Racism in America (with data)

[Blackhawk]

I am none of the things I was raised to be, thanfully. And my father gets no credit for who I became.

His parents may or may not be a factor in who he is, but at 42, the responsibility is all his.

[Unagi]

Someone out there raised that piece of shit. They're as responsible as he is.

Wtf ?

Strange immediate redirection to the parents ?

Calling Dr.Freud.

[hepcat]

An ex of mine used to live next door to Jeffrey Dahmer and his family back in Ohio when she was a child. She would always mention how nice his father was. That seems to be the general consensus from others as well.

Sometimes people are just broken. Ain't no reason why in many cases.

[Jaymann]

An ex of mine used to live next door to Jeffrey Dahmer and his family back in Ohio when she was a child. She would always mention how nice his father was. That seems to be the general consensus from others as well.

Sometimes people are just broken. Ain't no reason why in many cases.

[Philosophy]
If you follow the argument against free will (espoused by Sam Harris and others) fucked up people are not conscious agents in deciding what they do. Everything is determined by heredity, environment and luck. This is why experimenters can use brain scans to show what a test subject will choose before they make a choice. The most succinct expression of this is: Can you think about what you are about to think? So according to Harris fucked up people should be locked up so they can't harm others, but you can't actually hold them responsible for their actions.

We feel like we have free will, and live our lives as if we have it, but it is an illusion.

[/Philosophy]

[Blackhawk]

We feel like we have free will, and live our lives as if we have it, but it is an illusion.

If we don't, then absolutely nothing is relevant. Nothing has meaning. We're just on a Disneyland ride and pretending that we're really pirates.

Since we can't know for sure, I'll take the stance that makes existence relevant.

[stessier]

We feel like we have free will, and live our lives as if we have it, but it is an illusion.

If we don't, then absolutely nothing is relevant. Nothing has meaning. We're just on a Disneyland ride and pretending that we're really pirates.

Since we can't know for sure, I'll take the stance that makes existence relevant.

I get that, but at the atomic and smaller level, it would make sense if the universe were deterministic.

[Unagi]

Sam Harris does not argue 'fatalism' really.

It's more nuanced than that.

This is a fairly good run-down:



watch that and I'd be interested in debate.

Is there a Free Will thread? .... Although, I think that phrase is loaded with baggage.

[stessier]

From the description

White people say they’re ready to listen and learn, but Black people have been saying the same thing for centuries. Jon talks to Race2Dinner’s Resident White Person™ Lisa Bond, Yale professor Chip Gallagher, and writer Andrew Sullivan about how white Americans can take responsibility for upholding racist systems. It goes about as well as you’d expect.

[noxiousdog]

I have been watching some of the Jon Stewart stuff, but this one suffers like most in that he brings in intentionally inflammatory people. Andrew Sullivan was ridiculous and it should have been known that was going to be the case. At the same time, Lisa Bond wasn't much better.

[noxiousdog]

I don't mean to derail further, but this is a good example. His interview with Mark Cuban was really great. I'd like to see more of this and less crazy.

[msteelers]

I have been watching some of the Jon Stewart stuff, but this one suffers like most in that he brings in intentionally inflammatory people. Andrew Sullivan was ridiculous and it should have been known that was going to be the case.

Yeah. Sullivan came in hot, disagreed with the entire premise, and immediately got under everyone's skin. There was no chance of having a good conversation once that happened. I do think there's value in having a voice represent "the other side" on this issue, but unfortunately what Sullivan said matches up almost perfectly with every other white conservative I've ever spoken to in person about this.

At the same time, Lisa Bond wasn't much better.

What did she say that struck you as not being much better than Sullivan? She only had one little bit where she spoke before Andrew came in and got everyone's tempers flaring.

[noxiousdog]

What did she say that struck you as not being much better than Sullivan? She only had one little bit where she spoke before Andrew came in and got everyone's tempers flaring.

There's zero chance we live in a white supremacist nation. Racist? Sure. Built on top of 2 1/2 centuries of white supremecy? Sure. Folks attempting to bring it back? Sure, but they are in the minority.

The easy example is while Jon Stewart had a lot of pieces of historic white supremacy, none of been legal for 40 years. That's not to say they don't affect the current situation, because they clearly do. But, it's worth recognizing we got rid of those laws exactly because we AREN'T a white supremicist nation. If we were, they would remain.

Also, her statement of not even bothering to talk to white males any more was equally ridiculous as she's on a show with Jon Stewart while having a quality ally next to her.

