Why not call it by its real name?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bells, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Calling a minority group a minority group on racial grounds is in fact racism...
    How can you, even with the best of intentions, avoid discrimination.
    Converse or inverse racism is endemic to human culture, the negative inequalities can only be minimized and not eradicated. ( due to self esteem issues being always present.)

    So really the only solution is to ensure self esteem issues are managed and improved upon.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    I remember a situation when performing volunteer work for AMES ( teaching elementary English to refugees)
    I took an African refugee to dinner as part of an integration exercise.
    The person (client) was nervous and uncomfortable being the only dark colored person in the busy and large restaurant, attracting covered looks and stares.
    Before ordering our meals I asked this person to place their hand , palm down close to the middle of the table. I did the same.
    I said, "So... your hand is black and mine is white" ...celebrate the difference. Embrace diversity.
    The meal was a great success, I might add...

    Discrimination is and always will be present. (all races)
    The fear of inequality is always present.(all races)
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    But, you only have one vote. If you vote for the Black candidate because he's Black, or because he's male, or because you are a registered member of his party, or you believe he's the better qualified legislator, you have to not vote for his opponent, a Hispanic woman. You will then be accused of two counts of discrimination: racism and sexism, even if it's really just because you're pretty sure she won't represent your interests.
    I'm so uncomfortable about this, I just won't vote at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,878
    In that case, isn't just using the word "racism" racist?

    Better, perhaps, to allow racist groups to do whatever they like, lest someone consider you racist.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Only if you set about assigning new meanings to words.

    Quite easily.

    The trick to it is to not be a dickhead.
    The psychology of racism argues that lack of self esteem is but one cause or reason behind racism.

    Applying it as though it is the only cause is wrong.

    Other psychological causes linked to racism include lack of empathy, inability to see or sense "otherness", mental illness, saturation and indoctrination, etc..

    While leaving out the main crux of this discussion, which is what was brought up in the OP... Not voting for her because she is Hispanic..

    The amount of times you have tried to change the subject is no longer comical. It has become pathological.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    I guess it could be interpreted that way, however, to me , it's more about discrimination ( positive or negative) as the word racism is more a generic than a specific.
    Just proves my point that discrimination is inherent in all things we do, all thoughts we think etc and racial discrimination is only one of them.

    Even if we allow as you suggest on what basis are you determining who to allow? Discrimination can not be avoided as it is a primary mental function and forms a fundamental function of cognition.

    So to strive to remove discrimination as an absolute is futile.
    The same thing applies IMO to racial discrimination. Unless every one has to wear a Burka or maintains anonymity via internet forums like this one and is observed only by their merit; even then negative discrimination is still inevitable. ( due to self esteem issues)

    Even those people who profess to be free of racists thoughts and attitudes have what could be claimed as "positive racial" thoughts and attitudes... it's unavoidable.

    As I suggested earlier it is the nature of low self esteem that enables negative discrimination ( racism) thus high self esteem enables positive discrimination. Once it is accepted that discrimination is a fundamental of human nature we can only learn to enable positive versions of discrimination rather than the negative forms through improving self esteem via education, counseling, and life experience etc
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Multiculturalism = positive racial discrimination
    just calling it for what it is.... ( re: OP)
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    But you never addressed any reasons that people have to vote for a candidate. If both candidates are Anglo-Saxon, is it all right for a woman to choose the female candidate, because she believes that another woman can better represent her interests than the male candidate running against her? What if the male candidate is Asian? Is it racist for an Asian woman to choose the blonde woman? Is it sexist to choose the Asian man?

    Your crux is that people's decision not to vote for someone is the same as refusing them employment, housing and health care. My contention is that nobody owes anybody a vote; and no rights are violated by the withholding of a vote: all candidates enter the contest voluntarily, aware that every single voter must discriminate against all but one candidate.
    A citizen can only vote for somebody, for whatever reason.
    Not giving someone their vote, for whatever reason, is the voter's prerogative.
    We can't look at their ballots, so we're merely speculating as to their reason for choosing as they did.
    Leaping to your own conclusions regarding their reason to not vote for someone, that's your prerogative.
    If it's pathological to refrain from rushing to judgment regarding the possible motivations of people I've never met, it's my illness to cope with.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Once again:


    Do you understand what this means?

    If someone is "uncomfortable" voting for someone because they are black, it insinuates that they would have voted for that person if that person happened to be white. That the only reason they felt uncomfortable was because those candidates were black. It is the very definition of racism. If someone says, "I'm not comfortable voting for a black person", that is racist.

