Nike, Kaepernick and Arizona... - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019214
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that blacks do not actually discriminate against white people on any significant level.


It's significant to the people being discriminated against, and that's what matters...
#15019220
BigSteve wrote:So, if I claim that you sell drugs to children and touch little boys inappropriately, there's no reason not to believe those claims are not true?

That's some pretty stupid reasoning you've got going there...


If both situations were like the accusations here (i.e. there was no evidence at all), your comparison would make sense.

But since you already presented evidence about the insignificant level of racism against whites, and we have the history of the US to support the argument of widespread and significant racism against blacks, your comparison fails.

I find that many conservatives ignore history and evidence when debating racism. They tend to make it about feelings and some sort of idealistic level playing field where everyone should behave the same despite this important historical and empirical differences.

So we should just turn a blind eye to racism directed at whites from blacks?


If it is just less than perfect service in a tiny minority of stores, then we should place it low in the priority list. Things like significant racism should take precedence.

More to your point, though, I will buy you a fucking house if you can show where I ever said that racism towards blacks is not far more prevalent.

If all you're going to do is make shit up about what you think I believe, let me know now so I can just laugh at you from here on out...


I never said that you claimed that.
#15019232
Pants-of-dog wrote:If it is just less than perfect service in a tiny minority of stores, then we should place it low in the priority list. Things like significant racism should take precedence.


If it's not happening to you, your opinion is completely meaningless. What matters are the opinions of those who have to endure it. It might be unimportant to you. It's not unimportant to them and, as were discussing racism directed at them and not you, they matter a lot more than you.

This particular merchant has a history of offering a lower standard of service to anyone who's not black. He's even stated that he would open his store only to blacks if he could, but he doesn't want to be hit with a discrimination lawsuit. Instead, he offers shoddy service to whites in the hopes they'll go elsewhere.

That's racism...
#15019236
BigSteve wrote:If it's not happening to you, your opinion is completely meaningless. What matters are the opinions of those who have to endure it. It might be unimportant to you. It's not unimportant to them and, as were discussing racism directed at them and not you, they matter a lot more than you.


Please stop discussing feelings as if they matter in logical debate.

It is a fact that there is no discrimination.

It is a fact that there is no state support for this racism.

It is a fact it does not perpetuate US traditions of racism.

It is a fact that it is neither systemic or institutional.

This particular merchant has a history of offering a lower standard of service to anyone who's not black. He's even stated that he would open his store only to blacks if he could, but he doesn't want to be hit with a discrimination lawsuit. Instead, he offers shoddy service to whites in the hopes they'll go elsewhere.

That's racism...


Not by all definitions of racism. For example, there is no discrimination going on.

This is qualitatively different from the racism targeting blacks. I you wish to pretend they are the same because of feelings, go ahead. No one else will see that as a rational and logical argument.
#15019244
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please stop discussing feelings as if they matter in logical debate.

It is a fact that there is no discrimination.

It is a fact that there is no state support for this racism.

It is a fact it does not perpetuate US traditions of racism.

It is a fact that it is neither systemic or institutional.



Not by all definitions of racism. For example, there is no discrimination going on.

This is qualitatively different from the racism targeting blacks. I you wish to pretend they are the same because of feelings, go ahead. No one else will see that as a rational and logical argument.


You and your ilk are the real reason racism still exists today.

You need it to exist because, if it doesn't, you've got nothing. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation
#15019255
And your only reply is ad hominems.

Back to the topic:

If we define racism as feelings of dislike towards other races, then yes, we all do it. But no one is just talking about feelings. This is not therapy.

We are also talking about discrimination and systemic problems that go beyond the feelings of the individuals who work in the system. We are talking about history and how that has shaped the present, and economics and how economic inequality helps perpetuate racism against people of colour, and is in turn supported by said racism.

And when we look at that larger picture, it is clear that this discussion about feelings limits the debate to a realm where white people can argue that they are also victims of racism.
#15019260
Pants-of-dog wrote:And your only reply is ad hominems.

Back to the topic:

If we define racism as feelings of dislike towards other races, then yes, we all do it. But no one is just talking about feelings. This is not therapy.

We are also talking about discrimination and systemic problems that go beyond the feelings of the individuals who work in the system. We are talking about history and how that has shaped the present, and economics and how economic inequality helps perpetuate racism against people of colour, and is in turn supported by said racism.

And when we look at that larger picture, it is clear that this discussion about feelings limits the debate to a realm where white people can argue that they are also victims of racism.


I see.

So, because Admin edit: Rule 2 Violation to address single cases of very real racism, you ignore them.

