Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri (Page 49)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You talk of "white privilege" behind your little suburban gated communities. If you ever found yourself or someone you cared about caught in those systems you might understand why "white privilege" is such a smug, distant and clueless description of the problem.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ex-baltimore-labeled-rat-police-brutality-claim-article-1.2077632

This article is about an honest cop, Joseph Crystal, who reported his fellow officer after a completely unnecessary beating was perpetrated against a man who had already been arrested. Crystal's career was ruined and he had to resign, even though the officer he 'snitched on' was, in fact, convicted and sentenced to prison as a result of Crystal's testimony.

For all the talk of rioting to protest the behavior of racist or militarized police forces, where are the riots in defence of cops like Crystal who are really the ones trying to defend the public good? Where are the protests demanding protection for men like him, to encourage cops to be able to break through the 'thin blue line'?

It's all too easy to protest against something that looks bad because an apparent outrage makes for an easy spectacle around which to rally crusaders. Where is all of that gusto to support someone who actually tried to do his job well, and who was harassed and censured for it? I guess narratives such as "racist conduct" or "police brutality" are of more interest to people at present than is something less flashy like "this good man needs our support." Then again, Crystal is white and is therefore already privileged, so I guess he doesn't need anyone's help after all. [Razz]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You talk of "white privilege" behind your little suburban gated communities. If you ever found yourself or someone you cared about caught in those systems you might understand why "white privilege" is such a smug, distant and clueless description of the problem.
Pete, this is the second time recently you've claimed to know enough details of my life to know what experiences I have, and do not have, including claims about the people I have relationships with.

Both times you've been wrong.

Stop doing it.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry for not consistently using the plural that I started with "communities". No, EV, I remember you are a city dweller. My question remains why you are spouting the line of the gated community pseudo liberal, when you know or ought to know that your white privilege rhetoric does little good to inner city blacks as well as selling underprivileged whites down the river.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You talk of "white privilege" behind your little suburban gated communities. If you ever found yourself or someone you cared about caught in those systems you might understand why "white privilege" is such a smug, distant and clueless description of the problem.

Note that paragraph never adressed this to "everard" of to "PSRT" so please do get off.my ankle about inferences, everard. You're the one that inferred here.

[ January 19, 2015, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?_r=0&referrer=

What a surprise.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So they are zero for 2 now.

Zimmerman no charges.

Wilson no charges.

I wonder why the DOJ doesn't file charges on any of the myriad gang killings in Chicago. That's organized crime that also relates to racial prejudice right?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If they're trying to use the law I think they are, they don't bring charges because it's been defanged. Unless they find a recording of Wilson confessing that he shot Brown to stop him from voting, the DOJ doesn't have a case.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If they're trying to use the law I think they are, they don't bring charges because it's been defanged. Unless they find a recording of Wilson confessing that he shot Brown to stop him from voting, the DOJ doesn't have a case.

Then why did they spend time and money and issue press releases saying they were investigating both to see whether or not they should bring a civil rights case against them?

Because Obama uses the machinery of government as a political weapon. We've seen it with nearly every department, nearly every bureaucracy.

Also, in other news, the lesson from NJ is when police tell you to get your hands up and you're sitting in a car, don't get OUT of the car until they tell you...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then why did they spend time and money and issue press releases saying they were investigating both to see whether or not they should bring a civil rights case against them?
Because it at least communicates to people who feel that they've been wronged that an effort was made to hear and try to address their concerns. Which is a fair sight better than they got form the local system, which communicated to them that they're not worth the cost of even trying to earnestly examine the issue.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it inflamed and prolonged the unrest and the false racial anger as it was meant to. It was clear from the first federal autopsy that Wilson did nothing wrong. The civil rights investigation was just a fishing expedition hoping to scrounge up something when they knew they wouldn't because Holder was angry with the Grand Jury for not indicting.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am waiting for Holder to demonstrate the same enthusiasm for press conferences, and demonstration pep rallies, that he displayed in the early stages of DOJ evidence suppression which incriminated Brown as a petty thief, and thug.

A little remorse over the murder he incited would be nice to see.