[malchior]

Andrew Sullivan was ridiculous and it should have been known that was going to be the case.

I know it's a new program. Maybe they don't have the formula baked all the way. But for a guy who has brilliantly deconstructed many of the problems with media coverage...he just made all the same mistakes. That he has to start off mea culpa-ing the representation at all is bad enough but one of the panel is a known bigot and notable bully? I don't get it.

What did she say that struck you as not being much better than Sullivan? She only had one little bit where she spoke before Andrew came in and got everyone's tempers flaring.

There's zero chance we live in a white supremacist nation. Racist? Sure. Built on top of 2 1/2 centuries of white supremecy? Sure. Folks attempting to bring it back? Sure, but they are in the minority.

I'd argue it is de facto white supremacist. People underestimate how much capital and influence still resides in white decision makers. When black people have made essentially no relative income gains in decades despite supposed protections, they died at far higher rates in the pandemic, they are more likely to receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes, etc. Is it out in the open white supremacy? No but the results aren't all that different than if it was.

[noxiousdog]

I'd argue it is de facto white supremacist. People underestimate how much capital and influence still resides in white decision makers. When black people have made essentially no relative income gains in decades despite supposed protections, they died at far higher rates in the pandemic, they are more likely to receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes, etc. Is it out in the open white supremacy? No but the results aren't all that different than if it was.

Yeah. It's EXACTLY like Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, and Jim Crow/Pre-civil war America.

[LawBeefaroni]

What did she say that struck you as not being much better than Sullivan? She only had one little bit where she spoke before Andrew came in and got everyone's tempers flaring.

There's zero chance we live in a white supremacist nation. Racist? Sure. Built on top of 2 1/2 centuries of white supremecy? Sure. Folks attempting to bring it back? Sure, but they are in the minority.

Follow the money (historically). It's a white nation built to support white interests. We are better now but we are still very far from equitable.

[malchior]

I'd argue it is de facto white supremacist. People underestimate how much capital and influence still resides in white decision makers. When black people have made essentially no relative income gains in decades despite supposed protections, they died at far higher rates in the pandemic, they are more likely to receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes, etc. Is it out in the open white supremacy? No but the results aren't all that different than if it was.

Yeah. It's EXACTLY like Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, and Jim Crow/Pre-civil war America.

Not even close to what I argued. Everything I listed above are facts. If you want to argue the facts cool but don't misrepresent what I say because you don't like the pattern that is the likeliest explanation behind those facts.

Follow the money (historically). It's a white nation built to support white interests. We are better now but we are still very far from equitable.

Exactly and it isn't like there aren't indications that folks are actively working to turn back the clock and succeeding in some ways. But the patterns of inequity haven't improved measurably in decades. Attitudes and outright awareness is better but it hasn't resulted in meaningful measurable change in wealth and opportunity.

[noxiousdog]

This is all a semantic argument, but words matter. All your facts are true, we are clearly a racist nation. If that's what Lisa had said, I wouldn't have an issue.

But if you want us to be labeled as white supremacists, how do you label those places and times that are at least two magnitudes worse?

[msteelers]

This is all a semantic argument, but words matter. All your facts are true, we are clearly a racist nation. If that's what Lisa had said, I wouldn't have an issue.

Getting hung up on semantics is exactly what Sullivan did at the top of the segment which derailed the entire conversation. FWIW, here is how she clarified what she meant by white supremacy.

When I talk about white supremacy, and when I talk about racism, I'm talking about power and privilege. The power and privilege that we hold as white people in society: the way in which our structures, our institutions, our systems- how everything was designed with white people in mind and only white people in mind. If you think about who is white in society, how it has morphed... [joke from Jon Stewart]... But it does that to hold up the pillars of the systems that are in place.

I have a hard time pushing back against this idea, whether it's called white supremacy, racism, or anything else.

But if you want us to be labeled as white supremacists, how do you label those places and times that are at least two magnitudes worse?

I guess I just don't think it's relevant to the discussion, and I don't care what you label it.

[noxiousdog]

Of course it matters.

Why do you think there's so much resistance to PETA? Their base message has a lot of validity, but they are mostly dismissed as loonies.

[msteelers]

Are people still getting outraged over PETA? Is that a thing?

[malchior]

Of course it matters.

Why do you think there's so much resistance to PETA? Their base message has a lot of validity, but they are mostly dismissed as loonies.

I challenge that it only matters when you leap to absurdly imprecise labels of what white supremacy is. Nazism is nothing like Jim Crow. What we have now is clearly different from Jim Crow but we see impacts/political action happening right now that could fall in line with some goals of Jim Crow. It is not about semantics. The point above about potentially falling into the same hole that Sullivan did is on point.