Got it...
#15019264
Your ad hominems are unintentionally humorous.

Do you agree that no actual discrimination is going on since white people do get service?

Do you agree that there is no state support for this racism (i.e. there are no laws, polices or government actions that help this storeowner feel antipathy for white people)?

Do you agree that historically, the vast majority of politically significant racism between whites and blacks has been whites targeting blacks? And that this one minor example does not continue this historical trend?

Do you agree that the racism at this store is solely an emotional thing, and does not involve social institutions or social systems?

If you disagree, let me know! Thanks!
#15019286
And again Big Steve cannot read. He really can't. Here is proof. He said that I said that "a black guy can't be racist". Here is what I posted.



Absolutely correct. And, as I said before, you simply do not understand this or are too racist to understand it. I will be kind and conclude that you simply do not understand.

Or to be more clear, the black guy may be a racist but not for voting for President Obama primarily because he is black.

Anyone want to spend the time to help him?


Please someone. Get Big Steve help with his reading comprehension. He is making himself look bad. Worse.
#15019428
Drlee wrote:And again Big Steve cannot read. He really can't. Here is proof. He said that I said that "a black guy can't be racist". Here is what I posted.

"Or to be more clear, the black guy may be a racist but not for voting for President Obama primarily because he is black.


In your world, if a white guy votes for a white guy because the candidate's white, that white voter is a racist. If a black guy votes for a black guy because the candidate's black, though, that black voter is not a racist.

The ignorance of that cannot be overstated...





Please someone. Get Big Steve help with his reading comprehension. He is making himself look bad. Worse.[/quote]
#15019435
BigSteve wrote:In your world, if a white guy votes for a white guy because the candidate's white, that white voter is a racist. If a black guy votes for a black guy because the candidate's black, though, that black voter is not a racist.


Exactly!

Well, this is only true in the USA or other countries with a similar history of racism.

And this is because of the historical fact that whites have oppressed blacks.
#15019438
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly!

Well, this is only true in the USA or other countries with a similar history of racism.

And this is because of the historical fact that whites have oppressed blacks.


This is so easy to dismiss it's comical...
#15019444
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it is easy to dismiss things.

It is a lot harder to refute them.

You should challenge yourself to do the second.


The bottom line is that blacks can be , and in many cases are, racists.

Believing anything else is ignorant and stupid...
#15019446
That depends on how you define racism.

And we already discussed how blacks cannot or do not significantly impact white people with their racism, even if they do gate white people.
#15019449
Pants-of-dog wrote:That depends on how you define racism.

And we already discussed how blacks cannot or do not significantly impact white people with their racism, even if they do gate white people.


Racism directed towards one person is every bit as impactful to that one person as systemic racism has been throughout history, regardless of the color of the skin of the offender or the recipient of said racism.

Dismissing an act of racism simply because it's not on a grand scale, as many on the left apparently wish to do, is the very reason racism still exists today.

If you truly want to see racism eradicated, it would serve that end well if you treated EVERY act of racism as something disgusting and vile.

It's clear you don't want to do that, though...
#15019450
BigSteve wrote:Racism directed towards one person is every bit as impactful to that one person as systemic racism has been throughout history, regardless of the color of the skin of the offender or the recipient of said racism.


Please present evidence for this claim.

You are arguing that a white person receiving less than perfect service at a store is comparable to things like significantly reduced income and opportunities for schooling and jobs, increased levels of conflict with police forces, and all the other things that blacks deal with on the daily.

Is that what you intend to argue?
#15019452
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please present evidence for this claim.

You are arguing that a white person receiving less than perfect service at a store is comparable to things like significantly reduced income and opportunities for schooling and jobs, increased levels of conflict with police forces, and all the other things that blacks deal with on the daily.

Is that what you intend to argue?


No.

I'm arguing that dismissing small instances of racism perpetuates them. When that happens, they can grow in both frequency and severity. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess, but it's nowhere good...
#15019453
Are you then arguing that we should oppose minor acts of racism because they can snowball into larger and more significant ones?

If so, what does that mean for dealing with existing widespread and significant racism?
#15019454
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you then arguing that we should oppose minor acts of racism because they can snowball into larger and more significant ones?


Absolutely...

If so, what does that mean for dealing with existing widespread and significant racism?


It's not an "either/or" scenario.

Deal with both at the same time...
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13

If they bought the land, it suggests that they do[…]

What I meant was I was wondering how you conclude[…]

A Rabbi said it is OK to kill a non-jew to get his[…]

They're certainly a threat to Ngo. No. He can[…]