All things Racist...USA edition (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[Saint by the Bay]

This is why i think the context is important.

In a vacuum, all racism is bad.

In context, racism doesn't have to be bad.

Affirmative action is racism, but in the context of a culture where white privilege is prevalent, it could be argued that affirmative action is an acceptable version of racism.

But that’s not true. Racism requires some ill intent toward a race or a belief that one race is not capable of doing x because of their race. That’s not what affirmative action programs are or have ever been.

That’s why I say we need a more nuanced discussion and not a simple +- discussion on racism. Not everything involving race is “racism”. Our desire to always drive to this + - discussion of race really limits our dialogue. Racism is a very charged word, and it should be. It should be limited to ideas or policies that have a direct ill intent or based on the idea that one race is better than the other. If the attempt is just to balance the playing field or make things right it can be a bad idea without being racist. The problem is as soon as you roll out that word people get so defensive because it has a very specific negative connotation and meaning.

If I tell someone they are invested in culture wars and grievance populism the dialogue generally moves forward. If I immediately jump to the nuclear option (you’re racist) it ends right there because of what that word means.

 

[samiam5211]

key word :argued

yea, obviously i wouldn't expect a white privilege denier to accept that affirmative action is acceptable.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

O

O


Of course it is race based, but it is a well intentioned program to help, so it is not racist.

So if her words are to be believed, she is doing this because she believes black reporters aren’t granted equal access. In effect she is instituting a DBE policy for reporters.

In a letter sent Wednesday to local media, Lightfoot argued that the overwhelming maleness and Whiteness of Chicago’s press corps — in a city where roughly two-thirds of the residents are people of color — did not adequately reflect the population and was a detriment to local media coverage.

“As a person of color, I have throughout my adult life done everything I can to fight for diversity and inclusion in every institution that I have been part of and being Mayor makes me uniquely situated to shine a spotlight on this most important issue,” Lightfoot wrote

Once again I’m not be debating right or wrong, I’m debating racist or not. If her intent is just to balance the playing field, which is the same intent of DBE programs, is it racist?

 

[DaveXA]

But that’s not true. Racism requires some ill intent toward a race or a belief that one race is not capable of doing x because of their race. That’s not what affirmative action programs are or have ever been.

That’s why I say we need a more nuanced discussion and not a simple +- discussion on racism. Not everything involving race is “racism”. Our desire to always drive to this + - discussion of race really limits our dialogue. Racism is a very charged word, and it should be. It should be limited to ideas or policies that have a direct ill intent or based on the idea that one race is better than the other. If the attempt is just to balance the playing field or make things right it can be a bad idea without being racist. The problem is as soon as you roll out that word people get so defensive because it has a very specific negative connotation and meaning.

If I tell someone they are invested in culture wars and grievance populism the dialogue generally moves forward. If I immediately jump to the nuclear option (you’re racist) it ends right there because of what that word means.

Well, it could be argued that Lightfoot acted with ill-intent.

I'm not sure that she is, but then, I don't really know what she's thinking either. If we take her at her word, then she's not being racist. But her actions do make people scratch their heads for sure.

 

[Farb]

yea, obviously i wouldn't expect a white privilege denier to accept that affirmative action is acceptable.

That would be a safe expectation.

Edited to Add: https://www.dailywire.com/news/whit...t-for-refusing-interview-on-the-basis-of-race

Looks like this might play out in the courts. I can't wait to see how this plays out.....although I think I already know.

 

[Farb]

https://gottheimer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2537

This is interesting. It seems several Ds are actually speaking about the antisemitism of our elected officials. He is obviously referring to MTG about the mentally challenged reaction about her using a nazi comparison but also does highlight the racists of the 'squad'. Good to see.

Although nothing will happen to them except some blanket statement about how all 'hate' is bad and especially 'white supremecy' just like Pelosi did last time to protect her 'squad'.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not USA but didn’t need its own thread

racist? Tone deaf? Or just forking stupid?
==================
Spain’s postal service prompted widespread criticism this week after introducing skin-tone stamps — with the lightest ones being the most valuable — and promoting them as part of an anti-racism campaign.

