Support NeoGAF

[PogiJones]

Right. A better way of explaining it might be that "racism" has several negative connotations tied to it. So if someone says "affirmative action is racism," typically they aren't actually making any kind of interesting point--sure, by definition it's racism, so what?--but rather trying to bring in the negative connotations without actually having to argue for them. Which is why saying that affirmative action is racism generally gets pushback.

This is sort of a losing battle because it's really difficult to get people to ignore the connotations and argue what they're actually trying to argue, but yes, it would be nice if we could have discussions where we use phrases like "sure this is racism, but it's the good and consequentially useful kind of racism!" Unfortunately that one is pretty difficult to say without sounding weird or possibly insane.

Yeah. I kind of explained it above, but I think the dictionary definition of racism that most people adhere to (i.e. discrimination based on race) existing with the cultural notion that "racism" is always wrong is actually what's creating the friction, though. Usually, saying we're "arguing semantics" is a way to show how pointless the argument is, but "racism"--especially as it applies to affirmative action--is a rare case, I think, where semantics are hugely important.

Applying an analogy, to clarify how I see it damaging the conversation and creating a schism: A school cafeteria sign says "No butting in line. It's mean and wrong, period." The kids are taught that same thing, every day, and are told to recite it. One day, a parent with her son with a peanut allergy shows up and takes him in front of all the kids so he can get lunch and leave before the school opens up the peanut cans. "Hey, he butted!" the kids all shout. They feel offended. He was mean to them, because butting is always mean--it's self-evident. The mother and son know that, too; they hate butting just as much as anyone else. But they also know that what they did was perfectly okay. It can't be okay AND be butting, so if it was okay, it wasn't butting. The mom says, "We didn't butt; he has a peanut allergy." The kids shout, "Butting is cutting ahead of people who were waiting in line. That's what you did. So you butted! Butting is wrong, and you butted!" "No, it wasn't butting, because we were justified!"

Thus, instead of actually talking about whether the action is justified or not, the argument turns into fights where each side thinks the other is CLEARLY wrong and just doesn't get it. But if they could all acknowledge that butting is sometimes okay, the mom could just say, "Yeah, sorry for butting, but he has a peanut allergy and has to go first," then the kids can understand why they have to wait 15 seconds longer than they otherwise would have.

I seriously think the "racism is ALWAYS wrong" notion is creating a huge portion of the friction regarding affirmative action. Racism can't be right, both sides think. Those supporting it say, affirmative action is right, so it can't be racism. Those opposing it say, affirmative action is racism, so it can't be right.

We as a society seriously need to reconcile with ourselves that, in rare cases, racism can be right. The debate is going to be gravely hampered until we do.

 

[JDSN]

A combination of Real picture january and threads of racial nature prove this right. It has been really fun.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You directly benefit from the perpetuation of said wrong doing.

Would you not feel guilty if someone else stole some money and gave you a cut?

But if I had the choice I'd refuse the cut.

A better analogy would be someone kidnapping me and making me take some of the money or they would kill me.

Your analogy implies that I chose to be white and have these advantages.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I have family members who are convinced that anti-white discrimination is dire, and it's completely connected to their unwillingness to look outside their own thought processes and sets of assumptions to see that their experiences might not be relevant to a particular discussion, and might even lead them to incorrect conclusions about the experiences of other people.

How do you handle and/or cope with this? This would bother me every day if I knew people close to me felt this way.

I think what he's talking about is a combination of "white guilt" and the concept that you can't be white and "proud" because it comes off as racist. So if you can't be happy about being white without it reflecting poorly on you, what else can you feel but shame?

It's that feeling that society still holds you responsible for the sins of your fathers. It's probably similar to the feeling that some Germans may have had after WWII because of the crimes against humanity caused by the Nazis. You did nothing wrong, but there's that nagging feeling that you're still to blame for mistakes that happened before you were
even born.

Consider where this is merely something you allow yourself to think. This notion that all white people are to blame for the actions of past white people has never been widely accepted. Even if people buy into that thinking, it's almost certainly less common and less ingrained than the belief that people of color tend to be criminals, rapists or evil. This strain of thought is definitely pushed by many.

Even if you genuinely feel like you're accused of this, step back and assess how your situation compares to those of others. Purely from the perspective of skin color and privilege, you're in a better position. You can't lament your situation in this instance without acknowledging you're better off.

However, everyone can be considered responsible for helping to spread awareness/stop perpetuating racism. Anyone who ignores society's problems and shirks responsibility for making the world better is actively opposing progress since they indirectly encourage others to do the same.