Any bets?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.wtoc.com/story/27909222/police-union-to-state-law-makers-dont-mess-with-no-knock-warrants

Since the problem appears to be that police departments are out of control in certain respects, I wonder how seriously the police union's position on this will be taken.

Claim: "The police are out of control."
Police union rep: "The police are doing fine."

A big check mark for the "duh" column here. I sincerely hope that the union's position is simply ignored as this matter is dealt with going forward.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No-knocks are a different matter. They need to be eliminated. People have died because cops literally got the wrong address or the forms were incorrect, something a simple knock and question could have answered.

Also, in a day and age where criminals impersonate police with uniforms, cars and verbal credentials we cannot allow no-knock warrants. The safest thing to do if police are knocking at your door is call 911 and verify it's really them. YouTube is filled with scores of fake police home invasions.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/joseph-weekley-charges-dismissed-aiyana-stanley-jones_n_6566032.html

I just read about this for the first time. Where was the protest over this? An innocent child shot dead by an officer in a raid seems to me far more egregious than the shooting of a black kid who had just robbed a store. Neither are good, but the former is simply outrageous.

Does this case highlight racism, or police misconduct protected by the court system? I think this is the question to ask, and if it's more the latter then a lot of talk in the Ferguson and Garner cases has been barking up the wrong tree.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another incident of police violence, among many:

http://www.waaytv.com/appnews/madison-officer-charged-with-assault-for-use-of-force-incident/article_7b09d144-b2fe-11e4-a0e4-b339eed5e1af.html

So let's say there is some residual racism in America (and by this I mean bigotry, not what Pyr means by it). It's been argued that black people growing up in America feel it all too keenly, even though white people are free to ignore it. And yet the only press I see that seem to indicate racism or mistreatment of minorities is from the police.

Is there any evidence at all that regular citizens are demonstrating bigotry towards minorities, or is the problem centrally - as it seems to me that it might be - with law enforcement and security? In other words, is there racism in America, or is there racism in American law enforcement specifically? I feel that if the latter is the case it could still account for an over-arching feeling of unease in the minority population, and a general feeling that they aren't being treated that well, even without the general population having any issue with them at all.

Pyr's point about the systemic racism, i.e. the structure of the society producing skewed results, isn't what I'm addressing here, but rather individual feelings or behavior. Note also that I'm not discussing bias, which every human has, but specifically bigotry that would make someone in a minority group specifically feel like he's not being treated equally.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is there any evidence at all that regular citizens are demonstrating bigotry towards minorities, or is the problem centrally - as it seems to me that it might be - with law enforcement and security?
Loads. Massive amounts. You haven't seen the studies done on, for example, the effects of submitting a resume with the name "Tyrone" on it versus an identical resume with the name "Scott?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Is there any evidence at all that regular citizens are demonstrating bigotry towards minorities, or is the problem centrally - as it seems to me that it might be - with law enforcement and security?
Loads. Massive amounts. You haven't seen the studies done on, for example, the effects of submitting a resume with the name "Tyrone" on it versus an identical resume with the name "Scott?"
I haven't seen those, I'll go check it out. I wonder what the landscape would be like, though, if the police issue was cleared up and the rest remained. In other words, what proportion of the discomfort comes from 'little stuff' (maybe some of it is big stuff, I don't know), and what part from very serious problems like police conduct. If the police were felt as being, for instance, on the side of black Americans, and it was felt the police were always an ally that could be turned to in case of trouble - would the black experience be so significantly different that these other issues wouldn't really be a huge deal? Or do you think they'd still be a huge deal?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/charges-cops-broke-innocent-mans-home-slept-shot-16-times/?utm_source=The+Free+Thought+Project+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8b03e85b3e-RSS_FEED_N EWSLETTER12_18_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ae40e945ed-8b03e85b3e-211510197

Another small tidbit regarding the problems in the current police system. It only takes so many cases such as this before it becomes clear that the problem here is the police system, and not specifically that the police are out to get black people. It may, of course, be true that black people receive more than their fair share of police attention, and this is definitely worth mentioning, but if everyone is suffering at their hands to varying levels it's enough to simply say the system that protects them needs to be reigned in. I think it's been amply demonstrated that the grand jury decisions in the Ferguson and Garner cases were not any kind of sign of racism, but simply standard procedure for when cops are accused of anything. It is entirely possible that the officers involved in those cases were bigoted, but that wouldn't have mattered if they were convicted of murder, for instance. The outrage, then, is over the fact that they are not held to account for their violent actions, and this aspect of it doesn't seem to me to be related to racism.

