Liberals, what should be done about race in America?

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 61
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I’m trying to understand the leftist position as much as I can. Identity politics/racial justice/ whatever you want to call it is a very hot subject for the left in America right now but on both sides I mostly see partisan saber rattling instead of discussions on policy. So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I think it will be useful to explore the liberal psychology in this area. I'll go into detail on it later. Uncle Ted actually explains the liberal psychology at least for a segment of liberals, pretty well in his manifesto. 

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
I’m trying to understand the leftist position as much as I can. Identity politics/racial justice/ whatever you want to call it is a very hot subject for the left in America right now but on both sides I mostly see partisan saber rattling instead of discussions on policy. So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
I identify as a Liberal and consider race a mostly social construction. As such, I think the resolution is societal and mostly depends on the creation of a more compelling social distinction.  Nothing was more effective at erasing modern racial distinctions than dividing the world into two superpowers. I think the human brain has some instinctive need to divide fellow humans into us and them and such primitive impulses are not easily resolved or overcome but perhaps if we create a well distinguished population on another planet or discover an alien intelligence, that might resolve race as an important social divider.

I think the big answer to the question what should be done about race in America is that we're doing it- working to create a nation where all people enjoy access to the American franchise.  If we look at the steady march of improved enfranchisement over the course of US history, we should recognize considerable decreases in racial disparities over the past 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, even 20 years.  That tells me that we are on the right path and whatever the present controversy, our ultimate goal needs to be to remain on that path.  My hope is that my generation is more racially harmonious than the previous and that each subsequent generation is more harmonious still.  Always getting better is the goal.

I don't think much more can be accomplished at the level of Federal legislation.  Reparations are impractical.  Economic redistribution is provocative.  Hate speech laws are ineffective and illiberal.   I think the current priorities of the Democratic majority in Congress- voting rights and infrastructure- are proper instruments for improving societal divisions.  Let's make sure that every citizens has easy and equal access to the vote without government override by state legislatures.  Let's invest in projects that improve American efficiency while also employing the working class.  Let's make the US more competitive by making good education and good healthcare relatively inexpensive and widely available.

I disagree that racial politics is as hot on the American Left as it is on the American Right.  As far as I can tell, right-wingers spend way more time worrying about race than does the left-wing.  Take a look at this site, for example.  How often do right-wingers raise topics specific to race or post to topics with racially specific concerns compared to left-wingers?  I think right-wing institutions like Trumpism and FOX News are essentially built on white fears of losing power and as such spend a lot more time worrying about race than does the left-wing, who seek improvement on a much wider range of issues.

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
First of all, thank you for taking the time to  answer the question. Here is the part about what you said that really concerns me: 

If we look at the steady march of improved enfranchisement over the course of US history, we should recognize considerable decreases in racial disparities over the past 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, even 20 years. 
I actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades. I’m not an expert on the exact statistics but my understanding is that when it comes to statistics like homeownership, incarceration rates, or median wealth and income between blacks and whites the disparity has not really closed at all: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/%3foutputType=amp

I have my own theories for why this is, which I’ll keep private for now. The lefts narrative is that this is due to structural white supremacy, racism, etc. I personally think this is not the answer. I think the further in time we go the less credible that explanation becomes. I guess my question would be at what point would you consider these problems to be resolved, or for the racism narrative to not hold water? What if true equity is not possible? 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Wylted
I think his explanation is valid for a certain extremely loathsome type of liberal. But I really don’t think the average Democrat is like that, even though he did absolutely nail the motivations behind certain radicals 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@thett3
@Wylted
"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful."
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That was something of a hate speech Doc.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@oromagi
I identify as a Liberal and consider race a mostly social construction.
This is a reoccurring problem with a lot of what you write.

You drink the shitlib Kool-Aid arguments that are thoroughly illogical, and then you make logically sound arguments based on that building block, BUT your arguments are never logically valid because you start with the wrong premise.

