Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

Status
Not open for further replies.
You were the one who directly compared them

I compared them. I didn’t say they were equivalent did I?

I specifically highlighted the reaction and criticism from their fellow professionals. That was my reason for comparison. It’s pretty straight forward. Also I never stated that Desean Jackson was fired, I was responding to a poster who said he had been and correcting that assertion. The fact that you stated that “Brees wasn’t sacked either” could be interpreted to mean that you think there is an equivalency between Brees statements and what Jackson said. Hence my question (which you didn’t even answer) “Do you think what Jackson said is equivalent to what Brees said?”. Again, I used the word equivalent, not comparable. You can argue for either the former or the latter if you like.

The reaction from his fellow professionals to what Drew Brees said was incredibly vocal and critical. In contrast the reaction from his fellow professionals to what Desean Jackson said was pretty much nonexistent. His apology and explanation was also a disgrace. Again, this is not an equivalency, it’s a comparison. These are comparable incidents.

If you want to educate me on why it’s an irrelevant comparison by all means go ahead. Would you like me to pull up the definition of the words “comparison” and “equivalent” for you before you start though?
 
I don't see it that way. I see it as a barrier to equality. I don't think you counter racism by being racist the other way - all that does is alienate and create extremist "tribes" on either side. There will be loads of white people who watch that video and the response to it and say "well, screw you then".

So I think it's a growing problem in terms of racial equality, yes. Not in terms of oppression at a systemic level, as that would be silly.
I think that individual acts of prejudice will always happen no matter what. We all have inherent, unconscious bias. There is absolutely no fixing that. So you are going to get these things. You are ALWAYS going to have individual acts of prejudice from all sides.
i just won’t be stopped. There needs to be consequences to those actions but it won’t be stopped.
that’s why systemic prejudice is much much more important. And why it’s a much bigger problem.
And why reverse racism just isn’t a thing.
I think people need to start understand the difference between systemic prejudice and individual prejudice and why focus should be on one and not the other.
laws should be there to punish those who commit acts of individual prejudice (people who act on their inherent bias) and it should be there to protect those who are subject to it. There should be consequences to those actions.
But the real problem is the systemic imbalances that favour some over others. At the moment there is a huge systemic skew towards you if you are a rich, white, heterosexual male with no disability. Does that mean you can’t be subject to individual acts of prejudice? No. But society is built to give you an advantage and that shouldn’t be there.
People on both side of this fail to appreciate that those inherent biases will never go away. They will always be there in some form. Laws should be there for people who act negatively on them.
But this system itself is imbalanced and that’s what needs to be fixed.
 
I think that individual acts of prejudice will always happen no matter what. We all have inherent, unconscious bias. There is absolutely no fixing that. So you are going to get these things. You are ALWAYS going to have individual acts of prejudice from all sides.
i just won’t be stopped. There needs to be consequences to those actions but it won’t be stopped.
that’s why systemic prejudice is much much more important. And why it’s a much bigger problem.
And why reverse racism just isn’t a thing.
I think people need to start understand the difference between systemic prejudice and individual prejudice and why focus should be on one and not the other.
laws should be there to punish those who commit acts of individual prejudice (people who act on their inherent bias) and it should be there to protect those who are subject to it. There should be consequences to those actions.
But the real problem is the systemic imbalances that favour some over others. At the moment there is a huge systemic skew towards you if you are a rich, white, heterosexual male with no disability. Does that mean you can’t be subject to individual acts of prejudice? No. But society is built to give you an advantage and that shouldn’t be there.
People on both side of this fail to appreciate that those inherent biases will never go away. They will always be there in some form. Laws should be there for people who act negatively on them.
But this system itself is imbalanced and that’s what needs to be fixed.

Reverse racism is obviously a thing - you're seeing it in that video. What you're describing is "reverse systemic racism", which obviously isn't a thing for the reason you describe.

Just in pure terms of hatred based on skin colour, blacks can and are racist towards whites, and vice versa.

While you correctly say it can't be eradicated, it can be mitigated, and swinging to extremes does nothing to help that.
 
I compared them. I didn’t say they were equivalent did I?

I specifically highlighted the reaction and criticism from their fellow professionals. That was my reason for comparison. It’s pretty straight forward. Also I never stated that Desean Jackson was fired, I was responding to a poster who said he had been and correcting that assertion. The fact that you stated that “Brees wasn’t sacked either” could be interpreted to mean that you think there is an equivalency between Brees statements and what Jackson said. Hence my question (which you didn’t even answer) “Do you think what Jackson said is equivalent to what Brees said?”. Again, I used the word equivalent, not comparable. You can argue for either the former or the latter if you like.

The reaction from his fellow professionals to what Drew Brees said was incredibly vocal and critical. In contrast the reaction from his fellow professionals to what Desean Jackson said was pretty much nonexistent. His apology and explanation was also a disgrace. Again, this is not an equivalency, it’s a comparison. These are comparable incidents.

If you want to educate me on why it’s an irrelevant comparison by all means go ahead. Would you like me to pull up the definition of the words “comparison” and “equivalent” for you before you start though?