This particular case is orders of magnitude more egregious than the shooting at Ferguson, as are the various cases involving babies and children being shot, innocent people, and so forth. And the issue across all of these cases is the same: police misconduct, protected by the justice system. The race angle in this particular arena seems to me to be a red herring, regardless of the situation in general in America for black people. Police departments need to be reigned in for everyone's sake.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The race angle in this particular arena seems to me to be a red herring, regardless of the situation in general in America for black people.
I would say, rather, that the race angle is relevant, but there are some people who are so incapable of accepting this that they are actually distracted by any mention of race and, in a knee-jerk reaction, wind up defending wrongdoing to avoid having to acknowledge the grievance. So it's not so much a "red herring" as it is an overcomplication.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I recommend this report from NPR: Part 1

Part 2

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you both misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the police aren't bigoted, or that their treatment of black people is roughly the same as white people. I'm saying that any bigotry that results in undo violence which isn't halted through oversight ought to be curtailed at the justice end. If a cop shot a black person needlessly once, and was put away, he'd be out of the picture. Over time, the situation would improve through a kind of natural selection. It's the protection of police officers that keeps the problem from self-correcting, both in terms of racism and in terms of general overzealous use of force. If there was good oversight racists would get weeded out slowly; first the very violent ones, and once the culture changed a bit the others afterward.

In the sense that the justice side isn't willing to prosecute cops, no race in particular is singled out since it's just about protecting the cops no matter who they assaulted or shot. The fact that blacks may end up getting shafted by this more than whites is sad, and although Pyr would call this racism I personally would say that it's just bad systemic management that happens to have a bad effect for blacks. Maybe you'll think this is semantics; if so, ok.

Tom, would you say it's also fair to suggest that while some people who are opposed to mention of race will knee-jerk to defend cops, at the same time many people who are very race-conscious will also knee-jerk at the mention of race and assume that whatever bad thing happened was because of race? On the balance I would say that both positions are equally problematic and get in the way of improving the situation.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It only takes so many cases such as this before it becomes clear that the problem here is the police system, and not specifically that the police are out to get black people.
How long till we acknowledge the fact the deeper problem is that black people have been ignored when they complained about it, and it was only acknowledged as a problem when it started affecting white people enough that they couldn't just keep blaming it on black people?

This problem could have been averted decades ago; there's noting new about it, it's just that it's only being finally taken seriously now that enough white people can't justify maintaining deliberate ignorance by blaming those that were hurt by it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom, would you say it's also fair to suggest that while some people who are opposed to mention of race will knee-jerk to defend cops, at the same time many people who are very race-conscious will also knee-jerk at the mention of race and assume that whatever bad thing happened was because of race?
Sure. The difference, insofar as there is one, is that the first group winds up denying that anything bad happened, whereas the second group just misdiagnoses the problem.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tom, would you say it's also fair to suggest that while some people who are opposed to mention of race will knee-jerk to defend cops, at the same time many people who are very race-conscious will also knee-jerk at the mention of race and assume that whatever bad thing happened was because of race?
Sure. The difference, insofar as there is one, is that the first group winds up denying that anything bad happened, whereas the second group just misdiagnoses the problem.
Fair enough.

Pyr, do you think it's possible that the reason people haven't been looking closely into the police issue until recently is primarily because up until recently the average person simply trusted the police and wouldn't consider the possibility that they might be rotten? While this would entail a certain level of naivete, it wouldn't require the assumption that Americans ignore black people due to bigotry. I would call that a 'racy' assertion, if you'll pardon the pun, not that your claim is impossible. But I'm inclined to believe that 'trusting the system' is far more to blame for the delay in realizing the problem than is shutting down the comments of black people due to bigotry. Also, I believe police violence has ramped up lately, which is also bringing these things to light at a rapid rate, along with the internet's ability to circumvent MSM.

