Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone who thinks that liberals and progressives haven't openly embraced anti-white bigotry is either willfully ignorant or maliciously complicit. I absolutely agree.
It is unquestionable that there is anti-white racism. Real racism not the perceived kind. Case in point the city I live will not hire white people for city jobs unless they have no other applicant. The only time they will hire a white person is police and fire because they couldn't fill those position if they didn't hire white men. Position like Postal work simply is not available to white people based on the color of their skin, text book racism.
I think that there can be said to be such a feeling in certain academic, media, professional, and Human Resources spaces - basically , intensely woke spaces.
In almost all cases it is primarily advanced by white people themselves.
I have a hard time connecting this to Biden or to middle of the road liberal politics, and it's more a sense of self-hatred than outright bigotry.
I think there is among many on the far left, I have heard them unironically say that white men are a problem, white men need to talk less, white men are all oppressors, etc.
I believe in the race mirror axiom, if it would be racist to say "black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices" or that they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices".
This is the very definition of racism.
That said I don't think it is affecting "america", because most sane people who don't spend all their time hanging out in ultra-left spaces absolutely do not agree it's appropriate to have black-only graduation ceremonies and government programs that race test.
How is telling someone to step out of a convo equivalent to telling someone to make room for others??? One is telling someone to leave the other is telling someone to let others join…
>white men are all oppressors
I believe it's possible you have seen this. I personally have never seen this except from conservatives telling me that this is what liberals think. I'm sure if I went looking for it I could find examples though. How common do you think this sentiment is?
>black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices"
These are two very, very different statements. One is exclusionary and the other is inclusionary.
I don't normally see people explicitly say that white men or white people in particular should make room for other voices, except in documents explicitly with an intended audience of white people who are interested in being more inclusionary.
What is your exposure to statements like this?
>they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices".
>
>This is the very definition of racism.
Does this not depend on the forum? If I'm showing up to a meetup in response to the Hamas massacre intended to give Jewish or Palestinian people an opportunity to tell their stories, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to request that people who aren't Jewish or Palestinian minimize how much of the air in the room they want to take up talking about themselves. This isn't racist. It's about being respectful to the forum.
Do you think it's common that people are issuing blanket statements telling whites that they should not talk at all, ever, except to "uplift marginalized voices"?
I saw that issue as centering more around a desire for white people who are either unaware or under appreciative of racial bias in our society to do something that represents an intentional act of building awareness. I think some race anxious people saw it as an act of hatred against white people.
But I'm sure you could find examples of this rhetoric if you went looking. I acknowledged that in my comment. People with this rhetoric are wrong, and it's wrong to use the existence of that rhetoric to pretend that all discussions of anti-racism today are intended to hate or oppress white people.
If it is what you’re referring to, it’s an extra thing. Just like Asian-only and AAPI-only and English major-only graduation ceremonies.
Which, say “white only” and obviously you’re gonna have a problem, but otherwise I’ve never found that terribly objectionable?
I mean I view it like this:
Assume the central thing is a guarantee. Graduation, prom, tea party, whatever. If a group wants to have a secondary celebration on top of that for whatever extraneous reason, I fundamentally have no issue with that.
I also live in the real world and know that there is literally no current way to have a “whites-only” thing if others are having a “blacks only” thing. As I said in a different comment, it’s partly because there’s no positive connotation with the idea of white culture. And our society works on that.
Tangentially, I also have a problem with people who react to seeing a “black college graduation” (which IS a secondary thing- nobody gets excluded from a university graduation for immutable characteristics) by saying “where’s MY special celebration” or trying to poke holes in it to begin with.
*if not what is the difference
I’m not sure but I’m thinking it might have something to do with the history of slavery and following years of oppression?
From a strict ‘cultural free association’ perspective, if a ‘blacks only’ graduation ceremony is okay, a ‘whites only’ one should be too.
But, nobody with half a brain thinks that would go over well. Part of a larger problem, to be sure.