Thanks for acknowledging you were the one who compared the two of them, which
 
Reverse racism is obviously a thing - you're seeing it in that video. What you're describing is "reverse systemic racism", which obviously isn't a thing for the reason you describe.

Just in pure terms of hatred based on skin colour, blacks can and are racist towards whites, and vice versa.

While you correctly say it can't be eradicated, it can be mitigated, and swinging to extremes does nothing to help that.
No. But balancing society helps the much bigger issue of actual systemic racism.

To not do it because it might cause more individual racism is silly as systemic racism is much much worse.
 
Re: race relations being at an all time low, an example of "reverse racism" clear as day here.



... and it's being defended widely on social media. That's the most disturbing aspect; that crystal clear, "black supremacist" racism is being applauded. Society in the gutter.

The guy has been sacked.

C'mon Tubey, Black people can't be racist.

According to all the most informed sources, racism requires participation in the structural entity that actually controls society, and the societal and economic position of Blacks in America makes it literally impossible for them to be racist. They can exhibit bigotry, but racism requires power, which has been denied to them historically by the entrenched white power structure. The correct question to ask is whether the bigotry exhibited is justified.

In today's politics, many think that it is. Others disagree.

Under a systemic understanding of racism, individual acts of racism—as we usually understand the idea—can still be understood as racism. In fact, all are so long as they fit the “prejudice + power to implement the prejudice” model that relies upon a systemic understanding of power dynamics. That is, an act of racial prejudice can only be understood as “racism” under the Critical Social Justice rubric if it flows from a position of greater power to one of lesser power, i.e., from domination to oppression, as described by Theory. This understanding of racism ultimately comes from critical race Theory, in part including a racial re-theorizing of Foucault’s ideas about knowledge and power, which renders it at least partly postmodern in its orientation.

In practice, this means that white people can be racist against people of color, but the reverse is not possible (and racism from one person of color to another can be understood only intersectionally, perhaps by consulting the Matrix of Domination – see also, BIPOC, positionality, and strategic racism). Some sources, in fact, including Is Everyone Really Equal?, a book coauthored by Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility), explicitly indicate that racism is something that only white people do. Furthermore, any individual act of racism is to be considered intelligible only as a part of (and proof of) the system of racism that is Theorized to pervade society (see also, white supremacy).

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-racism-systemic/
 
Last edited:
I don't. I'm highlighting the stupidity of the whole argument. Congrats on missing the point.

No, you are bringing an absurd proposition in and redefining what the people who had issues with that statue were arguing.

It’s the same thing you are doing with this Nick Cannon guff, fwiw
 
C'mon Tubey, Black people can't be racist.

According to all the most informed sources, racism requires participation in the structural entity that actually controls society, and the societal and economic position of Blacks in America makes it literally impossible for them to be racist. They can exhibit bigotry, but racism requires power, which has been denied to them historically by the entrenched white power structure. The correct question to ask is whether the bigotry exhibited is justified.

In today's politics, many think that it is. Others disagree.

That's just a nonsense. You've got a guy saying white people are savages solely because of their skin colour.

That's a dictionary definition of racism. Literally. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Again, you're describing systemic racism. That's entirely different.
 
C'mon Tubey, Black people can't be racist.

According to all the most informed sources, racism requires participation in the structural entity that actually controls society, and the societal and economic position of Blacks in America makes it literally impossible for them to be racist. They can exhibit bigotry, but racism requires power, which has been denied to them historically by the entrenched white power structure. The correct question to ask is whether the bigotry exhibited is justified.

In today's politics, many think that it is. Others disagree.

Quite a statement.
 
No, you are bringing an absurd proposition in and redefining what the people who had issues with that statue were arguing.

It’s the same thing you are doing with this Nick Cannon guff, fwiw

No, you are right solely if the statue was erected because of Colston's slave trading. It wasn't.

Because it wasn't, I'm highlighting the absurdity of then attributing the meaning of it to something that isn't the reality of it.

Therefore, with this new statue, even if the meaning of the statue is protesting black rights, it is then fair game to attribute extraneous stuff to the statue too because that is the precedent. For example, one could easily say that statue now celebrates anarchy and criminal damage, and should be pulled down for that reason.

What I'm being is consistent with the flawed argument and taking it to its' logical conclusion. What you're doing is failing to understand the inherent weakness in the argument because you're blinded by a political bias.
 
So instead of erecting a statue of something of relevance, it’s somehow acceptable to have Twitter millennial standing there with her arm up.

She got enraged on twitter and went to a mass demonstration and that’s somehow a representation of fighting racism

I find it odd that she was actually involved with the whole process. Reminds me of John Terry orchestrating his substitution in his final game on the 26th minute or those blokes who gives themselves nicknames.
 
That's just a nonsense. You've got a guy saying white people are savages solely because of their skin colour.

That's a dictionary definition of racism. Literally. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Again, you're describing systemic racism. That's entirely different.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
 
I find it odd that she was actually involved with the whole process. Reminds me of John Terry orchestrating his substitution in his final game on the 26th minute or those blokes who gives themselves nicknames.
Moral Crusader or Snowflake social media whore egomaniac ?...
Couldn't imagine figures such as Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Gandhi entertaining to erection of statues of their likeness after a few protests - never mind taking selfies of themselves in front of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top