“The darker the stamp, the less value it will have,” the state-owned company, called Correos, said in a news release announcing the launch.

“Therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. That way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.

”
A black stamp is worth 70 cents in the company’s online shop, while a stamp in the lightest skin color costs 1.60 euros.


Critics say the campaign reflects tone-deafness and the lack of diversity in major Spanish companies.
“Accidentally racist,” one social media user commented.

Another user wrote, “Accidentally VOX,” referring to Spain’s far-right Vox party........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-stamps-racism/2021/05/27/d1885c80-beef-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html

 

[Farb]

I really enjoy seeing this. I love seeing companies and bureaucracies attempt to virtue signal and it blows up in their face. Nothing brings me more joy.

So, I would say richly deserved is my vote.

 

[V Chip]

A Jewish friend of mine on Facebook said she was struggling with what to say about recent events until she came across this posted by a friend of hers. I really liked it as well, so I thought I would share it.

============
Yes, anti-semitism is terrible, an old hate crime, and at times frightening. Glad that Biden and Harris are calling that out.

Yes, the rocket barrage into Israel was also terrifying. I know, I lived it, with my daughter in the maternity ward in Soroka, the entire time. Terrifying. Yes. And also wrong.

Yes, Iron Dome saves a lot of lives. Very grateful for Iron Dome.

And yes, what the IDF did to the people of Gaza is also terrible. What we, the Israeli army, did in Gaza in the name of protecting Israel was bombastic and cruel. Destroying entire buildings. People's actual homes. Lots of them. Dozens of innocent children being killed. Families destroyed. The general population being collectively and brutally punished for acts that someone else committed. Two million people lobbed together and labeled as 'terrorists' because language makes those kinds of generalizations way too easy. It makes it so easy to dehumanize the other.

And yes, what the Israeli government allowed right-wing extremists to do in Sheik Jarrah and elsewhere, land grabs for political purposes to destroy Palestinian lives, is also all wrong. It is wrong. Wrong.

And it is wrong to say that 'Hamas started this war.' They did not. The right-wingers trying to take over Palestinian villages with the support of the Netanyahu government and the IDF started this war. That is how this war started. Not with Hamas rocket fire.

All these things are true.

And also a reminder that we can be victims and still do terrible things. Just because anti-semitism is real it doesn't mean that we have the right to bomb the hell out of entire populations of people. Bomb the hell out of real people and claim that we 'met all our strategic targets'. The language itself is chilling.

I wish that people would get out of this endless binary rhetorical battlefield in which the same grandiose statements are made over and over without any connection to real lives and real experiences. Without any compassion. Without any listening. Without any attempt to understand the impacts of our own actions. Always blaming the other. It's always someone else' fault. Over and over. The rhetorical battle is what keeps us in the cycle of bloodshed and inhumanity.

It's not 'us versus them'. It's all of us versus callous disregard for human life. It's all of us versus hateful words that enable hateful acts.

We should all just commit to stop doing terrible things. We should take responsibility for our own actions.

There are other ways to make ourselves safer. There are other options. We have never tried them.

First we need new leaders all around so we can have some new thinking and new ideas. Instead of the same same same stuff that has been tossed around for decades.....

 

[Lapaz]

I don't think it's racist not matter how many times you affirmatively assert that it definitley is and I already explained why. If I actually thought is was racist, then I'd say you have a point.

I'm also not excusing anything.

She’s in a position of power and denying people from opportunities. That is the definition of racist even if you deny it. I did see an explanation of why it isn’t? Would you consider it racist if a white mayor did that to black journalists? If you say yes, then it is hypocritical.

 

[Lapaz]

My comment is just to this particular situation. Not meant to cover every hypothetical ever.

All things aren't the same.

All things aren’t the same, but Lightfoot is racist.

 

[Lapaz]

So if her words are to be believed, she is doing this because she believes black reporters aren’t granted equal access. In effect she is instituting a DBE policy for reporters.




