Rioting in the U.S.

Tools    





You ready? You look ready.
I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.



I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and argue against racism in ANY manner them that advances the narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.
Well there's no evidence that the Floyd incident was race related. I don't see how anyone can argue that. You're the one who believes you're so wise that you can post a racism checklist, and you don't even think it's possible to be racist against whites. The rest of us think it's more complicated.



I acknowledge that black Americans have the lingering economic hardship caused by centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized discrimination.

I learned in Jr. High history class how after slavery ended, blacks still remained literally 'enslaved' by Jim Crow laws in the south and were forced by law and lack of opportunity to be sharecroppers...where they worked hard but didn't even own their own land. Sharecropping was just a legal form of slavery after the Civil War.

As a response to the wretched conditions in the south, millions of blacks in the 20th century moved to the larger industrialized cities like Detroit and Chicago seeking a better life and a chance to make a living. Only to find they were paid pennies on the dollar and were denied a chance to have good paying jobs.

All of that has lead to many blacks living in poverty in large cities. So yes I fully agree that past racism and discrimination has lead to the current situation of many blacks having less...But those historical factors don't equate to modern day whites being responsible for past 'sins'...though all people of good heart should strive to make America and the world a better place to live in by reducing poverty and it's negative effects.

Plenty of sins exist in the US structure today that disproportionately affect blacks.



1. The Criminal Code in the US has been expanded partially to collect tax money from poor people. It's also been expanded to great a prison industrial complex which gives disproportional funding to communities that hold said prisoners.


2. Gerrymandering is a system of packing and stacking communities to get as much influence from white right wing politicians than left wing democrats.


3. The US election system is established to hurt poor people and people in urban areas. Poles stations are undermanned and the government does not establish election days as "holidays" so if you are working two jobs...guess you a SOL.


4. Police Officers are afforded the opportunities of excessive force even when the "crimes" are clearly misdemeanors. Also they kill dogs...
















I have a longer response to the previous post basically done, but most of my objection can be encapsulated by just replying to this, at least for now:

I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.
To confirm, you think that people can say ANYTHING is racist, and if you're white, disagreeing is automatically racist?



You ready? You look ready.
@cricket: I’m not going to keep going in circles with you. The logic is faulty and is an example of the very mechanism of power I just described.

Because you see no reason that it was race related means nothing. In fact, it means you come from a place of privilege where you have the ability to ignore race as a factor and it gives you cart blache to not listen to the disenfranchised. You are essentially a product of America’s racist history.

You are a nice person, but this line of reasoning and your aversion to history is why you’re currently on my ignore list. You will just have to forgive me for not responding going forward. Hopefully, one day soon politics won’t be allowed, and I won’t have a need for the ignore list.

It’s nothing personal I just don’t see any reason to argue with someone that refuses to see that this whole country, and just about every system in it, was built on racism.



@cricket: I’m not going to keep going in circles with you. The logic is faulty and is an example of the very mechanism of power I just described.

Because you see no reason that it was race related means nothing. In fact, it means you come from a place of privilege where you have the ability to ignore race as a factor and it gives you cart blache to not listen to the disenfranchised. You are essentially a product of America’s racist history.

You are a nice person, but this line of reasoning and your aversion to history is why you’re currently on my ignore list. You will just have to forgive me for not responding going forward. Hopefully, one day soon politics won’t be allowed, and I won’t have a need for the ignore list.

It’s nothing personal I just don’t see any reason to argue with someone that refuses to see that this whole country, and just about every system in it, was built on racism.
I know, your evidence that the incident was race related was that the store clerk called the police on him. Wonderful.



You ready? You look ready.
To confirm, you think that people can say ANYTHING is racist, and if you're white, disagreeing is automatically racist?
That is a gross simplification of my argument, but for the sake of answering your question: yes, in the same respect as merely being white is automatically racist.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Being-a-white-ally-of-African-Americans-means-15321365.php

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-racism-white-people-george-floyd-20200531-tmdbj52ownc7fegdargh75k4qq-story.html?outputType=amp

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really

https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-1



That is a gross simplification of my argument
It's no more simplified than the thing I was responding to. Regardless, if there is a more nuanced of the argument, I would much rather hear that before responding.

but for the sake of answering your question: yes, in the same respect as merely being white is automatically racist.
Even if I accept this premise, a question cannot be white. It can only be asked by a white person. So even if the act of asking it is "racist," the question exists on its own and therefore cannot be dismissed based on the race of the person asking it, since it could just as easily be asked by someone of another race (and sometimes, of course, it is).

So it's still there, and it still requires an answer, because that's how arguments work: they have their own merit and validity (or not!) independent of who the speaker is, as you well know.



I will, if you can show me which part you don't think makes sense. I can't guess which part that would be, because it seems very straightforward; I'm describing a version of the ad hominem argument.



You ready? You look ready.
I will, if you can show me which part you don't think makes sense. I can't guess which part that would be, because it seems very straightforward; I'm describing a version of the ad hominem argument.
The whole thing. That’s why I said that post.

And ad hominem arguments are bad, so I hope that’s not what you’re trying to use. If you’re trying to say my argument was an ad hominem then I’ll just preface your response and say it’s not and ask you to try again at explaining whatever that last post is trying to say.



The whole thing. That’s why I said that post.
I very much doubt that. But even if it is, that doesn't preclude you from singling out a premise you object to or a part of the syllogism you think does not follow.