Race being mostly a "social construction" doesn't mean race is whatever we want it to be (mostly). What the 'experts' actually mean by this is that the division labels used are socially constructed, similar to how 'red', 'blue' and 'green' are also social constructs, but representative of a reality (light receptors, light bending etc.). However, the 'experts' can't come out and explain this distinction this clearly because it debunks all their works on how 'we're all part of the one race: the human race', and they'll get deplatformed/fired for 'hate speech' against minorities. So, they equivocate with this 'social construct' term so they're not incorrect AND it dupes people like YOU into thinking they're arguing something that they themselves know is wrong, but can't say is wrong without the shitlib mob coming after them.

And that's how you got duped with shitlib Kool-Aid.

I think the big answer to the question what should be done about race in America is that we're doing it- working to create a nation where all people enjoy access to the American franchise...
Yeah this has been done recently and it's called Brazil.

It's also been done in the past with Ancient Rome and various other empires. We already know this doesn't work.

If you don't vet people and keep one of the races a racial majority, it leads to heaps of crime and civil wars.

If we look at the steady march of improved enfranchisement over the course of US history, we should recognize considerable decreases in racial disparities over the past 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, even 20 years.
This is a function of the environmental improvements (i.e. mostly White US improvements) that allowed African Americans to maximize their genetic potential. Now that they pretty much have, there's no more progress to be made and they're always going to be dragging the US down with lower IQ, other genetic problems and a racial in-group bias.

African dominated areas in the US (Detroit, Chicago etc.) are steadily marching to being like Nigeria and Mauritania. Unless you think that's a good thing (it's not), you need to stop advocating for this.

My hope is that my generation is more racially harmonious than the previous and that each subsequent generation is more harmonious still.
People by default practice racial in-group bias. Yes, this is stupid and very primitive for our modern setting, but it's also what humans do.

People who get brainwashed into not being racially biased (shitlibs) get carved up at elections and eventually kicked out of your own country.

The people you're fighting for aren't on your side, and you don't understand this because you don't understand what humans are: racially bias.

I don't think much more can be accomplished at the level of Federal legislation.  Reparations are impractical.  Economic redistribution is provocative.  Hate speech laws are ineffective and illiberal. 
Finally things we agree on.

Let's make sure that every citizens has easy and equal access to the vote without government override by state legislatures.  Let's invest in projects that improve American efficiency while also employing the working class.  Let's make the US more competitive by making good education and good healthcare relatively inexpensive and widely available.
You just don't understand humans.

You're so cerebral and in your head that you're completely ignoring how racially bias humans are.

This is all talk for creatures that don't exist and certainly not for humans.

I disagree that racial politics is as hot on the American Left as it is on the American Right.  As far as I can tell, right-wingers spend way more time worrying about race than does the left-wing.  Take a look at this site, for example.  How often do right-wingers raise topics specific to race or post to topics with racially specific concerns compared to left-wingers?  I think right-wing institutions like Trumpism and FOX News are essentially built on white fears of losing power and as such spend a lot more time worrying about race than does the left-wing, who seek improvement on a much wider range of issues.
Nobody of merit cares about your divisive labels of "right-wing" or "left-wing".

The fact is that race denial is slowly murdering America and needs to be talked about sooner rather than later, because there won't be a later forever. That's the real talking point here, not whether it's "right-wing" or "Trumpism" or whatever you shitlibs think.

White people should be afraid of losing power because they shouldn't want America to turn into a Brazil or even a South Africa. I don't know about you, but I prefer not living in the country with the highest rape and one of the highest murder rates per capita, or having the cartel swing by to load my house with two-hundred 50mm rounds. If you import/breed a lot of Africans and Hispanics en masse, that's what you're going to end up with -- that has been shown repeatedly. Meanwhile, you're off in your fantasyland of 'race is a social construction', and we all need to join hands and sing kumbaya as it leads to "improvement". 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,110
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
To put it succinctly, my view is that we should be focusing on building an economy where everyone has a realistic opportunity to succeed. That’s really it. Race shouldn’t play a role in how we go about it, but if we can succeed at making drastic improvements that would go a long way to mitigating the racial disparities that have retained from our past.