Even looking back to recent history, the majority of the populace didn't have much of a bugaboo about banks until the late 2000's, and now awareness of misdeeds has been raised. I personally suspect that the huge trust in the system spawned in the early 80's after the recession ended and the yuppie corporatism phase began. I see every reason to blame this era for misplaced trust in the system, even though I'm sure you're right that there is bigotry to some extent as well.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyr, do you think it's possible that the reason people haven't been looking closely into the police issue until recently is primarily because up until recently the average person simply trusted the police and wouldn't consider the possibility that they might be rotten?
Indeed. That's exactly what I'm saying was part of the problem. There's even a word for that kind of ignorance- that freedom to ignore a problem and even ignorantly contribute to it because one isn't categorically affected by it- which we spent pages discussing.

quote:
it wouldn't require the assumption that Americans ignore black people due to bigotry
Cart before the horse. Bigoted assumptions arise becuase peopel are ignoring a minority segment of the population's concerns and asserting justifications for doing so.

quote:
. But I'm inclined to believe that 'trusting the system' is far more to blame for the delay in realizing the problem than is shutting down the comments of black people due to bigotry.
And hey, we're right back into privilege. And exactly why civil rights groups find it important to give it a name and try to point it out. It's easy to "trust the system" when the system is only hurting other people that you can find a reason to rationalize must deserve it instead of paying attention to their complaints that it's fundamentally unjust.

The only place that you seem to be missing what's being said is your insistence on trying to shoehorn overt personal racial prejudice into the issue when no one is making the claim that it's a factor, even while acknowledging that there is a clear systemic bias in who is affected by such issues.

[ February 20, 2015, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:


quote:
. But I'm inclined to believe that 'trusting the system' is far more to blame for the delay in realizing the problem than is shutting down the comments of black people due to bigotry.
And hey, we're right back into privilege. And exactly why civil rights groups find it important to give it a name and try to point it out. It's easy to "trust the system" when the system is only hurting other people that you can find a reason to rationalize must deserve it instead of paying attention to their complaints that it's fundamentally unjust.
I don't know how you can call the American citizens being lied to a privilege. I think the lie affects everyone, and people were being harmed by it without even knowing it and still are. I know you want to say that since white people weren't at the top of the list of people complaining about it you assert this means they were privileged (even though not being buggered quite as much as the next guy is hardly a privilege), but we could just as soon assert that white people have been more naive, rather than more privileged. Or even better, we could just say that most people in general have been naive, and also remember that most people are white. I'd like you to remember that I'm not saying there hasn't been racism, and an easy example of real systemic racism has been the war on drugs. These laws have played their part in creating an 'us vs them' mentality with police. It just seems like such a cop-out to me to talk of white privilege and racism when the real culprit is simply government and oversight. I continue to think that the real privileged people are those who are...actually privileged, meaning people with money. If it has been the case that white people have more money than black people, and that the status quo was well-off people being content while poor people were screwed, it's true that those who are more poor will be more affected, but this problem isn't racist but rather elitist. If black people had happened to be the rich ones it would have been the white people complaining and being ignored. This is obviously counterfactual, but all the evidence suggests that money speaks and poverty is silent; follow the money, not the skin color.

quote:
The only place that you seem to be kissing what's being said is your insistence on trying to shoehorn overt personal racial prejudice into the issue when no one is making the claim that it's a factor, even while acknowledging that there is a clear systemic bias in who is affected by such issues.
[my bold]

It is by no means "no one", although I know you haven't been implying white people are racists. I saw plenty of articles when the Ferguson event hit that were titled "Racism in Ferguson" and other similar titles, when the content of them was about a white cop shooting a black boy. The obvious meaning was to impute racism to the cop, which is the kind I'm talking about here. That you personally don't speak of individuals as racists doesn't stop plenty of other people online and in the media doing so, so you should understand that when the common usage of "racist" is used it's a reference to how people use it, and not specifically to its usage in your circles. I'm not trying to shoehorn anything in, there are plenty of people (even black people) who assert that white people in general are racists on an individual basis. Even celebrities such as Chris Rock feel free to make statements such as this one:

"When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy."

So yes, not everyone is speaking about uneven systemic results as you are. Many speak about white people being racists, or 'crazy' if you want a more meaning-absent toned-down version. That this type of assertion is itself racist tends to generate some cognitive dissonance.