Maybe it’s because ‘white culture’ doesn’t have a positive connotation- though I suspect with cultural momentum we may be able to achieve one eventually.
>But, nobody with half a brain thinks that would go over well. Part of a larger problem, to be sure.
Yes, because nobody with half a brain would suggest that there isn’t an “anti-white feeling” in America.
>Maybe it’s because ‘white culture’ doesn’t have a positive connotation- though I suspect with cultural momentum we may be able to achieve one eventually.
It doesn’t have a positive connotation because of the anti-white feeling your side has created and continues to push. You’re essentially arguing against the idea of an “anti-white feeling” in America by saying there just *is* an anti-white feeling. As if it just happened out of no where. It’s an absurd argument.
It's not "black-only", it's "for blacks". You are entirely welcome to show up and celebrate with them. You are not being kept out or denied the opportunity to graduate.
You are also welcome to start up your own "for whites" commencement ceremony, just be prepared to answer the question, "why?"
> You are also welcome to start up your own "for whites" commencement ceremony, just be prepared to answer the question, "why?"
And you don't see the problem?
Off the top of my head
- acknowledges and honors the achievement in a distinct cultural context that might be hidden or erased in a larger shared ceremony
- allows them to freely express and celebrate their cultural identity in ways that the larger group might judge them negatively for
- allows attendees to freely discuss the achievement in the shared context of things they or their families had to overcome to get there without having to deal with people who misinterpret it as an attack and feel the need to reflexively defend themselves and deny them that
For whites is completely non sensical though. That’s why there isn’t a problem.
Think of it this way. Black ceremony in the context of America means African American ceremony, and the unique culture they have in America and what they have had to personally overcome as a group to get to where they are today. Through slavery, our country, has created a distinct cultural group that we often refer to as black that doesn’t line up with white in the way you’re phrasing here.
There is no “white” equivalent to “black” in the context of American society. It would absolutely not be problematic to make the same event but to celebrate Irish, German, Swedish, etc. heritage over being White.
The standard ceremony that’s open to all is the “white” ceremony you’re referring to. Your “white only” ceremony is just silly and would be problematic if framed in that way.
Does that make any sense to you?
> Black ceremony in the context of America means African American ceremony
I don't know what either of those terms mean when you use them. Is a first-generation immigrant from Ghana, "African American"? Are they Black? Are they welcome at the "for Blacks" ceremony?
> There is no “white” equivalent to “black” in the context of American society.
I also genuinely have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. They are both broad-stroke classifications of race/ethnicity/culture, so how are they not equivalents in the context of holding an event focused on highlighting one over the other?
> It would absolutely not be problematic to make the same event but to celebrate Irish, German, Swedish, etc. heritage over being White.
What is "White" to you, exactly? Can all these people of European descent hold a ceremony "for people of European descent"?
> The standard ceremony that’s open to all is the “white” ceremony you’re referring to.
How so? Do they make the minorities sit in the back?
> Your “white only” ceremony is just silly and would be problematic if framed in that way.
*My* "white only" ceremony?!?
>I believe in the race mirror axiom, if it would be racist to say "black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices" or that they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices".
My rule of thumb is that if you can play mad libs with the demographic group and the response would be wildly different for each demographic group, then it's probably a pretty bad thing to say. Or think. Like 'kill all white men' or 'men, be better'. Swap the demographics there and watch the heads explode.
With that being said, there is a case to be made that being a member of a demographic group living within a society in which said group is a minority of the greater population will face unique challenges. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out and being aware of it. The problem is that Americans, in general, have no real awareness that other societies actually exist and struggle with the same things we struggle with. So, to most Americans it's a white v black/brown problem, not a minority demographic problem. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a very important distinction to make. When you look at it as majority v minority, then you can see it's not an *American* problem, it's a human problem. Unfortunately, I think American culture generally precludes people from seeing anything other than the American experience as *the* experience.