With regards to policing, all most of us leftists really want is accountability, and we’ve seen a sea change in this over the past year. That’s what the BLM protests were really about. No one is looking at statistics, they’re looking at one dead unarmed black man after another after another and the officers who killed getting off. 

I agree with oromagi, I think the right focuses on race far more than the left. Sure there are elements of the left that take things way too far, but so what? It’s just as absurd for the right to focus on them as it is for the left to focus on Qanon.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
I actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades.
I think is more about economics than race per se. Due to lots of policies that were blatantly racist in the past, black people are disproportionately poor compared to white people. America's system punishes people for being poor. So the best way to help close racial disparities is to redesign the system to better help poor people. 

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
I identify as a Liberal and consider race a mostly social construction
I don't think it much matters how one self-identifies politically because of the claim, which I think is mostly correct, that racial tensions are a social construct. That said, where I hold reservation of "social construct" is that it is really an individual decision to discriminate, and not a systemic issue. Biologically, according to Scientific American, there is no race. That there are distinctive features, notwithstanding, I really don't think these features originate the malice one feels toward another, where that malice is demonstrated.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
To put it succinctly, my view is that we should be focusing on building an economy where everyone has a realistic opportunity to succeed. That’s really it. Race shouldn’t play a role in how we go about it, but if we can succeed at making drastic improvements that would go a long way to mitigating the racial disparities that have retained from our past.
No they wouldn't because the groups are genetically distinct from each other, and those genetic distinctions influence the outcomes (e.g. IQ, self-control ability, in-group bias etc.). That's why East Asians in America often talk about their children becoming doctors at the dinner table, whilst Northern Territory Australian Aboriginals are watching the 'don't sleep on the road' ads. 

This is what happens when you totally ignore the reality of race: you think everything is environmentally determined, and that makes you completely incapable of dealing with the genetic reality that groups of people have. This is a flatly false premise to start from. Even anti-white Wikipedia can't deny the validity of heritability.

You've even agreed in past threads that you don't think races are genetically the same (which is correct), but then you don't think any further for whatever reason. It's like you're capable of understanding the truth, but you don't like what it is, so you choose to forget.

Also, "our past" didn't cause the racial disparities of the present, so once against we have a shitlib starting with a false premise and reaching wrong conclusions.

You might not care about race, but race cares about you.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades.
I think is more about economics than race per se. Due to lots of policies that were blatantly racist in the past, black people are disproportionately poor compared to white people. America's system punishes people for being poor. So the best way to help close racial disparities is to redesign the system to better help poor people.
This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.

You're not saying anything new. This has all been done before. It doesn't work.

You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
The fact that you're asking this questions shows that you don't get the game they're playing.

They don't actually care about being consistent or even correct. All they know is that when they complain and call you racist, they get free stuff or benefits.

It will never be enough. You can never fix "the issue" because their greed and racial bias is unfixable. They are either race denialists and/or just hate White people. That's what this is about. It's about grouping up and pushing for free stuff/benefits at the expense/indifference of White people. The arguments themselves don't matter and are a smokescreen to dupe you into being anti-white yourself (or at least indifferent to your White group, whilst they remain biased to theirs).

That's why when I made a thread criticizing Nigeria for "racism" and "systemic racism" by saying Nigeria is Black Supremacist (due to all the reasons these shitlibs usually give for America being White Supremacist), all these shitlibs were @ing me saying that I'm wrong, that's it's different blah blah blah Nigeria is racist and Black supremacist (debateart.com) . They don't care about consistency. They don't care that they're criticizing precisely the same arguments they use to attack Whites in America. They just don't care.

You accept their false narratives or get called a racist (and suffer either way). You're White therefore bad. That's it. 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
I disagree that racial politics is as hot on the American Left as it is on the American Right.  As far as I can tell, right-wingers spend way more time worrying about race than does the left-wing.