    Sanders is also wrong about his argument. This is not the "first time" these "white folks" have had to choose to vote for a black person. They have had that same choice twice before for a Presidential election.

    Whether these voters did this or not is irrelevant.

    The crux of this thread, as stated repeatedly now, is whether or not he should have called out racism.

    If you see a company refuse to hire black people because they are black, would you call them racist? Or would you go on a spiel about their just being uncomfortable?

    Bernie Sanders is in a position of authority. His refusal to call out racism in this fashion is very damaging and sends a horrific message about racist attitudes.. This willingness to look away from blatant racism, to change it to something innocuous, such as being "uncomfortable", is dangerous. Racism is deadly. This constant refusal to call it out in society in general, only protects the racists and endangers their targets.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Replying to your edit:

    *Sigh*

    If you do not vote for a candidate because they are Black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, of the First Peoples, Latina, Biracial, a woman, LGBTQ, then that is bigoted, racist/sexist/homophobic..

    For example, let's use Sander's comments in context. Say these "white folks" as he describes them, would have normally voted for a Democrat, but this year something was different. This year, the candidate running as a Democrat is black. And they "do not feel comfortable" voting for an African American, so they do not vote Democrat this year... Because the candidate is black.

    This is racism.

    And Bernie Sanders refused, once again, to call it out. My question is why not call racism by its proper name.. "racism"..

    Do you understand the topic of this thread now?

    Or do you wish to keep trying to change the subject matter of this thread because you feel uncomfortable?
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    yes

    probably but than again the unlike you i am capable of something resembling nuance and thinking things through.

    because coming from him its completely different. their this called conatations. david duke saying something negative and charles barkley saying something negative about the black community even if its the same complain are coming from 2 very different places.


    just how fucking stupid are you. Are you hell bent on making your self look like an idiot. I am in no way shape or form a white supremcist. this is a reach even for zeal addled brain. this is your problem anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is the devil. You've done the same thing where you dismessed my views on sexual assualt because i had a penis even though i am a sexual assualt survivor. grow the fuck up. and its bullshit thats not your problem with him. your literally the one who brought up the fact he toughts a plan that helps everyone is part of why he's racist. i really couldn't give a fuck if you feel revulsion. if you feel revulsion at my post its says more about just how delusional you are than anything negative about me.

    no you don't you take issue with because according to you thats white supremcism.
    Not saying its not an issue. bet that doesn't make him a racist.

    and he does. he just focuses on other things. not being on the top of the list is not acknowledging it. again what he has done isn't all flashy splashy but he has done things for them. like fight private prisons or the super predator laws.

    thats a monumentally shitty analogy. his ideas are more of an fully contructed but unfilled office building.

    So when minorities question Sanders' refusal to actually listen to their concerns and who question why he keeps applying the same 'cure' for all, despite all evidence that it would not work or actually help them, it's not because they are whining that he isn't putting them first. They are concerned and angry that he is incapable of and refuses to listen or to acknowledge what is actually happening to them.

    When they question his motives and why he is now refusing to call out blatant racism for what it is, they have a very valid reason to be concerned.

    Obviously you disagree. Because hey, he got arrested once or twice in the 60's.. But ask the minorities in Vermont about how well he works with them and you might start to understand why minorities are not happy with him.[/QUOTE] if you actually bothered to read what i wrote instead of making up arguments for me, is that i said the complaints are the legit. my problem here isn't minorities. its fucking you. because you said the issue is his focus on things that help everyone is a sign he's racist.

    well when you pull entitled crybaby shit like you lying about what i said right here yeah im gonna call you entitled. i never said white men are going to end up at the back of the line. ive said nothing even remotely close to that. that is a gross libel. i said you have a problem with Poc's and women not being at the head of the line. not i think white men should be first.

    im not thats your delusion. why are you angry that not every progressive is putting you first because that your complaint here. That your not first.

    but he has done all of that though. has been loud and proud about it no. but he has condemned racism. but if i had to hazard a guess to why he doesn't go whole hog its something to do with the mutual animosty between black and jews in the this country.

    he like every one running wants to win. 60- 70% of the population supports universal healthcare; a lot of these people who voted to repeal obamacare do actually support those things. it goes into my whole thing that elections and communication aren't about fact but preception. my argument is not to cater to racism but is to create a preception that allows them for lack of a better term racist progressives room to vote progressive. their were actualy white supremicists who voted and supported obama for president.

    he doesn't thats just how you view it.


    no creating ideological purity tests that divide the left is. that and nominating someone with enough baggage to weigh down a freight train. this isn't about making sure you can feel good about who you vote for so you can be yeah me i never compromised my views.. its about making sure twenty years from now your not getting put up against a wall and getting shot for being black, because thats the road were going down if the right keeps winning. and as any sports fan will tell you you always want to win pretty, winning ugly is better than losing.

    its about what they see.
     