EDIT - just a tiny point to back up my first one about being lied to not being a privilege. Think of Orwell's 1984. The people in that society feel happy and love Big Brother. They are systematically lied to and brainwashed, and they mostly don't realize it; those that do notice it are dealt with. How crazy would it be to call the citizens of that civilization "privileged" because they are ignorant of their own situation? I would call them victims, personally.

[ February 20, 2015, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we could just as soon assert that white people have been more naive, rather than more privileged
One might say that naivete is a luxury of privilege.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Pyr, do you think it's possible that the reason people haven't been looking closely into the police issue until recently is primarily because up until recently the average person simply trusted the police and wouldn't consider the possibility that they might be rotten?
Indeed. That's exactly what I'm saying was part of the problem. There's even a word for that kind of ignorance- that freedom to ignore a problem and even ignorantly contribute to it because one isn't categorically affected by it- which we spent pages discussing.

This. The "average" person is white and has the freedom to be naive without dire personal consequences. That is what is named privilege. Stop thinking the word, in this context, means what it means in other contexts. Think of it as a homonym.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know how you can call the American citizens being lied to a privilege.
Being able to ignore a problem and go about your life as if nothing was wrong is privilege.

quote:
I think the lie affects everyone, and people were being harmed by it without even knowing it and still are.
Indeed. That's exactly why privilege is so pernicious and even hurts the people who nominally benefit from it in the long term.

quote:
It just seems like such a cop-out to me to talk of white privilege and racism when the real culprit is simply government and oversight
"cop-out" would falsely suggest that it's done instead of, when the facts are that people who understand and properly apply the concept get to that very same conclusion _faster_. You're catching up here, slowly but surely, but it's tortuously slow going because of your objections to the language that's been developed to help identify such problems and trace them back to their origin.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I continue to think that the real privileged people are those who are...actually privileged, meaning people with money. If it has been the case that white people have more money than black people, and that the status quo was well-off people being content while poor people were screwed, it's true that those who are more poor will be more affected, but this problem isn't racist but rather elitist. If black people had happened to be the rich ones it would have been the white people complaining and being ignored. This is obviously counterfactual, but all the evidence suggests that money speaks and poverty is silent; follow the money, not the skin color.
You speak as if that's not already embedded into the notion of identity privilege. Part of the reason that whites have racial identity privilege in the US is because they control a disproportionate amount of wealth and power, and at times intentionally, and at other times unintentionally, use that control to structure society to maintain that hold on wealth and power.

In a society where a different race enjoyed a similar position, then that race would be the one identified as having racial privilege.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is by no means "no one", although I know you haven't been implying white people are racists. I saw plenty of articles when the Ferguson event hit that were titled "Racism in Ferguson" and other similar titles, when the content of them was about a white cop shooting a black boy. The obvious meaning was to impute racism to the cop, which is the kind I'm talking about here.
No. My point all along is that by reading _your_ meaning of racial prejudice into such uses, you are inserting something that is _not_ what the civil rights leaders being quoted and referenced mean. This is the point that I have been trying to make here- that when you interpret the words of others this way instead of actually making an effort to understand what they're talking about, then you are actively miscasting their arguments.

Now it's fully possible that when they're citing someone on the street using it colloquially, that individual may be implying prejudice, but by and large it's being used in media, and always by civil rights leaders to reference systemic biases unless there is clear supporting evidence that they were specifically talking about individual prejudices.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I continue to think that the real privileged people are those who are...actually privileged, meaning people with money. If it has been the case that white people have more money than black people, and that the status quo was well-off people being content while poor people were screwed, it's true that those who are more poor will be more affected, but this problem isn't racist but rather elitist. If black people had happened to be the rich ones it would have been the white people complaining and being ignored. This is obviously counterfactual, but all the evidence suggests that money speaks and poverty is silent; follow the money, not the skin color.
You speak as if that's not already embedded into the notion of identity privilege. Part of the reason that whites have racial identity privilege in the US is because they control a disproportionate amount of wealth and power, and at times intentionally, and at other times unintentionally, use that control to structure society to maintain that hold on wealth and power.