I'd instead argue it is about outcomes. Her definition makes sense. If you were to lay out a hypothetical about what white supremacist goals society would be ... it is hard to argue it wouldn't look a lot like what we have. Which is why I called it 'de facto white supremacy'. There isn't some neat label for it but the outcomes are fairly clear.

[noxiousdog]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

[stessier]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

I disagree. Things less than the "ideal" can still get the label. I can run fast without being Usain Bolt.

[Alefroth]

A male chauvinist is still a male chauvinist even if he marries a woman.

[noxiousdog]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

I disagree. Things less than the "ideal" can still get the label. I can run fast without being Usain Bolt.

Right. You can be racist without being a white supremicist. You can't be a 'world class sprinter' if you can't win regionals.

A male chauvinist is still a male chauvinist even if he marries a woman.

In fact, a male chauvinist is likely to marry a woman. They would be far less likely to pick one to be their leader by choice. If they do, they are probably more sexist than chauvinist.

But I get it. we're literally in a world where literally means figuratively, soooooooo........

[malchior]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

This is a really poor argument. What's the count here pre-Jackson? 1 President. 1 Vice-President. 3 non-white Supreme Court Justices. Over a span of ~225 years.

How many white Presidents? Every other President in American history. How many white vice-President's? Every other Vice-President in all American history. How many justices? A hundred or so. Almost completely white males. And seating one specifically because they were black has been controversial and has led to constant dog whistling from pundits and Senators alike.

[noxiousdog]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

This is a really poor argument. What's the count here pre-Jackson? 1 President. 1 Vice-President. 3 non-white Supreme Court Justices. Over a span of ~225 years.

How many white Presidents? Every other President in American history. How many white vice-President's? Every other Vice-President in all American history. How many justices? A hundred or so. Almost completely white males. And seating one specifically because they were black has been controversial and has led to constant dog whistling from pundits and Senators alike.

I've been careful not to argue about 225 years, and in fact would happily grant you another 300 back to 1492.

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

[stessier]

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

Where is the line between racist and white supremacists in your book? Why is it hard to understand we draw it elsewhere?

[malchior]

White supremecy outcomes wouldn't look anything like non-white presidents, vice president's, or supreme court justices.

This is a really poor argument. What's the count here pre-Jackson? 1 President. 1 Vice-President. 3 non-white Supreme Court Justices. Over a span of ~225 years.

How many white Presidents? Every other President in American history. How many white vice-President's? Every other Vice-President in all American history. How many justices? A hundred or so. Almost completely white males. And seating one specifically because they were black has been controversial and has led to constant dog whistling from pundits and Senators alike.

I've been careful not to argue about 225 years, and in fact would happily grant you another 300 back to 1492.

But that context is critical. That scope and sweep was what helped cement a system that has delivered these results for hundreds of years. A few recent exceptions are hardly any substantive proof that it isn't present. I'll point out that you're essentially pushing forward the argument that many on the right tried to sell when we elected Obama. That was the refrain of the right. "We live in a post-racist world now". It's as absurd now an argument as it was then. Especially considering how blatantly racist the whitelash was to Obama. Further, we are seeing political action *right now* that has targeted minorities with precision to disenfranchise their voting. Those laws are being passed in 2022. It's just not reality based to think that an entire portion of a political system disenfranchising races in favor of whites is simply 'racism'.

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

You are really hung up on labels. I'm not labeling anything. I am simply arguing the outcomes almost always result in enfranchisement of white people/power in the United States. Not everything fits in a neat box.

[msteelers]

I thought this conversation in the writers room about racism was much better than what actually made it to air.

[noxiousdog]

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

Where is the line between racist and white supremacists in your book? Why is it hard to understand we draw it elsewhere?

A couple reasons.

When people speak in absolutes and hyperbole it puts their credibility into question.


Second, convincing people requires finding common ground. Emphasizing how terrible people are will just make it worse.

[Kurth]

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

Where is the line between racist and white supremacists in your book? Why is it hard to understand we draw it elsewhere?

A couple reasons.

When people speak in absolutes and hyperbole it puts their credibility into question.


Second, convincing people requires finding common ground. Emphasizing how terrible people are will just make it worse.

+1

I more or less agree with noxiousdog here, and I'm not sure why people are so keen on having this fight. I feel like you all agree more than disagree on the important points.

