But conflict does not have to end in violence." (I paraphrase). The point being is that the thought programming involved in the racism is very faulty and error proned, but it is held in a very deep level by the people thinking those thoughts and unless you dig it up and confront it with your logic and if there is a tiny window of opportunity to discuss it without violence being involved? You have progress. In fact, I think PoFo's mission is precisely about that. You have people with enormous differences exchanging ideas here peacefully without a need to murder and spill blood involved. Over time with a long time being exposed to other people's ideas you learn to understand some things, clarify some things and then be able to make final judgments about what you truly identify with in life.

But if you don't try to understand what is perpetuating the racism generation after generation and how these thoughts and behaviors are rooted in families, in history, in social and economic contexts and how human beings are not strictly governed by logic and rationality and you keep insisting they are and that the programs of racism continue due to root issues that are present? No real solution is going to present itself.

Pants of Dog, racists become racists because they are taught that in many subtle and not so subtle ways. Human beings acquire all kinds of prejudices, and have knee jerk reactions to all kinds of things. Repressing them is not an answer. What is an answer is being able to self identify the less than rational parts of your own self and of those whose consciousness is not into racism but who also recognize themselves in the racists too. Haven't you ever felt you held a thought or belief that was not based on logic but on feeling or fear only? If the answer is yes? Then you are in the sphere of where many racists live the majority of their thought lives.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think it's fair to assume that you are opposed, unless you have changed your mind since our last discussion where you have expressed support for shutting racists and other right-wing extremists up using violence.

You may, of course, assume whatever you want of my personal opinions and feelings, as long as we recognise that my personal feelings and opinions are irrelevant.

Having said that, I still do not feel my arguments are suppositions.

Surely it's legitimate to use information about your positions and attitudes other than what you have written in this thread. Including you with people who unreasonably want to restrict free speech is accurate according to the information I have about you, as you would go even further and condone violence to silence them.

If you wish to put me in a box with other people based on misconceptions people have about me, feel free.

Do you have any argument concerning my discussion with respect to free speech and racism?

Now, I asked if it was unreasonable to demand that people live up to their stated beliefs. In modern western liberal democracies, racism and racist speech is inconsistent with the supposed beliefs of society. Therefore, fighting racism is perfectly compatible with the beliefs we supposedly all share, while being racist is not.

------------

Yes it was about taking power from whites. In those cases where whites restrained power the transition to independence was much more successful. EG: Singapore.

Simply ignoring the facts I bring up and repeating your original claim is not an argument.

And so Canada is not a Colonial settler society? Are you ignoring that?

No, but I also do not ignore things like demographics since the colonial era and a host of other factors.

What does this have to do with free speech?

So a white person should give equality, respect and recognition to a POC every time it is demanded? Neither white ppl nor POC treat people in their own groups that way. What you are suggesting is that ethnic back ground is of the utmost political significance and that people ought be placed on a hierarchy of importance determined by that ethnic back ground. Placing differential political significance on ethnicity in order to create a power relationship is the heart of racism.

No. You are constructing a strawman instead of addrsssing my arguemnt.

Peope of colour who are asking or demanding someone stop,being raicst are not constircting an ethnic hierarchy that overrides other things.

In fact, they are challenging an ethnic hierarchy that overrides other things. Racism is exactly that.

This is still you accusing people of colour of racism just becuase they want equality.

Oh yes? And what will you do to me if I resist your will?

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

The answer to your question is: it would depend on the severity of your racism and how it affects others.

If one finds those stated beliefs being subverted and turned against one’s vital interests, then I guess it is time to find a different set of beliefs.

So you think racial equality is against your interests?

Finally, do you have anything to say about my discussion of free speech and how it relates to racism?

[Buzz62]

One of the things I really enjoy about this banter in here, is that I get to learn, about the world, the politics, the beliefs...but most importantly I think, about myself. "some racist guy".

Do I have racist ideas? I'd like to think not, but I can't help admitting that I'd prefer that my kids procreate within their race. Perhaps I should feel guilty about that...
Is racial equality against my interests? No...not really. I'd bet we waste allot of talented people, purely because their lives are mired in poverty. And because, no matter how hard they try, it seems the entirety of society is making it impossible to progress. This must create huge despair, frustration and anger...towards society.