In a society where a different race enjoyed a similar position, then that race would be the one identified as having racial privilege.

You see, this is what sounds like race-baiting to me. If anyone at all who had the money and the power would be privileged, then it seems sufficient to just call it 'money privilege' or something like that. You'll get 99.9% agreement if you put it that way. But calling out the skin color of the people with money just to say they're the ones with the money seems superfluous. If they are white, and privileged because they're rich, it doesn't follow that they're privileged because they're white, although you could grammatically say they are privileged and white.

By the way, I'm not 'coming around slowly' or whatever other thing you think I'm doing. I've thought what I wrote above all along. If you and I were closer than you thought on this and this has remained concealed until now I will squarely lay the blame for that on the kinds of terms you use to describe things, which is the complaint most of us have been levying all along.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone at all who had the money and the power would be privileged, then it seems sufficient to just call it 'money privilege' or something like that.
If we were talking about class identity, then that would be the case- but we're talking about race identity and can clearly point to ways that the way one race in our society has its hands on the such levers of power creates benefits and disadvantages along racial lines. Unless you can justify some genetic reason that the any random black person is not equally as likely to be as rich and powerful as and random white person.

If there's no genetic reason for it, then it's something else, and that collection of possible something elses are a societal problem along racial lines that we need to address, and being able to address it starts with honestly calling it by name, instead of denying that it exists, and thus effectively implying that the issues are the just and proper order of things.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I continue to think that the real privileged people are those who are...actually privileged, meaning people with money.

So, in this context, you would continue to be wrong. For now, think of the word "privilege" as having two different definitions. Lots of words can mean more than one thing. Like "green" for example. If we were talking about energy sources and someone was talking about "green" energy, you would be confused if you insisted on thinking "green" always and only meant the colour. Right?

Now. Privilege in this context is related to wealth (like the "green" energy is related to the colour green) because since the people with wealth and power designed the system to suit them, people who look like them/share that culture have some residual benefits. Sort of like herd immunity.

If all else fails, read this. Actually, read that anyway.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But whether you realize it or not, you do benefit from it, and it is your fault if you don't maintain awareness of that fact.
What a bunch of leftist nonsense. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries this is backwards in many areas.

I hate to say it but my black/asian skin afforded me many opportunities that I saw my white co-workers didn't get or get as often. In command meetings where layoffs and firings were discussed any attempt to fire a non-white person was so fraught with stress and difficulty that they were fired at less than 1/3 of the time of their proportionate presence on the staff compared to white males.

So yeah, it IS baloney.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone at all who had the money and the power would be privileged, then it seems sufficient to just call it 'money privilege' or something like that.
Yes, but then all the privileged lefties would not be able to spread their privilege guilt around on the masses of underprivileged whites. Calling it white privilege helps them launder their guilt and sense of responsibility for the privileges they have come into. It's much easier to sacrifice someone else over your guilt. That's what scapegoats are for.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's pretty the reverse of White Privilege used to work. Poor white trash were brainwashed to feel proud every time that a big rich white plantation owner got a whole new tract of land and slaves. Golly, ain't it good to be white. And if the slaves were eating better than you, then at least you could bully them in town, because dadgummit, you're white ergo better.

Now rich white lefties want society to shame and deprive poor whites in retaliation for every privilege that the rich ones get. Poor white guy gets his rights violated by cops, or put to death? Not an issue for press discussion, because he was white, and had it coming.

"White privilege" ain't what it used to be. But it's still vile. it's still dishonest at its core. It's still, in MLK's words, a game of rich men telling poor men a vicious lie. But the lie has changed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, I am seriously impressed by how willing you are to skirt next to outright bigotry to tell yourself a story you find palatable, Pete.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Man, I am seriously impressed by how willing you are to skirt next to outright bigotry to tell yourself a story you find palatable, Pete.

What aspect of what I said seems like "outright bigotry" to you, Tom?

I've simply questioned the position of rich privileged whites telling poor whites how privileged they are because of the color of their skin. It seems like laundered rich white guilt.

If you honestly saw what I said as bigoted, I think you could explain why it was, rather than flashing the word around like you might flash around your Stainless Steel American Express card at your favorite private club.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1