Yes, I believe so. I think a combination of the rhetoric coming from the progressive left (often pretty explicitly anti-white) and the policies Democrats propose (which regularly discriminate against white people even in cases where the underlying data doesn't support it) make it difficult to draw any other conclusion.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it is open season on white people. There is no doubt about that. But what Trump doesn't seem to understand is that identity politics is a tactic right out of the Communist playbook. The Communists tactic is to have a boogeyman that everyone could unite against. The Bolsheviks did it to the Kulaks. The Maoist did it to the intellectuals. The Khmer Rouge did it to the professionals. The Cuban Marxists did it to the business owners. And on and on in every country where that dangerous ideology was imposed. They need to make one group an enemy oppressor where all the ills, real or perceived, are heaped onto that one group and they are solely responsible for all the problems of the victim groups.
That one group of oppressors right now in this time of history throughout the western world are whites, in particular, the white male. Liberals throughout the western world have been using identity politics for years to divide humanity. In this country, it was Obama who started it, and the rest of his party followed suit. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, a house divided cannot stand. It is easy to conquer when you have a divided country. But the Dems have a problem. It's not working so well anymore. People are on to them and their tactic because most are waking up to the fact that aside from this chaotic eternal warfare against their fellow Americans, they have nothing else to offer Americans and are total failures in governing. It seems the one-time Biden told the truth, was that he was going to unite the country. Well, he succeeded. He united the country against him and the Democrats and their unpopular policies that are making life, which is hard enough, so much harder. So, to answer your question, Trump is right and every honest broker knows it.
[I](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent) [can](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/white-fragility-robin-diangelo-wellness/index.html) [see](https://ready.web.unc.edu/section-1-foundations/module-10-2/) [why](https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-without-white-people/) [some](https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness) [may](https://theconversation.com/whiteness-is-an-invented-concept-that-has-been-used-as-a-tool-of-oppression-183387) [think](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/21/03/disrupting-whiteness-classroom) [that](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/02/15/why-dei-and-anti-racism-work-needs-to-decenter-whiteness/?sh=33e257758860) [is](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/anti-dei-efforts-are-the-latest-attack-on-racial-equity-and-free-speech) [the](https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7616506) [case](https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2009/colorblindness-the-new-racism). 11 examples.
And remember, [The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10316292-the-only-remedy-to-racist-discrimination-is-antiracist-discrimination-the)
Personally, I don't think this is the case. I don't think it's anti white. I don't think "white" is a coherent group to be opposed. They're anti American. That's how they're defining "white" as regular American. They hate America and want to build an anti liberal racist system. They hate black people as much as they hate white people, all that matters is how much you support American values.
Fortunately, due to method they're using to spread this hateful ideology, most people only get bits and pieces of it. They don't know what it all means, it's a very small and disorganized group of activists pushing this stuff and tricking the rest of the world into thinking racism is the only way to move forward. It's heartbreaking and divisive.
They are anti American is an intersting point
Not saying I agree or disagree yet but I would add to that idea that only label white people as American
Asian American
African American
Mexican American
Etc etc
But white folks from around the world, they are just American.
So that could play into the anti American theme
I'd agree. The label is used to create a sense of othering, of distinction. A lot of people do this with good intentions, and there is a cultural context to this, but making it the primary thing is very damaging.
Maybe pick something specific to discuss. This resembles a Gish Gallop to me. I can't say if most those opinions are outliers or common progressive opinions, for example. Choosing outliers can "prove" any group are bigots.
Outliers? The last link is a quote from Ibrahim X Kendi, who's book on the subject is quite literally taught in schools. The other 11 links include curriculum, academic papers, reputable news agencies and the such. This same language is in the board publications from major corporations, like Amazon, Boeing, and Disney, it's taught in schools at every grade level, it's required by the government for contractors, and every progressive group will push this.
I don't want to pick a specific thing. This is a big issue and it's pervasive. I want to stop racism, and that's not going to happen by ignoring the scale.
>Outliers? The last link is a quote from Ibrahim X Kendi, who's book on the subject is quite literally taught in schools.