I agree with oromagi, I think the right focuses on race far more than the left. Sure there are elements of the left that take things way too far, but so what? It’s just as absurd for the right to focus on them as it is for the left to focus on Qanon.
What did the right do to spur on a 700-1000% increase in the use of the terms "racist/racists/racism" in left leaning publications, starting around 2011? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening This piece also provides empirical evidence contrasting left leaning publications with the WSJ, a center-right paper, which proves where the racial discourse is coming from (the left.) Leftists also changed their opinions on racial issues far more than conservatives did from 2011-17, 35% said racism was a "big problem" in 2011, compared with 77% in 2017. Conservative opinions also shifted, but not as drastically--and also in favor of the proposition that racism is a "big problem"

"Racial inequality" was the single most important issues among Biden voters in 2020, even exceeding coronavirus: 

The right being more focused on race doesn't line up with my experiences at all, but from what I can piece together from the empirical data it is clearly the left that is more focused on race.

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mesmer
I do get it, but not everyone is a cynic. There are true believers out there, and I'm trying to understand them 
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
I do get it, but not everyone is a cynic. There are true believers out there, and I'm trying to understand them 
You're not going to convert or have productive conversations with them doing what you're doing, even if they are "true believers".

Even the milder shitlibs like Oromagi and DoubleR just end up arguing that Ad Hominem is a valid form of argument to excuse anti-white slurs, or that only Republicans practice dumb tribalism. They might think they're being so big brained, rational and "true believers", and they scoff at the notion of being racially biased as being lowly and beneath them, but they're practicing the same tribal rationalizations pretty much everyone else practices. 

There's no point in these kinds of discussions you're attempting to have via the OP. You need to demonstrate that their narrative premises are false to have any hope of doing anything productive. You need to show them how stupid 'more variation within that between' is. You need to show them how MLK was a pretty garbage human being. You need to show them how much they've been lied to by their shitlib schools, governmental bodies and societies. You need to break their false narratives in front of their eyes, otherwise they'll continue to base all their arguments on false narratives. THAT is the source of your disagreement. Address that.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mesmer
Well my goal isn’t to convert them. That would be nice but I doubt that would happen. But understanding the underlying causes and motivations behind politics is a personal, autistic interest of mine so that’s really the goal of the thread. I genuinely don’t want to argue and want them to talk to me as if they aren’t arguing with me
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
Well my goal isn’t to convert them
Fine.

But understanding the underlying causes and motivations behind politics is a personal, autistic interest of mine so that’s really the goal of the thread.
I've spelled out very clearly what is going on here with them, but I'll simplify it further: they work from false premises/narratives. If you don't address those false premises/narratives, you're just going to end up being called a racist or some other shitlib term. Instead, address the false premises/narratives and see what they come up with when they agree they are false. If they were "true believers", then they'll change to something more reasonable. If they handwave their false premise/narrative and move onto another to excuse their arguments, then they just hate White people and will believe anything to excuse their anti-white hatred.

Address the false premises/narratives or prepare to go into a shitlib funhouse where you eventually emerge with a very sore butt.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,110
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
You've even agreed in past threads that you don't think races are genetically the same (which is correct), but then you don't think any further for whatever reason. It's like you're capable of understanding the truth, but you don't like what it is, so you choose to forget.
Oh wow, look who suddenly has something to say. Perhaps now you can finally address the question of what government is supposed to be in the first place so that we can continue discussing whether race should play an active role in government policy. But I won’t hold my breath.

I have agreed and maintain that races are not genetically the same. I made my reasons for not  considering it any further clear in your thread… because the topic you raised was government policy and my position is that genetic differences should play no role in government policy. This isn’t complicated.

Also, "our past" didn't cause the racial disparities of the present
Do you believe the past impacts the present?
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Oh wow, look who suddenly has something to say. Perhaps now you can finally address the question of what government is supposed to be in the first place so that we can continue discussing whether race should play an active role in government policy. But I won’t hold my breath.
Governments are meant to represent their people's interest. If you have a large enough population (which is pretty much always the case with a nation), you're going to have racial in-group bias being the biggest factor in determining people's interest. I've already explained that to you previously. If you need to get your big male ego bent out of shape again, go ahead and do that now, and then we can keep discussing the implications of race in government policy.