But on the question of appropriate and accurate labels, there's a difference between saying this country is a "white supremacist nation" and saying we live in a country still plagued by baked-in, systemic racism. To say that the U.S. is a "white supremacist nation," to me, implies the exact opposite of the de facto racial inequality malchior is talking about. An apartheid state like historic South Africa is a "white supremacist nation" in the same way that Iran is a theocracy. It's a de jure state of being, not a de facto state of being.

And, yes, this country has, undeniably been a "white supremacist nation" in the past, but it's certainly not one today.

[malchior]

But if you want to label today white supremicist, what label do you put on that travesty that can adequately describe the difference?

Where is the line between racist and white supremacists in your book? Why is it hard to understand we draw it elsewhere?

A couple reasons.

When people speak in absolutes and hyperbole it puts their credibility into question.


Second, convincing people requires finding common ground. Emphasizing how terrible people are will just make it worse.

+1

I more or less agree with noxiousdog here, and I'm not sure why people are so keen on having this fight. I feel like you all agree more than disagree on the important points.

Not really. There is some importance to diagnosing the problem correctly. Saying it is racism is accurate but it is a particular subset of racism. The broad label of racism doesn't talk to the sort of attention and action we might need to address the more specific problem we face. IMO describing the motive solely as racism diffuses the white preferential nature motive that is driving outcomes and is a mechanism by some to deflect away from solutions to the root cause.

To explain, obviously it started as white supremacy in a very hard, very cruel sense. Efforts to change that took war, years of activism, and eventually court and legislative action that was incredibly controversial. That made progress that attempted to sort out the big white supremacy problem. I argue it drove most action underground. In the halls of power whether it was banking, job opportunities and equal pay, or access to services it has been consistently a white preferential system. Have there been moments where courts and other entities have stepped in and applied corrective action? Yes. However, not in sufficient measure to change outcomes in several measurable areas. Now we've seeing the major movement in efforts to see those protections undone.

Unfortunately we're staring down the barrel of a return to rule by radical conservative forces and they have no interest in this. In fact, they're innovating on trying to discourage discussion of the topics. All in the service of maintaining the social order they cling to - white supremacy. They use religion, wedge issues, etc. to maintain a coalition that in part ensures that whites maintain power.

But on the question of appropriate and accurate labels, there's a difference between saying this country is a "white supremacist nation" and saying we live in a country still plagued by baked-in, systemic racism. To say that the U.S. is a "white supremacist nation," to me, implies the exact opposite of the de facto racial inequality malchior is talking about. An apartheid state like historic South Africa is a "white supremacist nation" in the same way that Iran is a theocracy. It's a de jure state of being, not a de facto state of being.

Here is a thought experiment to point out the obvious flaw in that. Let's say you have a system of policies where you say that equality in x, y, and z are enforceable in courts and are the law of the land. The people in power say they believe in these principles but generation after generation they consistently deliver white preferences above all other considerations. Where is the point you have to recognize that it has essentially has blurred the line between what is 'de jure' vs. what is 'de facto'? You can't draw a binary line. That's the problem. This line of thinking consistently allows bad actors to discourage focusing on the problem and instead muddle the discussion with talk about exceptions, or family dynamics, or whatever hand waving is used.

And I'll argue that what I described is less than what has actually been happening. To reiterate, folks have gone to court to try to claim equality and have seen it whittled down bit by bit over the years. We're at the point where the enabling document the VRA of 1965 is essentially a dead law. And states are right now cracking and packing minority districts to deny them equal representation. Eventually it may backslide into more open forms of white supremacy but that might be a bridge too far. But in any case, we have arguably backslid to some degree. And it looks very likely we will make no progress for many years if the GOP gets their way.

And, yes, this country has, undeniably been a "white supremacist nation" in the past, but it's certainly not one today.

I just can't buy this idea that a nation has to say 'whites rule' out loud while they do it in the shadows. I guess we could argue whether there is some outward belief in the superiority and its all about maintaining their own power. But that's incoherent when the outcomes are so consistently aligned to race versus other potential groupings.

[Combustible Lemur]

From my locality its because conservatism isn't remotely a white only proposition.
Fortbend and Western Harris county are two of the most diverse areas in the country. They are in many ways progressive. They are also generally conservative in culture. Large groups of first and second generation immigrants particularly those that work in the energy sector believe in fiscal and behavioral conservatism. It's going to be a huge democratic mistake to keep making conservative and white supremacy synonymous. Yes there is a solid chunk of white supremacy in these areas and somewhat everywhere. But the conservative asian, arab, and South American families i teach arent white supremacists. But a solid group of them are conservative enough to vote republican despite the white supremacists and uphold systemic racism because it affects them less than black people particularly those in poor areas. Not to mention all the flavors of global racism that aren't white supremacy.
To declare all of this nuance to just be white supremacy is to be blind to a huge percentage of conservative people who aren't white and are happy to both acknowledge racism and vote conservative regardless.