 

[DC R1D3R]

 

[thekad]

whoops

 

[Cyan]

But if I had the choice I'd refuse the cut.

A better analogy would be someone kidnapping me and making me take some of the money or they would kill me.

Your analogy implies that I chose to be white and have these advantages.

Your feelings matter less than your ideas and actions.

Should you feel guilty because of possible unfair advantages you receive over others?

The answer is that unless unacknowledged feelings of guilt are causing you to deny the existence of racism, or something like that, it doesn't really matter. Try to rectify the problem, and don't worry about whether you "ought to" feel guilty. It's kind of a silly thing to argue, really.

 

[TAJ]

And Christians are persecuted here. Majority groups just can't catch a break.

 

[The Adder]

But if I had the choice I'd refuse the cut.

A better analogy would be someone kidnapping me and making me take some of the money or they would kill me.

Your analogy implies that I chose to be white and have these advantages.

My analogy didn't offer you a choice, so your changes are unnecessary and only there to make you feel better.

Dude robs someone gives you a cut.

Your options are

A. benefit from the windfall and feel no guilt.

B. Benefit from the windfall and feel guilty.

C. Do what you can to return the money.

You are doing, and actively advocating for in this topic, A.

 

[Cyan]

We as a society seriously need to reconcile with ourselves that, in rare cases, racism can be right. The debate is going to be gravely hampered until we do.

This isn't unique to racial discrimination, though. It's a fundamentally human thing, due to the way our brains are structured, to attach connotations to sets of things and then argue about which things belong in which sets based on connotations rather than fundamental characteristics. Indeed, this is common to many political arguments, possibly because it feels so good to say "this thing that my opponents like is actually a member of this set that we all agree is bad!"

"Abortion is murder." "Taxation is theft." "War is terrorism." etc etc

I think that if you're able to see past these sort of noisy pointless arguments, it's probably most useful to change the terms of the argument yourself and discuss based on unpacked characteristics rather than insist people keep using the same messy labels.

 

[akira28]

Obama only won because of black people!

"Obama won because of racism. If blacks weren't racist they would have voted for Romney. 95% of blacks are racist."

actual conversation I've had with a few white former associates.

 

[Trey]

This isn't unique to racial discrimination, though. It's a fundamentally human thing, due to the way our brains are structured, to attach connotations to sets of things and then argue about which things belong in which sets based on connotations rather than fundamental characteristics. Indeed, this is common to many political arguments, possibly because it feels so good to say "this thing that my opponents like is actually a member of this set that we all agree is bad!"

"Abortion is murder." "Taxation is theft." "War is terrorism." etc etc

I think that if you're able to see past these sort of noisy pointless arguments, it's probably most useful to change the terms of the argument yourself and discuss based on unpacked characteristics rather than insist people keep using the same messy labels.

Racism is the belief that inherent differences between races makes a certain race superior.

Saying "you are black" isn't racist.

Saying, "you are inferior because you're black" is racist.

That's why I argue that you cannot say AA is a racist policy at face value. It's not saying any race is inferior. It's saying that our society disadvantages minorities, so we'll give them active consideration.

 

[Trojita]

The study was conducted by Sommers and co-author Michael I. Norton of Harvard asking a roughly equal national sample of 209 Caucasians and 208 African Americans to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the extent to which they felt blacks and whites were the targets of discrimination in decades spanning from the 1950s to the 2000s. The scale’s ranking of 1 indicated “not at all” while 10 indicates “very much.”

That is an absurdly low number for a sample size that is supposed to represent the whole population of whites and blacks.

Tufts Associate Professor of Psychology Samuel Sommers, PhD is the co-author of the article “Whites See Racism as a Zero-sum Game that They Are Now Losing,” from the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. He comments that ”It’s a pretty surprising finding when you think of the wide range of disparities

That title sounds ridiculously inflammatory.

 

[Angelus Errare]

"Obama won because of racism. If blacks weren't racist they would have voted for Romney. 95% of blacks are racist."

actual conversation I've had with a few white former associates.

"Only reason why black people voted for Obama is because hes black."

I usually rebuttal with

"Only reason white people voted for Romney was because he wasn't black."

Then they say "that's not true! Many people voted for Romney because he had better policies"

I respond with "Many people voted for Obama because he had better policies."

Then they respond with "What policies did Obama have that were better."

I respond with

"What policies did Romney have that were better."

At that point they usually get the idea.