I have agreed and maintain that races are not genetically the same. I made my reasons for not  considering it any further clear in your thread… because the topic you raised was government policy and my position is that genetic differences should play no role in government policy. This isn’t complicated.
Alright so we're working with the premise that the races are not genetically the same.

So, one of the genetic difference between the races is the racial in-group bias people have for their own race. This fact cannot be controlled for because this is what macro societal groups do: vote based on race. I know this annoys you. I know it's 'smol braned' and doesn't have a particular "standard" to base policy on, so it's all very primitive and beneath a fine intellectual such as you. But people's interests are primarily generated by their racial in-group bias, and ignoring that is ignoring an essential part of humans.

It doesn't please me either that people are literally this stupidly racially tribal, but they certainly are and that isn't changing anytime soon.

Also, "our past" didn't cause the racial disparities of the present
Do you believe the past impacts the present?
I don't care about your theoretical musings.

Argue facts, data and research to prove systemic racism/oppression/whatever or don't even bother with this.

Hell, I even made an entire thread dedicated to referencing the refutations for all those shitlib false narratives you're probably implying here. I would be honored if you graced the thread with your big brained intellectualism based on super smart "standards" that save me from the usual shitlib Ad homs, Appeals to Authorities and pedestrian sophistry that have currently been pooed out in the thread: 'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings (debateart.com) . 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,110
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
You’re confusing actions with reactions. Your publication showing the increase in terms relating to racism only looks at the verbiage, not the actions which the verbiage is responding to.

So what did the right do to spur on this reaction? We can start with the lie that Barack Obama is not an American, a lie that propagated through every right wing circle for years and kick started the political rise of his eventual successor, a lie spread about no other president in history but yet stuck to the first black one. That’s not coincidence.

The reaction to Obama really couldn’t have been more obvious. Every president is deamonized, republicans took that to a whole-nother level with Obama culminating in their unprecedented use of the filibuster and refusal to even hold a hearing on his eventual SC nominee resulting in the first year long vacancy the court has seen since the civil war.

You will I’m sure say race had nothing to do with this to which we can just agree to disagree but I will point out that when you have a rise of an entire political movement like the TEA party railing against taxes when the only action Obama took at the time of their rise was to lower their taxes… the movement was clearly being motivated by something else.

Then in 2012 there’s Trayvon Martin, whose story I have no need to recount. He was just the first though. We would see Micheal Brown, Alton Sterling, etc. etc. etc. - instances of unarmed black men being killed and their killers getting away scott free.

I know, I know, “but Google…”

This issue isn’t about statistics. All of the instances animating the left were played out publicly, in real time, over and over and over again. Not until 2020 did we finally watch from the point of a killing to the point of a verdict and end up with someone finally being held accountable. You can’t tell people the statistics are a greater representation of a reality when they have found the opposite to be the case over and over again to a degree of predictable precision.

As far as how this point plays into racism, it’s not the disagreement on the facts but the knots people twist themselves in to excuse the objectionable. A police officer shoots a black man in the back while they’re running away. Both are wrong, yet half the country cares more about the man wrongly running away than the officer that just committed murder on camera and got away with it. You can’t claim that it is not at the very least, suggestive of racism. And when that happens over and over again, the only rational conclusion is that racism is the primary driver.

Or how about critical race theory? Something hardly ever if at all taught in public schools and yet became the most prominent source of right wing political outrage for months?

And then there’s Trump, a man who literally began his political campaign calling the Mexicans crossing the border criminals and rapists and then called for the banning of all Muslims entering the United States… becoming president.

And let’s not forget the national freak out over black football players taking a knee during the national anthem, which the right cared far more about then the dead black men they were protesting.