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    continuation

    well hillary clinton telling west virginias that coals dead your fucked and offering no solutions is pretty close. but you failing to understand the point. nobody said that( well except for people like tiassa telling young voters that their issues didn't matter and to shut the fuck up and vote how he felt they should) and after reading this you just said rural white voters issues dont matter. you literal just rejected they could have real issues out fucking hand. again the problem is presception and the preception is their issues don't matter to democrats and your proving them right.
    no quit relying on strawmen arguments.
    not at all that just your hatred of white people.
    your a fucking racist, you clearly hate white people. your so fucking racist. your literally claiming that white shouldn't expect candidates to address their issues. they have real problems bells so fuck your racism. i seriously believe after listening to you rant rave you want a farnhams freehold situation.
    when one party just tells them their fucked and one offers them hope they'll vote hope. the coal miners in west virgina didn't vote for trump because he made it "ok" to be racist they voted for him because we told them they were fucked and trump said ill save your job.


    this comment is a huge problem. and it proves every bad thing ive said about you right. i first said you were entitled flippantly but this proves i was right to. this here is a literal demand of right rural voters to put minority interests ahead of theirs. that if their not willing to sacrifice their own well being that their racist. white male privilege is not as you think it is not having problems, its means having your problems not caused by racism or sexism. i was going to reply to your second post but im not going to there is no point. you literaly are incapable of seeing anything out of your self. I'm gonna do my best to make sure you don't end up in a concentration camp murdered by the KKK, because you clearly don't care if you do.
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    You cannot not vote for a specific candidate. You can vote for another candidate.
    And I ask you again, for the last time: is it bigoted/etc. to vote for a candidate because they are Black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, of the First Peoples, Latina, Biracial, a woman, LGBTQ?


    Yes. It means very little, if anything.
    The putative person [a lot of white folks out there] in the statement cannot be "called out", a. because he has no particular identity and b. because he hasn't decided [whether or not ] to vote for anybody; nor have they as yet [for the first time in their lives] gone through a process of reasoning, which might be because they had previously not had to think about why they identify with a candidate.

    In my book, insinuation is insufficient grounds to condemn anyone - i need proof that they've actually done something wrong.
    In any case, I simply don't have the almighty self-righteous arrogance to condemn anyone for whatever discomfort they may be feeling when contemplating a situation they've never before encountered.

    That is the definition of an uneasy society in which people have been trained to mistrust one another.
    IOW the USA

    If you believe confrontations will fix it, go, confront people. If you don't like what Sanders says, don't vote for him, not because he's white, but because he said a wrong thing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    ok changed my mind.
    you mean like you called me a white supremicist without a single shred of evidence other than your own self importance and delusions with no evidence?

    look above.


    can you try not lying?



    Yes i did because she is. and you missed the point of me bringing her up. which goes to my point of your demands of ideological purity. she is seeing the same shit that happened in the 30's happening here.
    truish
    no i don't because your lying. your intentionally claiming things happened that didn't. he condemned the people chanting build the wall.


    wait your gonna stop talking. shit i forgot you think your better than everyone else and get to decide reality is your delusions

    no my particpiatation is to call you out on complaining he is not putting you first.
    no again misrepresenting the facts. can you not lie. not once have i ever said white men are being sent to the back of the line because of addressing racism. what i said was you had an issue with bernie sander because he wasn't putting you in front of the line.

    yes.

    as far as i can tell you made a thread about your personal hatred of bernie sanders and white people and are trying to hide benind minorities hating him to do it

    i don't like liars, bells and since 2016 you've repeatedly lied about bernie. but yeah its easier to paint me as a white sumprecist with no evidence or facts and lie about what i said than handle any criticism of your point of view rationally.

    minorities don't distrust me. bernie they do me they don't because contrary to your delusional world view. again your complaint is not that he is not that he is not doing anything to help minorities, its that he is not talking about doing things to help minorities. would you rather that be flipped?

    your mind isn't inquiring.


    yes you do. its probably so minor and has so little effect it just never registers.