 

[Timedog]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUCK I CAN'T BREATHE

 

[The Adder]

And let me elaborate on my post. If you think that A is the proper response in that situation, that is one thing. I disagree, but I am not going to make a judgement regarding your moral fiber because of it, and you are consistent. But if A is wrong there, then it is wrong here as well.

 

[Jimothy]

No, removing wood was what the civil rights movement was about. But that wasn't enough, so we've been adopting affirmative action. So now, if there are two applicants to an affirmative action university who have identical credentials, but one is black and one is white, the black applicant will be preferred over the white. Same with latino vs. white, and likely other races vs. white. In the situation where the candidates have equal credentials, white person gets chopped solely because they're white. That is discrimination based on race, which is, by definition, racism. I don't know how you can keep saying it's not.

Your resistance to acknowledging it's racism is precisely the problem with discussions surrounding the issue. The sagebrush is complaining it's getting burned, and instead of saying, "Yeah, I know it burns a bit, but we've got to do this to stop the even bigger fire," you're saying, "You're not on fire, sagebrush, because we're using this intense heat to fight a fire. So since you're not on fire, stop complaining." That's just not productive. If you want people who feel burned to understand your side, you need to tell them WHY you're burning them, not pretend that they're not actually burning.

So I assume because you're against AA, you're for massive redistribution of wealth and opportunity to minorities so they can be on par with whites when it comes to primary education? Because something has to be done to right the wrongs of the past. AA is not how I'd prefer to go about leveling the playing field but it's better than the altnerative, which is basically doing nothing and hoping the problem fixes itself.

 

[Cyan]

Racism is the belief that inherent differences between races makes a certain race superior.

Saying "you are black" isn't racist.

Saying, "you are inferior because you're black" is racist.

That's why I argue that you cannot say AA is a racist policy at face value. It's not saying any race is inferior. It's saying that our society disadvantages minorities, so we'll give them active consideration.

Yes, Mumei pointed out to me that it would be more accurate to say "it's correct that affirmative action is racial discrimination," rather than that it's racism. That seems like a reasonable correction.

I think the larger point of "unpack these things rather than quibbling about definitions" probably holds.

 

[Wedge7]

lol good stuff

Needed a good laugh

 

[Zen_Arcade]

My analogy didn't offer you a choice, so your changes are unnecessary and only there to make you feel better.

Dude robs someone gives you a cut.

Your options are

A. benefit from the windfall and feel no guilt.

B. Benefit from the windfall and feel guilty.

C. Do what you can to return the money.

You are doing, and actively advocating for in this topic, A.

I'm not advocating A at all. If I had the option in the situation I'd choose C. Your analogy is still flawed because there are resolutions where I have the ability to do the right thing and absolve myself of any guilt that I might have. I still have some sort of control over the situation. I have a choice to make.

My changes weren't unnecessary because what you presented wasn't apt. That situation still gives me options of how to handle it. I can't do that with racism. It's a completely different situation because with racism I have no choice to get anything given to me, and I can't give what I'm getting back to even things out the way they should be.

You're asking me to feel guilty about something I have zero control over. Not a situation where I have multiple options of how to handle it. Do I feel bad that that's how society is? For sure. It's an unacceptable standard. But it's not a standard I have any choice in molding. If it were, it'd be different.

 

[PogiJones]

This isn't unique to racial discrimination, though. It's a fundamentally human thing, due to the way our brains are structured, to attach connotations to sets of things and then argue about which things belong in which sets based on connotations rather than fundamental characteristics. Indeed, this is common to many political arguments, possibly because it feels so good to say "this thing that my opponents like is actually a member of this set that we all agree is bad!"

"Abortion is murder." "Taxation is theft." "War is terrorism." etc etc

I think that if you're able to see past these sort of noisy pointless arguments, it's probably most useful to change the terms of the argument yourself and discuss based on unpacked characteristics rather than insist people keep using the same messy labels.

I would if I could, but right now, there's only one term (two, if you count "racial discrimination," which carries just as heavy a negative connotation) for discriminating against someone based on their race: racism. The negative connotation is not just with the word "racism", but with the concept of racism, of giving one person an advantage or disadvantage based on an immutable immaterial trait. That's why using the words "affirmative action"--both very positive words--has not solved the debate, because the pretty words still mean the same concept. So I suppose I was a bit off when I said the semantics are important; I still think they are, but only insofar as they describe the concept, which is what the negative connotation primarily sticks to.

