Society/Culture When is racism really racism?

[Gethelred]

Are you drunk?

Recognise when audience participation isn't good for the spectacle, mate.

If you could contribute to their conversation, all to the good, but you're just chirping away there thinking you're unleashing strike after strike whilst hitting nothing but gutter.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Recognise when audience participation isn't good for the spectacle, mate.

If you could contribute to their conversation, all to the good, but you're just chirping away there thinking you're unleashing strike after strike whilst hitting nothing but gutter.

I posted that more than two months ago.
Perhaps take your own advice?

 

[Gethelred]

I posted that more than two months ago.
Perhaps take your own advice?

Hey, reading my way through the thread, got sick you attempting to argue above your capacity to argue.

It's an interesting discussion, and it would've been more interesting if you weren't constantly trying to get head pats.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No one said "cultural pride" should be discouraged.

Are you going to attempt to reframe another discussion around something no one suggested or disputed?

"It's not about x. It's about y [insert something platitudinous, irrelevant and not in dispute]."

I was just giving my take is all. I wasn't 'joining in' on the back-and-forth that you and ferball are having. This is a thread about racism after all, yeah?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is a thread about racism after all, yeah?

Maybe it's about something else entirely. I'm sure you'll tell us.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Maybe it's about something else entirely. I'm sure you'll tell us.

Woah! Where's this passive-aggressive stuff coming from? We couldn't come to agreeance in another thread. So what? I wasn't aware we were 'enemies' here. Do you think differently?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Woah! Where's this passive-aggressive stuff coming from? We couldn't come to agreeance in another thread. So what? I wasn't aware we were 'enemies' here. Do you think differently?

It's not passive-aggressive. It's neither of those. I'm mocking your insistence on reframing discussions around irrelevancies.

I don't have "enemies". That would suggest parity.

I have satellites.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Oh Sweet Jesus...

 

[ShanDog]

Here's a genuine question related to the thread: does this count as racism?



For info, the Facebook post was later edited to remove the colour of the players' skin.

What say you, brains trust?

 

[Gethelred]

Here's a genuine question related to the thread: does this count as racism?



For info, the Facebook post was later edited to remove the colour of the players' skin.

What say you, brains trust?

Wouldn't have thought so. It's a bit of a neutral situation: taking the word 'black' away doesn't change the meaning, putting it in doesn't really add anything you're not going to know from reading the article.

But then, Twitter is an open sewer anyway.

 

[Werewolf]

"Three players" would've been sufficient, with names provided in the article. The fact they all happened to be "black" is a coincidence, and didn't need to be in the headline.

 

[the_interloper]

Here's a genuine question related to the thread: does this count as racism?



For info, the Facebook post was later edited to remove the colour of the players' skin.

What say you, brains trust?

I'm very surprised that they would have put "black" in the headline. Is it racist? I have no idea, I'm sure many views will differ, and I'm white so no one probably cares whether I think it is or not.

 

[the_interloper]

Here's my understanding of the ethno-nationalist thing;

Ethnonationalism is the promotion of one ethnic group above all others. It is often an extreme promotion, and aggressive when it meets opposition.

Cultural pride is one step below. You're proud of your ethnic group and practice at least some of its traditions, cooking, music, etc. But you don't do these things at the expense of other cultures. A working multiculture has room for various disparate traditions and outlooks.

Now I'm proud of my Irish roots. But that pride stops at the door of shoving it down other peoples' throats, which is what I would do if I were an ethno-nationalist.

Cultural pride = good. Ethnonationalism = bad. The two are very much interrelated, but only one is an extreme.

I pretty much agree with what you've said. Though I think there is a distinction between "ethnonationalism" as a white and a black person, if you're white I think it's more frowned upon, that's my perception anyway.

 

[ShanDog]

"Three players" would've been sufficient, with names provided in the article. The fact they all happened to be "black" is a coincidence, and didn't need to be in the headline.