    no it isn't. everyone is racist. implicent bias makes everyone. the problem is you view racism as monolithic. so by me saying your racist im equating you to the black version of the KKK, im not. im saying your racist the same way the people conducting auditions for orchestras are sexist. they had to have people take of their shoes. because womens high heels sound differently than mens dress shoes and it was subconciously affecting their choices.


    yes you suffered and have had hurdles if only god made you white and male so you never had to suffer anything negative in your entire life.
    still with the lies. ive made not a single racist dog whistle. again just because you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you doesn't make me racist.

    now if only you felt they need to stop them than rather attacking an old socialist jew.

    no he would. its a shame your a pathological liar. if you put as much effort into helping elect progressives that you did smearing everyone who failed your ideological purity tests we would have won the senate.

    oh and by the way. ive been told by black people i use my white privelage well to to help minorities. again me having an issue with you having an issue with bernie sanders not putting you first. and since your going to lie about this again im going to repeat it. I don't have a problem with white males not being at the front of the line. i have a problem with you having a problem with black women not automatically being put at the front. im a firm believer that white men should not be at the front of the list.

    you need to start thinking optics. i judge to a certain degree if this was on a national news broadcast would it help progressives or hurt them. and the optics look bad for you. it needs to be be said again. the truth is irrelevant preception is all that matters. you provide optics the republicans drool over. so again what is said is irrelevant what matters is whats heard.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    And I would argue that the fundamental driver to all those sub causes ( except perhaps clinical mental health ) is poor self esteem generated by inadequate child rearing, education and empowerment and subsequent conditioning by a society of equally deficient members.
    No one is born racist.
    An innocent child knows nothing of race and later racism until he is conditioned into surrendering to the temptation to use racism as an easy way to compete. (Competing for resources 101)

    A child who developes sound self esteem rejects such temptations as being contrary to his own identity and self achievement.
    Racism is cheating, and when you know that your success is only achieved by cheating then any victory is hollow.
    Compare Obama with Trump. Obama won his way to POTUS. Trump cheated his way to POTUS
    Skin colour/race has nothing to do with it. Self esteem has every thing to do with it.
    Edit
    Mobile device
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,459
    humans are naturally racist and sexist. we all have subconscious biases in this regard. we are however not all malignantly racist. the first is just something that needs to be trained to overcome and doesn't make someone evil, the latter is a threat to society that needs to be purged at all cost. the key is making sure people don't progress and deal with their biases in a healthy way to eliminate the effects. i feel now that the implicent bias is more dangerous than the overt malignant. any one minor thing doesn't do a whole lot of harm but when they add up to millions of little cuts it is incredible destructive. the thing to remember is no one is the villian of their own story as long as their is a route we can save a good percentage of these people and if we are to truly take back this country from the fascists and white nationalists we gonna need them. I don't think people are truly aware of the stakes here. for conservatives the choice between democracy and conservativism democracy is going to lose.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Of course. He's talking like a typical modern national Democratic politician in that respect - like a Clinton, say, who made that kind of "we are the Party of unity" dissembling and compromising the standard rhetorical approach.

    He's talking as the major media talk, as the NYT and MSNBC and everyone to the authoritarian right of them framed the issue: the standard white male American is not "racist", by definition, because racist labels a deviation from the norm, and they are the norm.

    And because offending people rejects their vote, labeling stuff "racist" offends some people - and the Dems need the votes of the people who would be offended.

    The betrayal of principle involved, the sellout for political advantage so flagrantly displayed by - famously, the flagship of that approach - the Clintons and those following Bill Clinton's example, the Democratic Party establishment as we know it today - is a problem.

    But it's not particularly Sanders's problem. At least he promotes policies that will help.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Obama also did it during the election cycle.

    The best way to tackle and deal with racism is to call it out. This tiptoe dance of not calling it what it is, racism, because we do not want to offend racists just normalises the behaviour and ideology.

    It is not a way to make it stop.

    Instead, what we see is this concerted effort to tell these people that it's okay, that 'of course you won't vote for a black person because they are black'.. And it's not okay. The behaviour itself is harmful.

    Democrat's who are going out of their way to try to claw back those racist voters, are doing so at the cost and expense of minorities. The refusal to discuss race and racial inequality as well as economic inequality and how racism ties in to economic inequality for minorities as well as the other causes of inequality and class imbalance, Sander's attempts to distance himself from issues that directly impact on minorities and instead focuses on a one size fits all policies.. It won't win back Trump voters and it will lose minority voters, particularly African American who felt ignored by Sanders to begin with.