As a culture, we've been VERY strongly imbued with a disdain for racism (both the word and concept). Affirmative action falls straight into that concept of preferring people based on immutable immaterial traits. So when I'm arguing for the concept (or words) of justified racism, I'm trying to pry away the negative connotation associated with affirmative action, because they are tied together. Very rarely do I ever hear arguments against affirmative action that do not primarily say it's discrimination based on race, and is therefore racist, and therefore wrong. Usually they don't even add "and therefore wrong." Discrimination based on race is just KNOWN to be wrong. It's not even worth wasting breath to vocalize it, it's so obvious.

But therein lies the issue: If I am to convince someone who opposes affirmative action that affirmative action is a good thing, I must show them the faultiness of their logic, the reasoning to which they already subscribe. I can't logically argue that affirmative action isn't discrimination based on someone's race. I can't logically argue that discrimination based on someone's race isn't racism, and even if I could, the concept of racism endures even if we discarded the word. But that last clause, the one that is so obvious they don't even bother saying it--"and therefore wrong"--that I can logically argue against. If I can undermine their assumption that racism is never right, I can then introduce justification and efficacy arguments to show why in this case, racism is justified, even if it's usually not.

So I assume because you're against AA [snip]

I recommend you read my posts more carefully.

 

[reggieandTFE]

These poll results are sad. It comes from a place of ignorance and lack of empathy.

 

[Timedog]

White people experience so much racism from all those people in the neighborhoods they don't hang out in, all those black coworkers that don't exist not promoting them, from all those minorities that assume they're stealing at Safeway because of their white skin, boat shoes, and khaki dockers.

Nope. Most of the people that think this way "experience" anti-white racism pretty much solely from conservative tv and radio people yelling about it.

 

[The Adder]

I'm not advocating A at all. If I had the option in the situation I'd choose C. Your analogy is still flawed because there are resolutions where I have the ability to do the right thing and absolve myself of any guilt that I might have. I still have some sort of control over the situation. I have a choice to make.

My changes weren't unnecessary because what you presented wasn't apt. That situation still gives me options of how to handle it. I can't do that with racism. It's a completely different situation because with racism I have no choice to get anything given to me, and I can't give what I'm getting back to even things out the way they should be.

You're asking me to feel guilty about something I have zero control over. Not a situation where I have multiple options of how to handle it. Do I feel bad that that's how society is? For sure. It's an unacceptable standard. But it's not a standard I have any choice in molding. If it were, it'd be different.

You can attend civil rights protests.

You can write your Congressmen.

You can refuse to support business with racist hiring/promoting/profiling policies.

You can refuse to self-identify on applications.

You can vote down discriminatory laws.

You can support minority owned businesses.

You can talk to your family and friends about doing all of these things and more.

There are plenty of ways to try to give back the money, but you'd rather sit there and give excuses about why it's alright to keep it and not feel guilty.

My analogy isn' flawed, your thinking on this matter is.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

HAHAHA Oh man... These people believe what now?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't breath, and my sides hurt...

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Mammoth Jones]

is this to imply that they should be lumped in as being responsible?

No. But my issue is when some people then try to pretend that centuries of slavery and nearly a century of Jim Crow didn't give White people in Merica a huuuge advantage socio-economically.

The ability for a family to stack paper, make connections, improve from one generation to the next is substantial. Some just want to downplay that.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You can attend civil rights protests.

You can write your Congressmen.

You can refuse to support business with racist hiring/promoting/profiling policies.

You can refuse to self-identify on applications.

You can vote down discriminatory laws.

You can support minority owned businesses.

You can talk to your family and friends about doing all of these things and more.

There are plenty of ways to try to give back the money, but you'd rather sit there and give excuses about why it's alright to keep it and not feel guilty.

My analogy isn' flawed, your thinking on this matter is.

Who are you to say that I don't do any of those things? In fact, I DO do many of those things. You can do all of those things for other reasons besides feeling personally guilty for the situation. I do those things because I recognize that what's going on isn't right.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Reverse racism is real and hurts the feelings of a white person up to 8 times a year.

 

[Lebron]

I can't

 

[The Adder]

Who are you to say that I don't do any of those things? In fact, I DO do many of those things. You can do all of those things for other reasons besides feeling personally guilty for the situation. I do those things because I recognize that what's going on isn't right.

And assuming that is the case that would be option C which, as you'll notice, doesn't have the word "guilt" attached.

 

[akira28]

Nope. Most of the people that think this way "experience" anti-white racism pretty much solely from conservative tv and radio people yelling about it.

agreed. agendas to peddle and media is for sale.

