Racists?

[grip]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

 

[MamboDervish]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

Perhaps it was something you ate.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me.
2.) If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

1.) I agree they are flung around but they still very much have meaning but you are free to ignore them of course if you like
2.) what? who said that? thats simply not true at all

 

[Lutherf]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

Just assume that you're racist against blacks. It makes liberal lives easier that way and if anything is going to save the planet it's making liberal lives easier.

 

[vanceen]

...
2.) what? who said that? thats simply not true at all

I agree it's not true, but lots of people say it.

At the core of critical race theory is the idea that all white people participate in and benefit from a system that oppresses minorities. Another of CRT's ideas is that racial bigotry and prejudice are not racism, but the only true racism is the institutionalized version of racism that permeates society, for the benefit of all whites and to the detriment of all non-whites. That's how all whites can be racists, regardless of any personal prejudice or lack thereof.

I personally think this is a lot of nonsense that could do great harm to our society without helping minorities at all. But these ideas have a fair bit of traction these days.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I agree it's not true, but lots of people say it.

2.) At the core of critical race theory is the idea that all white people participate in and benefit from a system that oppresses minorities.
3.) Another of CRT's ideas is that racial bigotry and prejudice are not racism
4.) but the only true racism is the institutionalized version of racism that permeates society, for the benefit of all whites and to the detriment of all non-whites.
5.) That's how all whites can be racists, regardless of any personal prejudice or lack thereof.

6.) I personally think this is a lot of nonsense that could do great harm to our society without helping minorities at all.
7.) But these ideas have a fair bit of traction these days.

1.) ive never heard anybody say it besides internet loons to be honest
2.) thats not being a racist by any stretch of the imagination though
3.) the beginning part is true, they are not the same
4.) racism doesnt need to be institutionalized it exists with or without that and thats only clung to by philosophy that ignores facts
5.) while people might believe that nothing posted above, even if it was 100% true would make all whites racists. SO those people that believe that would be very ignorant or dishonest
6.) I agree it is nonsense
7.) i havent seen them have traction at all but im just one person and however many people i know

 

[Yakshi]

In general, I hear talk about race and racism far and away more from older white conservative males than from any other demographic, and it isn't remotely close.

Fox News seems to discuss race and racism so much more than any other news agency.

I hear and see All Lives Matter much more than Black Lives Matter. It's almost as if one side is trying to drown out the other.

Personally, I'd be a much happier person if the older conservative whites stopped insisting something ineffectual about race and then asking, "Did I offend you?"

No, they don't offend anyone. In the same way, people aren't offended by flies. People tend not to be offended by emasculated nuisances hoping to be seen as victims.

It is as if they don't realize that they sound so wounded. They're seem more sensitive than aloe-laced toilet paper made from bunny fur.

American conservative men, again in general, used to have more character.

 

[aociswundumho]

The Democratic party is obsessed with race, and believes that one particular race is the cause of all our problems.

For some reason, that sounds familiar.

 

[RetiredUSN]

In general, I hear talk about race and racism far and away more from older white conservative males than from any other demographic, and it isn't remotely close.

Fox News seems to discuss race and racism so much more than any other news agency.

I hear and see All Lives Matter much more than Black Lives Matter. It's almost as if one side is trying to drown out the other.

Personally, I'd be a much happier person if the older conservative whites stopped insisting something ineffectual about race and then asking, "Did I offend you?"

In the same way, people aren't offended by flies.

It is as if they don't realize that they sound so wounded and victimized. They're seem more sensitive than aloe-laced toilet paper made from bunny fur.

What a load of liberal trash.

The " great white savior's" here on DP bring up racism and race related topics far more often, not to mention the usual race baiting posters who love trolling each and every thread on the subject.

 

[Yakshi]

Go to FoxNews.com right now. I rest my case.

Such a collection of entitled victims.

 

[mrjurrs]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

Two things. First, racist and racism don't have to refer to individuals. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I'm not a racist' because they rightly believe that they would never wear a hood or call someone a racial epithet. At the same time it is difficult for white people to admit they live in a society that has built in advantages for them. If you are white, and your forebears owned real estate in America before 1965, you have benefited from a racist power structure. Send your kids to public schools? You are benefiting from a racist power structure that funds those schools.

It's not enough for people to say...I'm not a racist. It's time for Americans to show that they are anti-racist.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Democratic party is obsessed with race, and believes that one particular race is the cause of all our problems.

For some reason, that sounds familiar.

Source for that fat one?