Is it justifiable to limit free speech, because some thoughts lead to words pronounced, that impose painful feelings on other people? Would that even work? Or might it just create a deeper undercurrent of racism? And how does a society go about alleviating racism, if the people you wish to help, have learned to hate you? Deciding society's law enforcement, and in some cases, an entire other race, would be better off dead?

I often wonder...what would have happened in Charlottesville if the counter-protest never happened? Heather Heyer would likely still be alive. The city had already decided to change the name of the park and remove the statue. What if, not only the counter-protest hadn't happened, but the media as a whole, refused to give it any "lip-service"? Probably would have seriously marginalized the effort, eh?

I doubt racism can ever be completely eliminated. But I do think with some effort, it can be controlled, without having to legislate speech and the exchange of ideas. I also think that this discussion can never have positive results, if all sides involved refuse to be honest with others, and with themselves.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You may, of course, assume whatever you want of my personal opinions and feelings, as long as we recognise that my personal feelings and opinions are irrelevant.

Having said that, I still do not feel my arguments are suppositions.

If you wish to put me in a box with other people based on misconceptions people have about me, feel free.

Do you have any argument concerning my discussion with respect to free speech and racism?

You replied to my first post which was directed at those opposing free speech. I don't know why you expect me to respond to discussions that you have with other posters.

Now, I asked if it was unreasonable to demand that people live up to their stated beliefs. In modern western liberal democracies, racism and racist speech is inconsistent with the supposed beliefs of society. Therefore, fighting racism is perfectly compatible with the beliefs we supposedly all share, while being racist is not.

This is really free speech 101 which everybody in liberal democracies should learn in school.

The decision about what should be censored is always political and those in charge will use it to their advantage. Hence, who will be at the receiving end of this will depend on who governs together with those who manage to dominate the public discourse, and with the introduction of censorship the latter will become more aligned with the former. As mentioned earlier, you might find yourself at the receiving end of such a policy in the future, especially if censorship becomes acceptable and those who you have previously censored are in charge. You may also want to consider where the progressive cause would be today without free speech.

The way racism is discussed today is an excellent illustration of the problem with censorship. There are too many unreasonable people who think any fact or opinion they don't like is racist. Your own view that minorities cannot be racist even if they espouse racist views is an example of the ridiculous ideas people can come up with. In general, I have no reason to believe that future generations will be any less unreasonable in deciding what should be censored, whether that's with respect racism or anything else.

[foxdemon]

Simply ignoring the facts I bring up and repeating your original claim is not an argument.



No, but I also do not ignore things like demographics since the colonial era and a host of other factors.

What does this have to do with free speech?

You bought up the issue of racist governments resulting in unaccountability. So I offered some examples. These examples also go to show that white ppl have genuine concerns for their safety if a movement gains political control on the premise that white people must be deprived of power.


You have offered nothing to allay fears that white ppl will end up being persecuted if they become disempowered.

No. You are constructing a strawman instead of addrsssing my arguemnt.

Peope of colour who are asking or demanding someone stop,being raicst are not constircting an ethnic hierarchy that overrides other things.

In fact, they are challenging an ethnic hierarchy that overrides other things. Racism is exactly that.

This is still you accusing people of colour of racism just becuase they want equality.

POC movement wants power, not equality. Again, the example of a professor being hounded by students and forced to resign due to an email about Halloween costumes. That was exercising power to intimidate, not asserting equality.

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

If you have the power, you get to define what is racist. For example, emailing about Halloween costumes. So you could say anything I did, or even was said to have done, was racist and thus you have legitimised the action to be persuaded to me to conform to your will. In practice it would mean that I must do anything you tell me to or being punished.

The answer to your question is: it would depend on the severity of your racism and how it affects others.

Could you be more specific? What if I was judged to have severely transgressed. What would be an appropriate way for you to respond?

So you think racial equality is against your interests?