 

[MikeHaggar]

No. But my issue is when some people then try to pretend that centuries of slavery and nearly a century of Jim Crow didn't give White people in Merica a huuuge advantage socio-economically.

The ability for a family to stack paper, make connections, improve from one generation to the next is substantial. Some just want to downplay that.

that's fair. i don't disagree with any of that.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This thread...

/slowly backs out

Needs a SHOCKING NEWS.

 

[TheOMan]

Honestly honestly thought this was an onion article. Just...I don't even know. It does explain some Facebook posts I've seen recently though and the absence of any major backlash due to the racial comments made by Phil Robertson (and the defense of them by a PASTOR no less).

 

[J10]

Study Finds White Americans Delusional

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What a lot of you need is to actually talk to a minority human at some point and listen instead of telling them how they should feel because you think you're a pretty decent human being. You're not.

 

[Miletius]

There's a couple of discrimination threads active on this very forum where white people are acting like victims, so I can totally believe that.

Same. I've been in the AA threads before. Plenty of folks, even here, believe that stuff.

 

[Mumei]

How do you handle and/or cope with this? This would bother me every day if I knew people close to me felt this way.

Try to explain things. It's difficult with people who try to shut down discussion with, "It's just my opinion"-isms, though.

And assuming that is the case that would be option C which, as you'll notice, doesn't have the word "guilt" attached.

When I first read your analogy - "Would you not feel guilty if someone else stole some money and gave you a cut?" - I applied this analogy to my own experience of the actual issue we're talking about (e.g. benefiting from white privilege). And in my case, I was ignorant of the extent of this - so I had imagined that I wouldn't have known I received stolen money.

And, of course, I wouldn't feel guilty about having unknowingly received stolen money. But I would feel guilty if I failed to return the money (or, you know, do some of these things) after learning.

Perhaps Zen made a similar assumption as I did at first; that he wouldn't feel guilty about having received the money, but would only feel guilt about what he did after learning that it was stolen.

 

[Madness]

I look forward to the "freedom marches" when caucasians become a minority

The problem is, they feel these things and resentment while they are the dominant majority. So you're less likely to see peaceful marches, and more likely to see the revival of conservative policies, nationalism and white supremacy ideals. Just look at some places in Europe.

What is shocking to me, is how they can even feel this way.

 

[Jimothy]

Reverse racism is real and hurts the feelings of a white person up to 8 times a year.

A black girl at work playfully called me white boy and I only sobbed for 17 minutes.

 

[speculawyer]

They also think Christians are persecuted minority in the USA.

Spoiler

And that Obama was born in Kenyan and is a Muslim.

 

[KingK]

wat is this i don't even...



White people, stop embarrassing me.

 

[Necromanti]

"Obama won because of racism. If blacks weren't racist they would have voted for Romney. 95% of blacks are racist."

actual conversation I've had with a few white former associates.

So, in short, their argument is that "anti-white racism"...is ultimately a good thing?

 

[akira28]

So, in short, their argument is that "anti-white racism"...is ultimately a good thing?

No because Obamacare is secretly a FEMA project and everyone (white) who signs up will end up in one of those Railway cars with the built in shackles that are hidden on the outskirts of every major city.*


*actual conversation once held

 

[KidGalactus]

No because Obamacare is secretly a FEMA project and everyone (white) who signs up will end up in one of those Railway cars with the built in shackles that are hidden on the outskirts of every major city.*


*actual conversation once held

What!? There is no way someone actually said this to you.

Tell me that you are joking.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

As a white American man, wut?

 

[Necromanti]

No because Obamacare is secretly a FEMA project and everyone (white) who signs up will end up in one of those Railway cars with the built in shackles that are hidden on the outskirts of every major city.*


*actual conversation once held

Well, what the hell did they expect? The FEMA Moon (Concentration) Camps had to be decommissioned due to budget cuts.

 

[akira28]

What!? There is no way someone actually said this to you.

Tell me that you are joking.

Conservative talk radio and the internet are blowing up minds down South man. I'm not even joking this time.

Paranoia and suspicion and political confusion mixed with age old cultural issues we swept under the rug instead of resolving. Mix in a bad economy and a political landscape where people stand to gain (local power) from slash and burn policies. And this is what you get. The concentration camps they were going to put all the illegal aliens in are now secretly being kept for the coming race riots.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

The problem with tackling issues of racism in this country is the reflexive defensiveness of many white people whenever racism - particularly of the enduring, systemic variety - is discussed. We tend to take it personally for some reason, as if to even acknowledge that such racism exists we're somehow implicating ourselves of wrongdoing.