 

[Yakshi]

Glancing at Fox right now:

Gutfeld is on his fainting couch over a "Self-proclaimed BLM 'Marxist' Buy[ing] Up Million-Dollar Properties."
Ingraham quoting Bob Woodson: Defunding police comes "at the expense of black life."
Tucker "fires back" over his nonstop criticism of immigrants.
Fox's national news spotlight on local news somewhere: black woman refuses to return $1.2 million after bank error.
Fox's national news spotlight on local news somewhere: Asian man attacks Asian woman "because he thought she was white."

And if you need a break from this nonstop stoking of racial grievance, Paulina Porizkova goes full frontal nude in a sheer bodysuit for Vogue Czechoslovakia at age 56.

But sure, I'm sure old white conservative males wish that the liberals would stop focusing so much on race. /sarc

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

So you took a harper’s bizarre-esque “ten signs you’re not a racist” quiz and you think this is a meaningful contribution to discussing race and racism in our country? Just another avenue for a white person to complain about being called something Black people have to live with every day.

 

[Underestimated]

Two things. First, racist and racism don't have to refer to individuals. It's very easy for a white person to say 'I'm not a racist' because they rightly believe that they would never wear a hood or call someone a racial epithet. At the same time it is difficult for white people to admit they live in a society that has built in advantages for them. If you are white, and your forebears owned real estate in America before 1965, you have benefited from a racist power structure. Send your kids to public schools? You are benefiting from a racist power structure that funds those schools.

If a power structure system was put in place that benefits PoC's by preference, while also rejecting white participation and funding, is that racist?
Because the interstate highway system was built prior to 1965, is the highway system a benefit of a racist power structure? Is mathematics racist because it was created by whites?

It's not enough for people to say...I'm not a racist. It's time for Americans to show that they are anti-racist.

Who needs to be shown I'm not a racist and what are the steps required to declare one's self an anti-racist?

 

[tres borrachos]

I agree it's not true, but lots of people say it.

At the core of critical race theory is the idea that all white people participate in and benefit from a system that oppresses minorities. Another of CRT's ideas is that racial bigotry and prejudice are not racism, but the only true racism is the institutionalized version of racism that permeates society, for the benefit of all whites and to the detriment of all non-whites. That's how all whites can be racists, regardless of any personal prejudice or lack thereof.

I personally think this is a lot of nonsense that could do great harm to our society without helping minorities at all. But these ideas have a fair bit of traction these days.

What "lots of" people say that all white people are racists?

 

[Yakshi]

Such victimhood. Incredible. They're bleeding it.

 

[Carleen]

The words 'racist & racism' are flung about so speciously and ubiquitously that they have lost all meaning to me. If everyone that is white are automatically racists, it sounds more like a genetic trait than a changeable condition.

Now prejudice and bigotry are words of individual acts and not permanent labels. This seems more appropriate and fair, rather than making sweeping judgments based on self-righteousness. A lot of what's called racism is political correctness, cultural favoritism, class warfare, and corporate/gov elitism.

I wish those terms would just get 'canceled.' Alas, this will never happen in a society eat up with egoism and entitlement. We simply have to step on heads to climb that ladder of glory.

But if you agree with me, then you cannot possibly be __________, alright, a bad person.

For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.

People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that.

www.vox.com

Vox-- "When I first took the implicit association test a few years ago, I was happy with my results: The test found that I had no automatic preference against white or black people. According to this test, I was a person free of racism, even at the subconscious level.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

At this point, I was at a loss as to what this test was telling me. Should I consider the average of my three results, essentially showing I had no bias at all? Or should I have used the latest result? Was this test even worth taking seriously, or was it bullshit? I felt like I had gotten no real answers about my bias from this test. (I recently retook the test a few times — and, again, it was all over the place.)"

When you can honestly judge a person by who they are and not what they look like you are for equality for all.

 

[tres borrachos]

I agree it's not true, but lots of people say it.

At the core of critical race theory is the idea that all white people participate in and benefit from a system that oppresses minorities. Another of CRT's ideas is that racial bigotry and prejudice are not racism, but the only true racism is the institutionalized version of racism that permeates society, for the benefit of all whites and to the detriment of all non-whites. That's how all whites can be racists, regardless of any personal prejudice or lack thereof.

I personally think this is a lot of nonsense that could do great harm to our society without helping minorities at all. But these ideas have a fair bit of traction these days.

I just looked, and I can't even find a link or quote from Al Sharpton saying that all white people are racists.