Oh, I think it is in my interests. Equality is generally a good idea for anyone but the elite. The problem is that not everyone who claims to champion equality are trying to achieve equality. We only need to concider George Orwell’s novel ‘Animal Farm’to see what can happen.

Finally, do you have anything to say about my discussion of free speech and how it relates to racism?

I thought I had written about that. I explained how shutting done free speech was an exercise in dominance behaviour. It shows POC movement to be displaying a lack of concern for free speech. It suggests they have something other than equality on their minds. In fact, it seems to be a grab for power. Their suppression of free speech means they are unaccountable.

[Tainari88]

Dr. Lee, I want to tell you what I think about what you have written here. Excuse me that I can't quote you directly. I am having trouble with this laptop and it is making quoting people difficult.

I just wanted to tell you that you grew up in the South with the racism just a natural part of everyday life. People have what I consider life imprints. Many people acquire these in the first years of childhood and while growing up. Each person is a world of experiences. I think you grew up with a lot of white privilege and fairly racist beliefs but without condoning violence and condoning impolite behavior. But they are racist. I have read you for so many years. You are an educated man and a fine debater on many topics. But over the years I remember all of the many lines you have written about Asians, Blacks, and Latinos and many people. I don't find it particularly objective. On race matters. Your early 'imprints' are deeply embedded in there and it is doubtful you are ever going to be able to 'get rid of it'. I think you deal with it well and you try to find a balance. You try to remain as objective as you are.

Socially you won't ever feel completely comfortable around black people and others and truly be able to find them your absolute equals socially and in many ways. But you abhor injustice and as such you don't tolerate violence and overt discrimination.

My set of experiences has led me to feel comfortable and consider black people my absolute equals. I prefer their company to whites. Especially upper class whites. My adopted older son is African American. My favorite teachers and very influential educators in my life are African descent people. All of them. I grew up in the Caribbean islands where black people are not only my neighbors,and co workers, and friends, but I learned in my own family tree, there are in my genes, African blood, along with Spanish, and Morroccan and Syrian and even Lithuanian all of it mixed over centuries. It taught me that as a human beings we are products of the many who interacted and procreated and purity and segregation is a FICTION. A faulty program. Physically everyone thinks I am white. Mexicans never think I am Latina. Many people fall into shit theories of who people are on the outside surface of things.

For me? Blacks are my absolute equals. They are and always will be. I don't believe white people are superior. I never have. I don't believe any 'race' is superior to another. What there are are differences. And people waste far too much time fearing each other and keeping distance from each other. It is easier that way and natural too. But progress is never about doing what is easy Dr. Lee--it is about doing what is necessary. And in this world we are living in if we don't grow up and start realizing that we are all interdependent and need each other and must treat each other with not only respect and dignity but have to actively seek ways of cooperating in mass efforts to save each other and our planet from going under? Then being feeling driven and fear filled, and wanting to keep our distance is not going to cut it. It will not.

My mother was a fine educator and she received a United Nations Human Rights award post humously and she had people of every nationality crying at her funeral. But what stuck out in my mind in that experience was what she said was the most powerful ingredient for getting over differences and making connections to people: "You got to like and love the people you are teaching first. You got to care about them deeply first." And that is where all the success happens. If you don't like and love Black people or fill in the blank ethnicity? Then you won't be effective teaching them a damn thing. Or feeling connected to them either.

You will forever be stuck in the faulty program that is in error mode. That is all I am ever going to say to you about your racism Dr. Lee. I have always liked you. The end.

[Pants-of-dog]

You bought up the issue of racist governments resulting in unaccountability. So I offered some examples. These examples also go to show that white ppl have genuine concerns for their safety if a movement gains political control on the premise that white people must be deprived of power.

First of all, if you think these are racist governments and you think their racism has created a lack of accountability, then the point is that they are evidence supporting my argument.

Secondly, my discussion of free speech and racism has very little to do with depriving white people of power.

You have offered nothing to allay fears that white ppl will end up being persecuted if they become disempowered.

That is because I am not arguing that white people should be disempowered.