Racists don’t call themselves racists, they tend to cloak their issues in a veil of political correctness and legitimacy. Don’t like the fact that the president is black? Claim his birth certificate is fake and you’re just following the evidence. Don’t like the fact that scary brown people keep crossing the border? Just argue that you’re concerned about the laws being violated. Don’t like the fact that we’ve got so many Muslims coming in? Just argue that you’re concerned about national security.

So is every person who takes these positions a racist? No. But at some point you need to look at this on a large scale and recognize that there’s no distinguishing between a racist party and the republican party, that’s why every prominent white supremacist votes republican. Racism is the only through-line to all of this.

So to your question, which side is focusing on race more? Well, one side clearly talks about it more, but failure to acknowledge something doesn’t mean you’re not focused on it. I judge the focus by what what animates them, and clearly, the right is the side animated far more by racial issues. The evidence of the fact that this is what drives the political right is to look at the party platforms. The left is actually advocating things for their constituents, the right is focused on culture wars and their only stated agenda item is to support whatever the ban all Muslims guy says. I think this one is clear.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,110
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Governments are meant to represent their people's interest. If you have a large enough population (which is pretty much always the case with a nation), you're going to have racial in-group bias being the biggest factor in determining people's interest. I've already explained that to you previously
Here we go again.

Do you understand the difference between politics and policy?

Hint: The above describes politics, not policy.

This fact cannot be controlled for because this is what macro societal groups do: vote based on race. I know this annoys you.
What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd.

I don't care about your theoretical musings.

Argue facts, data and research to prove systemic racism/oppression/whatever or don't even bother with this.
Facts and data are not arguments and cannot form conclusions, that requires logic. So it’s pointless to go back and forth with someone on the facts when that person cannot even answer a question so simple as “do you believe the past impacts the present?”. 

Hell, I even made an entire thread dedicated to referencing the refutations for all those shitlib false narratives you're probably implying here. I would be honored if you graced the thread with your big brained intellectualism
Now that’s funny.

Every time I’ve responded to you in any of your threads you immediately shut the conversation down, hence my surprise that you actually responded to me here.

I’d be happy to bring my big brained intellectualism to one of your threads when I can make the time. 

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
except racism/racial conflict has existed for a long by time, but publications began writing about it a lot more (it literally looks like an exponential curve!) starting around ten years ago, and public opinion followed suit. Something obviously happened to change the ideas through which many people interact with the world. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying because I think social media had a lot to do with it, by allowing people to see and share more incidents of racism or bad police killings or whatever.

I also think generational turnover had a lot to do with it as well. After the 2000s were up there was basically nobody left in even very senior positions at universities and publications who grew up before mass media. Those early experiences obviously change how you view and interact with the world. We are going to see an even more massive change in the next few decades when the boomers finally lose their power. 

I know, I know, “but Google…”

This issue isn’t about statistics. All of the instances animating the left were played out publicly, in real time, over and over and over again.
I do get that. The human mind is optimized for interacting with around 150 people in a tribal setting, so specific incidents impact way more than abstract numbers. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome our base instincts to understand the actual reality we’re in. 
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Governments are meant to represent their people's interest. If you have a large enough population (which is pretty much always the case with a nation), you're going to have racial in-group bias being the biggest factor in determining people's interest. I've already explained that to you previously
Here we go again.

Do you understand the difference between politics and policy?

Hint: The above describes politics, not policy.
Who do you think the policy is for? Rocks? Aliens on Mars? Imaginary ghosts?

I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.

There's no point in getting hyper-cerebral and developing policy that isn't for humans.

What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd.
"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .

Facts and data are not arguments and cannot form conclusions, that requires logic. So it’s pointless to go back and forth with someone on the facts when that person cannot even answer a question so simple as “do you believe the past impacts the present?”. 
All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.

Provide them or concede the point.

Now that’s funny.

Every time I’ve responded to you in any of your threads you immediately shut the conversation down, hence my surprise that you actually responded to me here.

I’d be happy to bring my big brained intellectualism to one of your threads when I can make the time. 
Does you wife see through this posturing?