Are you sure it's coincidence?

 

[spinynorman]

"Three players" would've been sufficient, with names provided in the article. The fact they all happened to be "black" is a coincidence, and didn't need to be in the headline.

The story though is that they copped racist attacks after missing their penalties, so their being black is a key part of the story.

 

[Werewolf]

Are you sure it's coincidence?

The story though is that they copped racist attacks after missing their penalties, so their being black is a key part of the story.

Obviously yes, but they didn't miss their penalty shots on goal because they're "black".

To clarify, the top headline should have read "Three players missed shots in the penalty shootout..." and the bottom one with 'Abhorrent abuse' could include "black" since it's relevant there. That would make more sense.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Here's a genuine question related to the thread: does this count as racism?



For info, the Facebook post was later edited to remove the colour of the players' skin.

What say you, brains trust?

The headline specifying 'black players' is in direct answer to WHY English players were racially abused online after the loss. Why? Because they were black. Is it right? No. Should the abusers cease breathing in the oxygen shared by this planet's many cultures and ethnicities? Yes, absolutely.

It might have been framed better but the 7 news headline isn't racist in my book as all it does is explain why the abuse occurred.

 

[spinynorman]

Obviously yes, but they didn't miss their penalty shots on goal because they're "black".

To clarify, the top headline should have read "Three players missed shots in the penalty shootout..." and the bottom one with 'Abhorrent abuse' could include "black" since it's relevant there. That would make more sense.

For sure, it’s badly formatted. With Facebook the headline appears at the bottom of the post, so the top one is really intended as the subheading, which is counterintuitive though not entirely uncommon. It’s just especially awkward here because the first thing you read badly needs the context of what comes next.

 

[Frank Bunn]

If critical race theory applies to Western society across the board, then I don't think it's outrageous to say there has historically been some structural racism within those institutions, whether we're talking about the legacy of slavery in the US or the fact Australian aboriginals were denied the vote until the 1960s. Those are unimpeachable examples of "institutional racism". Institutions were designed in a way that explicitly advantaged and disadvantaged people along racial lines.

I, however, would like to think those institutions have been able to reform and adapt rather than being written off as irredeemably racist to the point where we have to remake everything. That may just be my "white privilege" showing, though.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the degree to which this structural or institutional racism echoes through societies today and whether we're obliged to counteract that.

I think RWers who completely deny its influence are misguided. I think CRT junkies who see structural racism everywhere and demand radical remedies are also misguided. Some of my related thoughts on the matter can be found here. Indeed, that thread might be the more appropriate place for discussions about CRT.

As I said in the other thread there are some commonalities across Western society on race issues but there are also significant differences, for example, between the history in the USA and Australia. I don't think CRT gives any great insight into the situation in either country.

Australia has a colonial past which, pretty much like every nation on earth, shared a racist ideology in the early 20th century. I could dispute your claim that Australian aboriginals were denied the vote until the 1960s. But it's a moot point if we are both agreed that the institutions have reformed so that it's half a century since it was an issue. The only real structural racist policies remaining in Australia are those on behalf of Australian aboriginals. It has become a self serving industry. As you stated, Western society in 2021 is probably the least racist place in human history. However, as Thomas Sowell said “Racism is not dead, but it is on life support, kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racist’".

The US situation has a different history of slavery and 20th century civil rights. But the current generation is a long way from integrationists like Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Bayard Rustin who came out of impoverished circumstances and experienced real and terrible racism. We are being asked to respond to some of the most privileged people in the United States complaining that they are victims - like Meghan Markle, Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. They grew up in upper-middle-class families. They are the epitome of the American dream with equal if not better opportunities than most.

If you watch the full video you referenced, not the guy providing his own overlay, you will see Shapiro point out that there has been a shift in the definition of racism - so that any societal structure that results in a disparate outcome between races must be racist. Therefore NBL must be racist etc. He also points out that in recent years there has been a big cultural change so that more kids are growing up in homes without fathers. This correlates to poor outcomes but it doesn't fit into the CRT narrative.