I am arguing that people of colour deserve equality, as that is consistent with the basic tenets of our society. I am also pointing out that sometimes white people do not want to simply treat people of colour as equals because it is not in the interest of white people to do so. This means that if people of colour want the equality they have been promised, they probably will have to resort to forcing white people to treat them with equality.

POC movement wants power, not equality. Again, the example of a professor being hounded by students and forced to resign due to an email about Halloween costumes. That was exercising power to intimidate, not asserting equality.

I disagree with your unsupported assertion.

If you have the power, you get to define what is racist. For example, emailing about Halloween costumes. So you could say anything I did, or even was said to have done, was racist and thus you have legitimised the action to be persuaded to me to conform to your will. In practice it would mean that I must do anything you tell me to or being punished.

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

Could you be more specific? What if I was judged to have severely transgressed. What would be an appropriate way for you to respond?

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

Oh, I think it is in my interests. Equality is generally a good idea for anyone but the elite. The problem is that not everyone who claims to champion equality are trying to achieve equality. We only need to concider George Orwell’s novel ‘Animal Farm’to see what can happen.

So, if racial equality is in your best interests, then it is incorrect to say that the struggle for racial equality is being turned against your vital interests, and if that is the case, there is no reason to abandon that belief.

I thought I had written about that. I explained how shutting done free speech was an exercise in dominance behaviour. It shows POC movement to be displaying a lack of concern for free speech. It suggests they have something other than equality on their minds. In fact, it seems to be a grab for power. Their suppression of free speech means they are unaccountable.

Since POC and anti-racist activists are not part of the elite nor do they control a significant amount of powerful positions in society, how exactly do they dominate? Because if they have so little power, they have no means of suppressing free speech.

Secondly, why is this alleged lack of concern for free speech some sort of power grab, but the very real lack of concern for racial equality is not a power grab? It seems that there is some sort of double standard.

-----------------

This is really free speech 101 which everybody in liberal democracies should learn in school.

The decision about what should be censored is always political and those in charge will use it to their advantage. Hence, who will be at the receiving end of this will depend on who governs together with those who manage to dominate the public discourse, and with the introduction of censorship the latter will become more aligned with the former. As mentioned earlier, you might find yourself at the receiving end of such a policy in the future, especially if censorship becomes acceptable and those who you have previously censored are in charge.

Since POC and anti-racist activists are not part of the elite nor do they control a significant amount of powerful positions in society, how exactly do they dominate? Because if they have so little power, they have no means of suppressing free speech.

As was pointed out upthread, those with more power and money have far more freedom of speech than the rest of us.

You may also want to consider where the progressive cause would be today without free speech.

You may also want to consider where free speech would be today without the progressive cause.

The way racism is discussed today is an excellent illustration of the problem with censorship. There are too many unreasonable people who think any fact or opinion they don't like is racist.

Yes. In this very thread I have been told that it is racist against white people when people of colour demand equality.

And I am often accused of being racist against white people as a way of discrediting my arguments. It is ironically lolicious.

I also find that the same problem occurs with "censorship". Any criticism of a person's viewpoint is considered censorship.

Your own view that minorities cannot be racist even if they espouse racist views is an example of the ridiculous ideas people can come up with. In general, I have no reason to believe that future generations will be any less unreasonable in deciding what should be censored, whether that's with respect racism or anything else.

Is it ridiculous to think that people with more power in society will have more impact on society when they are racist?

And ridiculous to think that people of colour have significantly less power in society due to racism?

And that these two facts have an effect on each other?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Pants-of-dog, I see nothing in your response that convinces me that free speech should be restricted. Progressives almost certainly wouldn't have been able to achieve anything close to what they have achieved in the west if we hadn't upheld it. This was at a time when the vast majority of people was conservative and by today's progressives' standards outright "Nazis". So societies that were dominated by "Nazis" gave your side the opportunity to make your case, but now that progressives see an opening to shut up opponents they seem to have second thoughts (e.g. see poll below). Not that it is necessarily surprising, but it's still worth noting. And it's exactly this kind of opportunism that makes it necessary to be principled about free speech.