    There is nothing wrong with calling out racism. Sanders refusal to do so, is going to be harmful. Racism and racial inequality is a huge problem in America. His refusal to call it out because he does not want to offend racist people plays badly for minorities.

    And it really does not play well when people voice those concerns and have certain individuals (looking at you pjdude) go full on Berniebro and shit their pants in a racist spray as a result.

    If a politician who is pushing any agenda, particularly a progressive agenda, and who has run and is possibly going to run for a party that touts itself as the party that seeks to address the wrongs done against minorities, is incapable and refuses to call out racism, then that is going to be a problem.

    Refusing to stand up against racism and refusing to call it out because they do not want to offend racist people is really bad optics and minorities who vote, pay a lot of attention to that.

    So it was a setback on Thursday when the Daily Beast published an articlequoting Sanders on the role of racism in Gillum’s apparent defeat. “I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” the senator said of the Florida governor’s race. A small outcry ensued, accusing Sanders of evading the reality that opposing a black candidate out of discomfort with black leadership is, by definition, racist. Sanders tried to clarify his comments later that day. “There’s no question that in Georgia and in Florida, racism has reared its ugly head,” he told NPR. “And you have candidates who ran against Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist and were doing everything they could to try to play whites against blacks.”

    In neither statement did Sanders indict voters for backing racist candidates. To the Daily Beast, he recast their racism as mere discomfort, and to NPR, blamed a candidate-led con job and not the electorate itself. That he did this may have been a rhetorical lapse, or strategic to his political aspirations — calling racist white people “racist” is probably a good way to ensure they do not vote for you. But either way it is not the truth, and echoes a broader tendency in American politics to entice such voters by lying to them about how racist they actually are.

    Why this fear of pointing out how racist these voters are?

    Cheney-Rice then points out how Clinton also tried to walk back her "deplorables" comments, because of how those racist voters perceived it and how it became a form of battle cry and point of pride for those on the right. He then goes on to point out the differences in how Republicans and Democrats apply and work with identity politics:


    Sanders likely used a similar calculus, albeit weighted by less political risk due to his whiteness. Both men understand that racist white people are a significant voting bloc, and winning governorships and presidencies must at the very least account for them. But it is a tradeoff. Unwillingness to alienate racist voters inevitably leads to coddling racist voters. Whether everyone who voted for DeSantis fits this descriptor is up for debate. Whether the parameters Sanders outlined in his initial statement does — voting against a black candidate because of some race-based “discomfort” with said candidate — is not. Sanders is describing racism without naming it, even as he is willing to indict the candidates for reaping its rewards. That it’s not politically expedient to have this conversation honestly — especially if one sees the alternative as gift-wrapping American democracy for Trumpian grifters, kleptocrats, and white supremacists — is one of the more pathological features of today’s politics. But how sturdy, really, is a democracy kept afloat by lies? We are rapidly learning the answer together.


    Bernie Sanders is not learning from his previous mistakes.

    When he sat down with African American organisers from Campaign Zero, he showed a distinct lack of understanding for the issues facing African Americans and came out with a racist zinger that apparently shocked everyone:

    By the time his campaign aides scrambled to release a detailed criminal justice platform on Aug. 9, Sanders was still struggling. In a September meeting with Campaign Zero, a movement formed out of the Ferguson protests, activists asked Sanders why, in his opinion, there were a disproportionate amount of people of color in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said.​

    You are correct. He is talking as the major media talk to the American public.

    He is also perpetuating the lie about racism as well and that does not benefit anyone, particularly minorities.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    You can argue as much as you like. Your repeated attempts to deny the existence of racism (so it is now "cheating"?) are noted. Just as your leaping back and forth between psychological and biological grounds for racism are noted and as funny as it is to watch you make a fool of yourself, it ends now.

    If you wish to discuss the cause of racism, then I invite you to start another thread about it.

    This thread is for discussing why people refuse to call out racism when confronted with it, particularly in the political arena.

    So please stop changing the topic of this thread.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Well as I suggested the reason is because they are dealing with insecurities caused by self esteem issues...and the insecurities of their voters due to self esteem issues.
    They are uncomfortable about voting when race is highlighted because they are dealing with insecurities due to self esteem issues...
    That's my answer to your question.
    Btw I agree totally , that racism should be called out when it is demonstrated for how else are people going to know that they have to work on their self esteem issues ( insecurities)
     

Share This Page