Sorry, I meant does your waifu anime pillow see through this posturing?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,110
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I do get that. The human mind is optimized for interacting with around 150 people in a tribal setting, so specific incidents impact way more than abstract numbers. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome our base instincts to understand the actual reality we’re in. 
I’m not sure you absorbed the full point I was making.

The predictive power of a presumption is what elevates it from a presumption, to knowledge. The fact that these killings were widely circulated in real time, the outcome predicted (nothing), and the outcome held up time after time after time, established that this is what happens in America when a black man is killed by police. You can’t convince someone that their beliefs are wrong when their beliefs are used to make predictions that hold up every single time.

I’m not saying that this takes the place of an honest review of the facts and statistics to gain a fuller picture of what is happening across the country and across all racial lines. I agree that social media warps our model of the world, especially when one follows social justice warriors on Twitter or Instagram dominating their feed with all of the highlights of the racist hits of the day. I’m just saying that the left wing view point here was more than just cherry picking, and that there is nothing unreasonable for someone to watch as all of these high profile cases unfolded and conclude that race in America is a problem.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful"
I agree with everything up until this line. I think they hate Western civilization because of racial reasons. There are many successful, powerful Asian nations that they don't criticize for being sexist, imperialistic, etc. China is a big example. Instead they criticize Russia, which is much less of an imperial threat. Russia just so happens to be a majority White country.

Japan is strong, powerful, and according to modern US standards "sexist". As is South Korea. No criticism that I have ever seen.

Any White civilization that has any whiff of these issues they, as it said, wildly exaggerate the issues.


While lefties do seem to have an aversion to anything powerful, beautiful, and successful, I think that doesn't quite capture what is really happening. It was like when Bush said that Bin Laden attacked us because of our greatness and freedoms. Clearly, there are other motives present as well.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.
So, I said the words "help poor people" and you chose to read that as "help black people". Do your honestly not see how racist you are coming off?

You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".
Lol, I said it wasn't about race, it's about economics. You then said i'm somehow a racist. Since you also link to read and use blatantly racist website as sources, I'm guessing you honestly can't see what a racist you are. And you therefore you just assume there must be wrong with other people who point this out to you. 
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.
So, I said the words "help poor people" and you chose to read that as "help black people". Do your honestly not see how racist you are coming off?
Yeah who do you think "poor people" involves? Are Black people never poor?

"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term -- your application of it is invalid: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .

You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".
Lol, I said it wasn't about race, it's about economics. You then said i'm somehow a racist. Since you also link to read and use blatantly racist website as sources, I'm guessing you honestly can't see what a racist you are. And you therefore you just assume there must be wrong with other people who point this out to you. 
LOL I didn't call you a "racist", you idiot xD

I said you were larping around with the nonsense term.

Get your act together, shitlib.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,389
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There's levels to the gaslighting and trolling going on here, the mods at the moment can't even perceive the first layer though. So,my advice to all the sane and decent members is to stop interacting with the troll in the arena she/he is baiting you into. Make your own thread, with your own context on a subject that allows you to interact 'around' trolls of any kind.

It's up to you what you feed with your posts and attention, the more 'genuinely' you engage the troll, the more fuel the troll has to twist words within and use against you. The less seriously you take this type of troll, the easier it becomes. 

Me posting this will fuel the troll to do anything to wind me up, they may twist words, may warp past events or even state something true that they predict will trigger me a lot more than others think I am entitled to act angry in reaction to, then if I do react with the rage I play into the hands of the troll to play the victim with me as the perpetrator.

Know what you are dealing with, stop feeding it. You are not 'debating' you are just fuelling a far-right troll to rile you up. There's no intellectual discourse going to take place here, even Thett3 is getting baited and he is on the troll's side.

It's not the fuel that's the issue, it's the continued fuel afterwards. Post a response if you want and leave it at that. Go for stern as opposed to angry. If you keep properly engaging this user as if they give the slightest damn what you think and feel, you will end up coninually antagonised.