Poll: Over half of Calif. Democrats in favor of free speech restrictions

A recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley reveals that over half of California Democrats are in favor of free speech restrictions for white nationalists and other "hate groups." According to the poll, 53 percent of the state's Democrats believe that white nationalists should not have the right to demonstrate, compared to 42 percent of the state's Republicans and 39 percent of independent voters. Statewide, 46 percent of voters support free speech restrictions, 43 percent believe that there should be no restrictions, and 11 percent have no opinion.

The poll was conducted by Berkeley's Institute of Government Studies from Aug. 27 to Sept. 5, and included 1,200 registered California voters. "I would have thought the liberals would be defending the right to demonstrate in general," the poll's director, Mark DiCamillo, told the San Jose Mercury News. Sixty-six percent of the participants also believe that race relations have worsened in the past year, and 67 percent have "little to no confidence" in President Donald Trump's "ability to handle the country's race relations."

Forty percent of white participants were in favor of restricting the free speech of white nationalists, compared to 51 percent of Latino participants, 58 percent of African American participants and 59 percent of Asian American participants.

UC Berkeley will be hosting conservative speaker Ben Shapiro on Thursday night, and Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon will give on-campus speeches later this month as part of the currently unsanctioned "Free Speech Week."

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog, I see nothing in your response that convinces me that free speech should be restricted.

That would make sense as I have not arrived at that part yet.

Progressives almost certainly wouldn't have been able to achieve anything close to what they have achieved in the west if we hadn't upheld it. This was at a time when the vast majority of people was conservative and by today's progressives' standards outright "Nazis". So societies that were dominated by "Nazis" gave your side the opportunity to make your case, but now that progressives see an opening to shut up opponents they seem to have second thoughts (e.g. see poll below). Not that it is necessarily surprising, but it's still worth noting. And it's exactly this kind of opportunism that makes it necessary to be principled about free speech.

I do not think that it is a fair description of history to say that conservatives gave rights to the rest of us.

While some people would have simply recognised the rights of others (or as you put it, gave others rights), others would have done so reluctantly, and still others would have vociferously opposed rights for minorities.

Anyways, I agree that we need to take a measured and principled approach to limiting free speech if we do at all. Which is why I am constructing a logical argument rather than simply denouncing racists as vile people, etc.

----------------

Now, we have looked at the main arguments for free speech and have seen how they do not apply to racist speech.

We have also shown how free speech is not an absolute right, but like other rights is limited by the government in certain situations. And those situations are those where it can be shown that this type of speech causes clear harm: libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, planning a crime, or threats, to name a few examples.

So the obvious question is "does racism cause harm?", and that answer seems to be "yes".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447717/

The authors review the available empirical evidence from population-based studies of the association between perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination and health. This research indicates that discrimination is associated with multiple indicators of poorer physical and, especially, mental health status.

However, the extant research does not adequately address whether and how exposure to discrimination leads to increased risk of disease. Gaps in the literature include limitations linked to measurement of discrimination, research designs, and inattention to the way in which the association between discrimination and health unfolds over the life course.

Research on stress points to important directions for the future assessment of discrimination and the testing of the underlying processes and mechanisms by which discrimination can lead to changes in health.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I do not think that it is a fair description of history to say that conservatives gave rights to the rest of us.

While some people would have simply recognised the rights of others (or as you put it, gave others rights), others would have done so reluctantly, and still others would have vociferously opposed rights for minorities.

I didn't say that conservatives gave progressives rights, but that they gave them the opportunity to make their case, just like you are allowed to say today that it's all right to use violence against people whose views you find despicable. However, you won't be able to convince me that it's possible to establish reasonable criteria with respect to the decision about what is racist and, importantly, future-prove them, not least because you have already demonstrated that your own position is wholly unreasonable and, as mentioned, we have ample proof that plenty of people already think that a racist is anybody who disagrees with them and that facts can be racist. The way race and related issues are discussed today is an exercise in highlighting why speech restrictions are an atrocious idea.

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't say that conservatives gave progressives rights, but that they gave them the opportunity to make their case, just like you are allowed to say today that it's all right to use violence against people whose views you find despicable.

I would argue that my previous point about how different groups had different reactions would be a more realistic description of the events.