But all of this is anecdotal, so carry on.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't think anyone is saying that Conservative and White Supremacist are synonymous.

However, being Conservative in the structure built on racism perpetuates white supremacist goals. Intentionally or not.



I also feel that anyone who walks away from the table over semantics never wanted to be there in the first place. Applies to both sides. I'll call it Tomato Resiliency if it keeps dialogue going.

[noxiousdog]

From my locality its because conservatism isn't remotely a white only proposition.
Fortbend and Western Harris county are two of the most diverse areas in the country. They are in many ways progressive. They are also generally conservative in culture. Large groups of first and second generation immigrants particularly those that work in the energy sector believe in fiscal and behavioral conservatism. It's going to be a huge democratic mistake to keep making conservative and white supremacy synonymous. Yes there is a solid chunk of white supremacy in these areas and somewhat everywhere. But the conservative asian, arab, and South American families i teach arent white supremacists. But a solid group of them are conservative enough to vote republican despite the white supremacists and uphold systemic racism because it affects them less than black people particularly those in poor areas. Not to mention all the flavors of global racism that aren't white supremacy.
To declare all of this nuance to just be white supremacy is to be blind to a huge percentage of conservative people who aren't white and are happy to both acknowledge racism and vote conservative regardless.

But all of this is anecdotal, so carry on.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

In order to make the white supremicist trope work, you have to ignore asians. Somehow, the cabal loves them and gives preferential treatment. Well, when it's convenient. Sometimes we work actively against them.

[malchior]

To declare all of this nuance to just be white supremacy is to be blind to a huge percentage of conservative people who aren't white and are happy to both acknowledge racism and vote conservative regardless.

I 100% agree. Lots of folks align for their own reasons. Sometimes they even benefit for reasons of general alignment with white policy goals.

[malchior]

From my locality its because conservatism isn't remotely a white only proposition.
Fortbend and Western Harris county are two of the most diverse areas in the country. They are in many ways progressive. They are also generally conservative in culture. Large groups of first and second generation immigrants particularly those that work in the energy sector believe in fiscal and behavioral conservatism. It's going to be a huge democratic mistake to keep making conservative and white supremacy synonymous. Yes there is a solid chunk of white supremacy in these areas and somewhat everywhere. But the conservative asian, arab, and South American families i teach arent white supremacists. But a solid group of them are conservative enough to vote republican despite the white supremacists and uphold systemic racism because it affects them less than black people particularly those in poor areas. Not to mention all the flavors of global racism that aren't white supremacy.
To declare all of this nuance to just be white supremacy is to be blind to a huge percentage of conservative people who aren't white and are happy to both acknowledge racism and vote conservative regardless.

But all of this is anecdotal, so carry on.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

In order to make the white supremicist trope work, you have to ignore asians. Somehow, the cabal loves them and gives preferential treatment. Well, when it's convenient. Sometimes we work actively against them.

There is *plenty* of anti-Asian bigotry including violence. Still it also stands to reason that they're also 7% of the population and they *are* being ignored politically for the most part. Almost none of their policy preferences are acted upon. If you are talking about academic achievement and wealth, then it is generally true most populations of Asians are doing well. That could be an argument against white preferential treatment or evidence that not everyone is subject to the same forces uniformly. I don't know which but that's relatively hard to tease out. However, it doesn't really subtract from how blacks and Hispanics are obviously being discriminated uniformly throughout our society.

[msteelers]

I also feel that anyone who walks away from the table over semantics never wanted to be there in the first place. Applies to both sides. I'll call it Tomato Resiliency if it keeps dialogue going.

+1

[noxiousdog]

There is *plenty* of anti-Asian bigotry including violence. Still it also stands to reason that they're also 7% of the population and they *are* being ignored politically for the most part. Almost none of their policy preferences are acted upon. If you are talking about academic achievement and wealth, then it is generally true most populations of Asians are doing well. That could be an argument against white preferential treatment or evidence that not everyone is subject to the same forces uniformly. I don't know which but that's relatively hard to tease out. However, it doesn't really subtract from how blacks and Hispanics are obviously being discriminated uniformly throughout our society.

No, but it really substracts from the white supremecy claim.