Once again I’m not be debating right or wrong, I’m debating racist or not. If her intent is just to balance the playing field, which is the same intent of DBE programs, is it racist?

She can believe that and say she will be sure to give black reporters interviews, but to exclude white reporters is despicable.

 

[Lapaz]

Well, it could be argued that Lightfoot acted with ill-intent.

I'm not sure that she is, but then, I don't really know what she's thinking either. If we take her at her word, then she's not being racist. But her actions do make people scratch their heads for sure.

It is racist regardless of how she tries to explain it. If it were a predominantly black dominated industry, such as rap music, and a producer said he would only produce a white artist, that might be perceived as helping whites break into the industry, but that would be racist.

 

[coldseat]

All things aren’t the same, but Lightfoot is racist.

Obviously you're committed to believing that.

 

[SystemShock]

A Jewish friend of mine on Facebook said she was struggling with what to say about recent events until she came across this posted by a friend of hers. I really liked it as well, so I thought I would share it.

============
Yes, anti-semitism is terrible, an old hate crime, and at times frightening. Glad that Biden and Harris are calling that out.

Yes, the rocket barrage into Israel was also terrifying. I know, I lived it, with my daughter in the maternity ward in Soroka, the entire time. Terrifying. Yes. And also wrong.

Yes, Iron Dome saves a lot of lives. Very grateful for Iron Dome.

And yes, what the IDF did to the people of Gaza is also terrible. What we, the Israeli army, did in Gaza in the name of protecting Israel was bombastic and cruel. Destroying entire buildings. People's actual homes. Lots of them. Dozens of innocent children being killed. Families destroyed. The general population being collectively and brutally punished for acts that someone else committed. Two million people lobbed together and labeled as 'terrorists' because language makes those kinds of generalizations way too easy. It makes it so easy to dehumanize the other.

And yes, what the Israeli government allowed right-wing extremists to do in Sheik Jarrah and elsewhere, land grabs for political purposes to destroy Palestinian lives, is also all wrong. It is wrong. Wrong.

And it is wrong to say that 'Hamas started this war.' They did not. The right-wingers trying to take over Palestinian villages with the support of the Netanyahu government and the IDF started this war. That is how this war started. Not with Hamas rocket fire.

All these things are true.

And also a reminder that we can be victims and still do terrible things. Just because anti-semitism is real it doesn't mean that we have the right to bomb the hell out of entire populations of people. Bomb the hell out of real people and claim that we 'met all our strategic targets'. The language itself is chilling.

I wish that people would get out of this endless binary rhetorical battlefield in which the same grandiose statements are made over and over without any connection to real lives and real experiences. Without any compassion. Without any listening. Without any attempt to understand the impacts of our own actions. Always blaming the other. It's always someone else' fault. Over and over. The rhetorical battle is what keeps us in the cycle of bloodshed and inhumanity.

It's not 'us versus them'. It's all of us versus callous disregard for human life. It's all of us versus hateful words that enable hateful acts.

We should all just commit to stop doing terrible things. We should take responsibility for our own actions.

There are other ways to make ourselves safer. There are other options. We have never tried them.

First we need new leaders all around so we can have some new thinking and new ideas. Instead of the same same same stuff that has been tossed around for decades.....

As long as the most powerful nation on the planet continues to believe in prophesies, no one is going to do anything to stop Israel.

 

[wardorican]

That would be a safe expectation.

Edited to Add: https://www.dailywire.com/news/whit...t-for-refusing-interview-on-the-basis-of-race

Looks like this might play out in the courts. I can't wait to see how this plays out.....although I think I already know.

The whole thing is sort of weird, but also interesting and savvy.