However, you won't be able to convince me that it's possible to establish reasonable criteria with respect to the decision about what is racist and, importantly, future-prove them, not least because you have already demonstrated that your own position is wholly unreasonable and, as mentioned, we have ample proof that plenty of people already think that a racist is anybody who disagrees with them and that facts can be racist. The way race and related issues are discussed today is an exercise in highlighting why speech restrictions are an atrocious idea.

We came about with reasonable criteria for other limits to speech. It seems reasonable to assume that if such reasons also exist for racist speech that we could discover them. And that we could also find a way for the power not to be abused.

I honestly find it hard to imagine a social situation where this sort of regulation get targeted at people of colour who are currently dealing with racism. Racism is not one of those things where the pendulum swings the other way every few generations. The racism we are currently dealing with has centuries of history, and it would probably take just as long for the pendulum to swing the other way in this regard.

How have I demonstrated that my position is wholly unreasonable?

Finally, it seems that we would heed a strict and clear defintion of racism.

[foxdemon]

First of all, if you think these are racist governments and you think their racism has created a lack of accountability, then the point is that they are evidence supporting my argument.

Indeed those examples do. And what’s more, suppressing free speech is a big part of that lack of accountability.

Secondly, my discussion of free speech and racism has very little to do with depriving white people of power.

It does if it means POC activists are held above criticism, since those activists target white ppl.

That is because I am not arguing that white people should be disempowered.

It’s not enough to simply claim that while arguing at every opportunity for inequitable basis for discourse.

I am arguing that people of colour deserve equality, as that is consistent with the basic tenets of our society. I am also pointing out that sometimes white people do not want to simply treat people of colour as equals because it is not in the interest of white people to do so. This means that if people of colour want the equality they have been promised, they probably will have to resort to forcing white people to treat them with equality.

Earlier you mentioned POC weren’t part of the establishment and thus had no power. So was the last US president a POC? What of Colin Powell? How many others do I need to mention? If that isn’t an example of POC getting what they were promised then what is? Or have I misunderstood what you mean by POC?

So why the need for force if it is not a grab for power? Do you see why I am thinking you are just using racial politics to push a political agenda of your own?

I disagree with your unsupported assertion.

Comes from the SJW thread in Gorky Park. Would you like a link?

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

Why do you need to persuade me? Why is it your responsibility? And why should I do things your way?

You did not answer my questions:

As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

I’m still waiting for you to provide specific examples of how you will force me to comply.

So, if racial equality is in your best interests, then it is incorrect to say that the struggle for racial equality is being turned against your vital interests, and if that is the case, there is no reason to abandon that belief.

Staying alive is a vital interest. If you and your POC activist comrades had power, I would be in big trouble. You ha e said nothing convincing that I would be free or safe, or indeed equal under your desired regime. I just don’t believe you are really interested in equality or political freedom. My opposition to radical Islam has the same basis. Sorry, but staying alive is a vital interest I don’t want to give up. Nor do I particularly want to be dominated or subjugated.


However, not everyone is as power crazed as those extremist groups. So in other cases then I have no issue with racial equality.

Since POC and anti-racist activists are not part of the elite nor do they control a significant amount of powerful positions in society, how exactly do they dominate? Because if they have so little power, they have no means of suppressing free speech.

See above regarding the last President. Furthermore, POC activist students seem to have plenty of power to suppress free speech. And, by your own admition, those with power can act on their racism. So POC activists ought to be criticised when appropriate. Ergo they shouldn’t be allowed to suppress free speech.

Secondly, why is this alleged lack of concern for free speech some sort of power grab, but the very real lack of concern for racial equality is not a power grab? It seems that there is some sort of double standard.

Indeed. Like asserting POC can not be racist. There’s a fine example of a double standard.

[ingliz]

So was the last US president a POC? What of Colin Powell? How many others do I need to mention?

Coconuts.

offensive , slang
a black or Asian person who conforms to white culture at the expense of his or her ancestral culture, the idea being that, like a coconut, he or she is dark on the outside and white on the inside.

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed those examples do. And what’s more, suppressing free speech is a big part of that lack of accountability.