The crime stats do not show that the US is generally racist by white people. Inter-racial crime is disproportionately black on white and black on Asian. A racist society would not allow a minority that makes up about 12 percent to elect a black president. They would not allow Kamala Harris to be vice president. You wouldn't have an election race in North Carolina where both the Republican and Democratic candidates are black. The preoccupation with race is an abstraction among the elite. It's not the concerns of the actual poor and marginalized people in the inner city.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

As I said in the other thread there are some commonalities across Western society on race issues but there are also significant differences, for example, between the history in the USA and Australia. I don't think CRT gives any great insight into the situation in either country.

Australia has a colonial past which, pretty much like every nation on earth, shared a racist ideology in the early 20th century. I could dispute your claim that Australian aboriginals were denied the vote until the 1960s. But it's a moot point if we are both agreed that the institutions have reformed so that it's half a century since it was an issue. The only real structural racist policies remaining in Australia are those on behalf of Australian aboriginals. It has become a self serving industry. As you stated, Western society in 2021 is probably the least racist place in human history. However, as Thomas Sowell said “Racism is not dead, but it is on life support, kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racist’".

The US situation has a different history of slavery and 20th century civil rights. But the current generation is a long way from integrationists like Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Bayard Rustin who came out of impoverished circumstances and experienced real and terrible racism. We are being asked to respond to some of the most privileged people in the United States complaining that they are victims - like Meghan Markle, Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. They grew up in upper-middle-class families. They are the epitome of the American dream with equal if not better opportunities than most.

If you watch the full video you referenced, not the guy providing his own overlay, you will see Shapiro point out that there has been a shift in the definition of racism - so that any societal structure that results in a disparate outcome between races must be racist. Therefore NBL must be racist etc. He also points out that in recent years there has been a big cultural change so that more kids are growing up in homes without fathers. This correlates to poor outcomes but it doesn't fit into the CRT narrative.

The crime stats do not show that the US is generally racist by white people. Inter-racial crime is disproportionately black on white and black on Asian. A racist society would not allow a minority that makes up about 12 percent to elect a black president. They would not allow Kamala Harris to be vice president. You wouldn't have an election race in North Carolina where both the Republican and Democratic candidates are black. The preoccupation with race is an abstraction among the elite. It's not the concerns of the actual poor and marginalized people in the inner city.

I don't have enough confidence in your intellect or honesty to read anything this length you've written.

I've seen enough to conclude you're a bit clueless and FOS.

 

[Werewolf]

I don't have enough confidence in your intellect or honesty to read anything this length you've written.

I've seen enough to conclude you're a bit clueless and FOS.

It seems you think that everyone who is not you is "clueless and FOS"

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It seems you think that everyone who is not you is "clueless and FOS"

No, that's a special category for folks who say dumb, dishonest things.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I don't have enough confidence in your intellect or honesty to read anything this length you've written.

I've seen enough to conclude you're a bit clueless and FOS.

LOL.

I write a short summary and you complain I'm waffling. I write a little more detail and it's beyond you to comprehend.

I have also seen enough to conclude that you are disingenuous and FOS. You are wasting my time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I write a short summary and you complain I'm waffling. I write a little more detail and it's beyond you to comprehend.

I've seen how you respond when your arguments fail. Dumb and dishonest. Why would I engage with that?

You're not entitled to other people's attention, particularly when you operate in such obvious bad faith and ignorance.

I have also seen enough to conclude that you are disingenuous and FOS. You are wasting my time.

You waste your own time by not knowing what you're talking about.

 

[the_interloper]

I've seen how you respond when your arguments fail. Dumb and dishonest. Why would I engage with that?

You're not entitled to other people's attention, particularly when you operate in such obvious bad faith and ignorance.

You waste your own time by not knowing what you're talking about.

You're one of my favourite posters on here