If you’re trying to say my argument was an ad hominem then I’ll just preface your response and say it’s not and ask you to try again at explaining whatever that last post is trying to say.
Okay, sure: it is ad hominem to suggest a question's validity/merit relies on the race of the speaker. Assuming you agree, that means questioning whether something is racist is valid and requires an answer, even if you regard the act of asking to be racist when coming from a white person.



You ready? You look ready.
I very much doubt that. But even if it is, that doesn't preclude you from singling out a premise you object to or a part of the syllogism you think does not follow.
I literally read it 3 times (one of those time was aloud) and didn’t understand a lick of it. Like I didn’t understand what you were arguing or what it was about because you directly quoted me just basically saying yes, so that’s why I said the whole post. Let’s not get lost in the weeds.

Okay, sure: it is ad hominem to suggest a question's validity/merit relies on the race of the speaker. Assuming you agree, that means questioning whether something is racist is valid and requires an answer, even if you regard the act of asking to be racist when coming from a white person.
Well, first, no that’s not how an ad hominem argument works.

And second, even if that’s how it worked, it still wouldn’t apply here because I clearly stated that to refute racism as a white person in America advances the racist narratives of our history, which is what automatically equates to racism. It’s history, not their race, that determines it.

And it’s not about a question being asked. It’s a matter of a white person saying something isn’t racist. That, in and of itself, is racism.

You can’t ad hominem history. Well, I suppose you can if you call someone a Nazi but I’m pretty sure that fallacy goes by another name.



Well, first, no that’s not how an ad hominem argument works.
Sure it is: an ad hominem attacks the speaker and not the argument. "Asking that question is racist" is attacking the speaker and not the thing they're saying.

This seems so simple so as to be indisputable, but if you'd like to dispute it, please explain what you think an ad hominem argument is and why "your question is racist because you're white" does not qualify.

And second, even if that’s how it worked, it still wouldn’t apply here because I clearly stated that to refute racism as a white person in America advances the racist narratives of our history, which is what automatically makes it racist.
First, I don't know what "refute racism" means, but to be clear, nobody was talking about refuting the concept of racism. This was about whether someone can dispute any claim that anything is racist.

Second, why would it "advance the racist narratives" to question whether something is racist...if it isn't? Not EVERYTHING is racist, right? Therefore it is possible to say a thing is racist when it's not. And I hope we can agree that's bad. So why would it be bad to demonstrate this? It seems like the opposite--claiming a non-racist thing is racist--is the bad thing. To say nothing of the posture which makes these claims unfalsifiable, diluting even legitimate uses.

Third, even if it "advances the racist narratives," why does that matter for the purposes of evaluating the question? A question can be abused, or damaging to a cause, or have some kind of bad effect, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid question. And, in fact, if a question can have that kind of effect, it seems like all the more reason to explain how and why it's faulty.



You ready? You look ready.
Sure it is: an ad hominem attacks the speaker and not the argument. "Asking that question is racist" is attacking the speaker and not the thing they're saying.

This seems so simple so as to be indisputable, but if you'd like to dispute it, please explain what you think an ad hominem argument is and why "your question is racist because you're white" does not qualify.
I have no idea where this line of reasoning involving questions started, so I think that’s why you’re confusing me.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. Asking questions is a good thing and cannot be racist. In fact, asking questions is what gets you answers to reveal how and why something is racist. So I’m all for questions.


First, I don't know what "refute racism" means, but to be clear, nobody was talking about refuting the concept of racism. This was about whether someone can dispute any claim that anything is racist.

Second, why would it "advance the racist narratives" to question whether something is racist...if it isn't? Not EVERYTHING is racist, right? Therefore it is possible to say a thing is racist when it's not. And I hope we can agree that's bad. So why would it be bad to demonstrate this? It seems like the opposite--claiming a non-racist thing is racist--is the bad thing. To say nothing of the posture which makes these claims unfalsifiable, diluting even legitimate uses.

Third, even if it "advances the racist narratives," why does that matter for the purposes of evaluating the question? A question can be abused, or damaging to a cause, or have some kind of bad effect, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid question. And, in fact, if a question can have that kind of effect, it seems like all the more reason to explain how and why it's faulty.
Now that I know what you’re asking I can see why you were confused, so I don’t think it’s necessary to answer anything here. I’ll just clarify two things.

“How is that racist?” is a question that people can and should be asking. More people should be asking that question but, more importantly, they should be listening to the answers. Actively listening.

“There is no evidence that [insert event here] was race related” is not a question. It’s a statement. An argument.

When a white person in America makes an argument such as that in response to a minority’s claim of racism then that automatically qualifies as racism because of the current systems of power in place and the history of demonization advanced by whites.

If you’d like to continue now that I’ve clarified I’m cool with that but the argument ain’t ad hominem. However, the reversal of this same logic would equate to an ad hominem argument (i.e. “you think everything is about race because you’re black”).



I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.
I think the week of riots, arson, looting, vandalism, assaults and murders advanced the racist narratives more than anything.



When a white person in America makes an argument such as that in response to a minority’s claim of racism then that automatically qualifies as racism because of the current systems of power in place and the history of demonization advanced by whites.
So if a minority calls out a white person as racist, just the act of defending themselves would prove their point. This is ludicrous.