Please provide evidence that free speech is restricted and this has a signifianct impact on society. Provide links and quote the relevant text.

It does if it means POC activists are held above criticism, since those activists target white ppl.

Since it does not mean that, I wil simply move on.

It’s not enough to simply claim that while arguing at every opportunity for inequitable basis for discourse.

Since I am not arguing that, I will simply move on.

Earlier you mentioned POC weren’t part of the establishment and thus had no power. So was the last US president a POC? What of Colin Powell? How many others do I need to mention? If that isn’t an example of POC getting what they were promised then what is? Or have I misunderstood what you mean by POC?

Lol. The fact that one or two individuals were able to access high positions of power does not magically mean that people of colour are not disproportionately under-represented in positions of power.

So why the need for force if it is not a grab for power? Do you see why I am thinking you are just using racial politics to push a political agenda of your own?

If you are just here to accuse me of crap, please stop responding to my posts. You are ignoring my actual arguments, constructing a strawman where I am an evil man wishing for despotic power, and otherwise derailing the conversation.

Comes from the SJW thread in Gorky Park. Would you like a link?

To that thread where you guys unthinkingly high five each other for uncritically accepting your buddy's opinion about SJWs and not realise that you guys are often swallowing lies from internet trolls? No thanks. That thread is a cesspool.

Do you have a link to an actual story?

Why do you need to persuade me? Why is it your responsibility? And why should I do things your way?

Because YOU SAID that people of colour need to persuade white peope to fight racism.

It is one thing to be confused about my posts. It is quite another to not even be able to keep track of your own arguments.

I’m still waiting for you to provide specific examples of how you will force me to comply.

And I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. I have no idea why I should always jump to answer all your questions when you ignore mine over and over again.

Perhaps it is yet another example where people who support the establishment can demand whatever they want and ignore the demands of everyone else,

Staying alive is a vital interest. If you and your POC activist comrades had power, I would be in big trouble. You ha e said nothing convincing that I would be free or safe, or indeed equal under your desired regime. I just don’t believe you are really interested in equality or political freedom. My opposition to radical Islam has the same basis. Sorry, but staying alive is a vital interest I don’t want to give up. Nor do I particularly want to be dominated or subjugated.

However, not everyone is as power crazed as those extremist groups. So in other cases then I have no issue with racial equality.

This is just an ad hominem. Ignored.

See above regarding the last President. Furthermore, POC activist students seem to have plenty of power to suppress free speech. And, by your own admition, those with power can act on their racism. So POC activists ought to be criticised when appropriate. Ergo they shouldn’t be allowed to suppress free speech.

Please cite an example. Thanks.

Indeed. Like asserting POC can not be racist. There’s a fine example of a double standard.

So we agree that you have a double standard and that you allow racist people more freedom than you do to people of colour.

The fact that you incorrectly believe me to hold a double standard does not change that.

[Buzz62]

Coconuts.

offensive , slang
a black or Asian person who conforms to white culture at the expense of his or her ancestral culture, the idea being that, like a coconut, he or she is dark on the outside and white on the inside.

amusing...

I'm wondering if our society hasn't taught or trained the population to expect respect, sans the requirement to earn respect.

[ingliz]

the requirement to earn respect.

Under the leadership of America’s first black president, black people have been the biggest losers.

• 25% of black households live below the poverty line as compared to eight percent for white households.

• One out of three black children lives in poverty.

• Blacks are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed.

• Blacks earn $13,000 less per year than their white counterparts.

• For every $100 in wealth of a white household, the black household only has $6 in wealth.

[Buzz62]

And these are Obama's fault? Powell's?
SJW trolls only serve to harden the resolve of the opposing side of an argument. While it cheapens the other side, and embarrasses its supporters.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Buzz62

You spend a lot of time policing the tone of your ideological opponents, while ignoring your own behaviour.

Do you have anything to say about free speech?

[Buzz62]

@Buzz62

You spend a lot of time policing the tone of your ideological opponents, while ignoring your own behaviour.

Do you have anything to say about free speech?

Yes.
Leave it be...