 

[mrjurrs]

1.) ive never heard anybody say it besides internet loons to be honest
2.) thats not being a racist by any stretch of the imagination though
3.) the beginning part is true, they are not the same
4.) racism doesnt need to be institutionalized it exists with or without that and thats only clung to by philosophy that ignores facts
5.) while people might believe that nothing posted above, even if it was 100% true would make all whites racists. SO those people that believe that would be very ignorant or dishonest
6.) I agree it is nonsense
7.) i havent seen them have traction at all but im just one person and however many people i know

#2...incorrect

If a power structure system was put in place that benefits PoC's by preference, while also rejecting white participation and funding, is that racist?
Because the interstate highway system was built prior to 1965, is the highway system a benefit of a racist power structure? Is mathematics racist because it was created by whites?

Who needs to be shown I'm not a racist and what are the steps required to declare one's self an anti-racist?

Let's start with the easiest one. White people did not invent math. " The earliest evidence of written mathematics dates back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the earliest civilization in Mesopotamia. They developed a complex system of metrology from 3000 BC. "
It is next to impossible for the 'dominant' race to participate in power structures that overly benefit the less dominant races. Perhaps you can give an example? Prior to 1965 there were laws that specifically degraded the ability of BIPOC to participate in owning real estate (an accepted way of generating wealth that can be passed down). The first person that needs to be shown that you are not a racist is you. Steps? That's your personal journey. Personally, I've found that accepting I have the benefit of things I didn't earn to be a good first step. Am I going to give up my house because I got it based partially on the benefit my forebears received? Hell no, but I always vote for people that believe in changing the dynamic we are accustomed to.

 

[vanceen]

I just looked, and I can't even find a link or quote from Al Sharpton saying that all white people are racists.

How on earth does Al Sharpton enter into this?

 

[vanceen]

What "lots of" people say that all white people are racists?

Everybody who espouses critical race theory. There's a fair number of them. Some posters on this board follow the CRT line very rigorously.

 

[Underestimated]

Let's start with the easiest one. White people did not invent math. " The earliest evidence of written mathematics dates back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the earliest civilization in Mesopotamia. They developed a complex system of metrology from 3000 BC. "

You're right I should have been more specific. Organized mathematics as a science, ie., 600-300 BC Greece. For example, does 2+2=4 or does 2+2=5?

It is next to impossible for the 'dominant' race to participate in power structures that overly benefit the less dominant races. Perhaps you can give an example?

An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine - Boston Review

Colorblind solutions have failed to achieve racial equity in health care. We need both federal reparations and real institutional accountability.

bostonreview.net

Prior to 1965 there were laws that specifically degraded the ability of BIPOC to participate in owning real estate (an accepted way of generating wealth that can be passed down). The first person that needs to be shown that you are not a racist is you. Steps? That's your personal journey. Personally, I've found that accepting I have the benefit of things I didn't earn to be a good first step. Am I going to give up my house because I got it based partially on the benefit my forebears received? Hell no, but I always vote for people that believe in changing the dynamic we are accustomed to.

So your journey to be an anti-racist is to admit you've benefitted by racism. What about the intersectionality between race, sexuality, and gender? Why not sell your house and provide some of the proceeds to those who were harmed by it including the indigenous people's who's land was stolen?

BTW, you didn't address the interstate highway system. Actually isn't everything prior to 1965 a power structure benefit to whites?

 

[mrjurrs]

You're right I should have been more specific. Organized mathematics as a science, ie., 600-300 BC Greece. For example, does 2+2=4 or does 2+2=5?

An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine - Boston Review

Colorblind solutions have failed to achieve racial equity in health care. We need both federal reparations and real institutional accountability.

bostonreview.net

So your journey to be an anti-racist is to admit you've benefitted by racism. What about the intersectionality between race, sexuality, and gender? Why not sell your house and provide some of the proceeds to those who were harmed by it including the indigenous people's who's land was stolen?

BTW, you didn't address the interstate highway system. Actually isn't everything prior to 1965 a power structure benefit to whites?

Hey, if you look up privilege I check all the boxes, white male upper middle class. I explained that I would not sell my house but what I do to mitigate. If you read my response more carefully I think you'd see that I said there were explicit laws that prevented BIPOC from participating in the real estate market. Last time I checked, there were no racial restrictions on using the interstate system.

 

[Underestimated]

Hey, if you look up privilege I check all the boxes, white male upper middle class. I explained that I would not sell my house but what I do to mitigate. If you read my response more carefully I think you'd see that I said there were explicit laws that prevented BIPOC from participating in the real estate market. Last time I checked, there were no racial restrictions on using the interstate system.

I'm not stating there are restrictions, I'm asking if you believe the interstate highways system was built and benefits a white power system and is therefore racist? Is it 2+2=4 or is it 2+2=5? The probing questions are a gauge. If you don't want to answer or don't know what I'm talking about that's ok, just say so. I'm not going to attack you for it.