I actually agree with the general idea of racist vs discriminatory. But, I think most people have used racist in the more academic sense the last few years that anything discriminatory is also racist. That's what has a lot of right wing voters crying. I've long argued that calling everything racist dilutes the meaning from much stronger racist acts. Like, cross burning vs pearl clutching. Both are racist. Both are bad. One is clearly worse. But like any conversation, it's rarely used with perfect language. This is mostly younger, disenfranchised people who are finding their voice and speaking their minds. It may come out a bit wrong, but you have to learn to look past the words and work to understand the message.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0210526-ugkzge3r7bbqzobboha2jj3djy-story.html

Mayor Lori Lightfoot may have been politically tone deaf when she announced last week that she would grant one-on-one interviews on her second anniversary in office only to journalists of color. It struck many as unnecessarily polarizing at a time when she needs the city to come together.
Or she may have been politically savvy. By bluntly highlighting the lack of diversity in the City Hall press corps, she got a lot of favorable attention from the left, where voters have been unhappy with the slow pace of meaningful change in her administration.

But it’s hard to claim today that Lightfoot was leveraging the inherent power of her race when she granted one-time special access to journalists of color. Because her high office and considerable achievements notwithstanding, her race still disadvantaged her in our society.

If racism is to remain a meaningfully distinct term near the top of the hierarchy of damning accusations, it has to be more than a synonym for the less inflammatory words we already have to describe discrimination, tribalism and unjust assumptions based on skin tone.

“Racism is an institution,” actor-director Spike Lee has said.
And racists are those who actively perpetuate it.

Lightfoot’s effort last week to call attention to the need for more minority journalists in Chicago was targeted at challenging that institution, not perpetuating it.
Like what she did or not, it wasn’t racist.

All in all, she was picking one day to do this, to highlight that POC were majorly underrepresented in the press corps for Chicago. It's akin to making sure someone junior in your company or business maybe gets an opportunity to do something they normally don't get to. Sometimes you just want to throw people a bone to give opportunities where they don't exist, or to see what they can do with it. In the Mayor's case, they don't control the writers development, but they can give someone a shot at a big interview who normally wouldn't get it.

What if she said she'd only allow Grade schoolers to interview her one on one for just a day. Would anyone be crying?

 

[B4YOU]

@Lapaz l’m curious if you consider something like the Disenfranchised Business Enterprise program to be “racist”. I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong, but is it a racist program?

O

O


Of course it is race based, but it is a well intentioned program to help, so it is not racist.

So if her words are to be believed, she is doing this because she believes black reporters aren’t granted equal access. In effect she is instituting a DBE policy for reporters.




Once again I’m not be debating right or wrong, I’m debating racist or not. If her intent is just to balance the playing field, which is the same intent of DBE programs, is it racist?

DBE policies are institutionalized discrimination. I see the value of creating diversity on college campuses and using race based selections to seek the goal of students learning from people with different lived experiences. But at the business level, it’s just discriminatory.

 

[SystemShock]

DBE policies are institutionalized discrimination. I see the value of creating diversity on college campuses and using race based selections to seek the goal of students learning from people with different lived experiences. But at the business level, it’s just discriminatory.

There is a foot race between Al and Bob. At the sound of the gun, Al takes off at full speed, but Bob is jumped by Al's friends who tie his feet together and his hands behind is back. Still, the race proceeds with Al going full speed and Bob crawling on the floor towards the finish line.

When Al reaches the quarter marker, the race official says "hmm, that's not fair. Untie Bob's feet". Bob can now run, but with his hands tied behind his back, he really can't achieve full speed. Al of course is just cruising full speed towards the finish line.

As Al reaches the midpoint, the race official says "hmm... that's not fair... untie Bob's hands". Now Bob can run at full speed, but obviously is way behind Al, who's been running full speed all of this time.

As Al reaches the 3 quarter marker, the race official says "hmm, we have not been fair to Bob all this time. Al needs to stop until Bob catches up to Al". Then Al's friends start shouting "That's not fair! They are equal now... don't discriminate against Al!"

DBE may not perfect, and maybe (probably) it is unfair that the sons pay for the sins of the fathers, but still it is trying to correct a wrong that for decades did incalculable social and economic damage to one side of the tracks, while fully benefiting the other.

Some people may say "too bad for your parents and your grandparents, I had nothing to do with that", but they'd be the same people who benefited from the privilege afforded to their parents and grandparents. Of course, "too bad" works both ways.