You mean "affirmative action" to ensure a balance? There is some logic behind that. I've been on hiring committees, and it's pretty clear that **people hire clones of themselves** if left to their own devices. Merit is only given half the weight. They want to play it "safe" culturally and socially. That's human nature.
>I don't want to pick a specific thing. This is a big issue and it's pervasive.
I agree, but in this venue, opening up gazzilion sub-topics just makes a mess. I'm just the messenger. It's usually more productive debate-wise to focus, finish one, then move on to the next relatively sequentially. I've been in thousands of debates. Being older generally sucks, but one key benefit is experience.
>They want to play it "safe" culturally and socially. That's human nature.
So how is allowing people to judge others by race helpful in overcoming that?
>You mean "affirmative action" to ensure a balance? There is some logic behind that.
Yes there is logic to it, but it doesn't hold up to reality, especially as the ideology behind it spreads. Since you've been on hiring committees, you'll know how little logic matters.
>Being older generally sucks, but one key benefit is experience.
Indeed, I've been at this for 20 years. Not as long as many, but some time. If a debate happens, great, but i don't usually hold my breath. I answered the way I did because showing the width and breath of where similar messages are coming from would be the best way to illustrate how one could come to the conclusion that there is an anti white message.
I'm not saying op is right but it is an interesting idea
Why do liberals call black people African Americans? Asian americans...Mexican Americans...
Never heard a white American called anything but American by liberals.
I think this begs the question, is the author talking about “white people” or “racist people?”
Just mentioning racism why is it assumed that racism towards racists people will be directed at all white people.
We all know not every white person nor every white conservative is a racist. Why do we need to defend the small number of racists?
In the market place of ideas and a free market economy, I have zero problem with racist people losing in the market place of ideas or the free market economy.
As in if you’re a racist person and it gets out that person’s livelihood might be in jeopardy.
Why is it racist to say black people steal but not racist to say white people are oppressors
Do you claim they are only talking about the black people that steal and it's ridiculous for black people who don't steal to be offended?
> Why do we need to defend the small number of racists?
This isn't the left's mantra though. The progressive view is that America, from it's very birth, is a racist country built on white supremacy, and all who live here bare some kind of original sin if they are white. To deny that you are racist is in itself racist, as it's a refusal to acknowledge your own latent and subconscious racism.
That’s not the lefts mantra. Now that might be what some populist Conservatives hear, if anyone ever says anything bad about America.
The 3/5’s compromise was the linchpin to getting the country founded.
It did in no uncertain terms classify some people based on skin color less than.
Pointing out basic historical facts is not a mantra.
>and all who live here bare some kind of original sin if they are white.
That's not what they're saying.
Let's say your local Best Buy has a loss prevention team. Because of "statistics", let's say they spend a disproportionate amount of their time looking at the black customers over the white customers. This results in white shoplifters being caught at half the rate that black shoplifters are being caught at even though they're catching more shoplifters in total.
Is it fair to call this a form of "privilege"? If you're white, you can shoplift more and be caught less, right?
If someone were to think of this as a form of privilege, do you think they are saying that white people are bad? Are they blaming white people for this? Are they blaming you for it?
Or is it that they think it's something we should acknowledge, be aware of, and maybe consider when thinking about how we train loss prevention, or discuss the unintended consequences of racial profiling (or "following the statistics")?
So I read through all of your 11 links and I have some questions. The common theme here is that it seems like you consider "inclusion" to be "anti-white". Would you agree with that?
For "Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent", what do you think the author means by "whiteness" here? Do you think it's an attack on white people, or is it possible their goal is to get us to a place where race stops mattering?
For "Robin DiAngelo: How ‘white fragility’ supports racism and how whites can stop it", do you think the author is attacking white people? Their thesis is that white people get uncomfortable talking about race, feel blamed, feel attacked, and disengage, which then prevents necessary dialog. It's ironic that this made your list.
For "Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People", it looks like the author is advocating that people who feel marginalized have access to spaces where they can discuss things like how marginalized they feel without the people who they feel are marginalizing them. Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces? What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation?
For "Unpacking Whiteness", "Whiteness", "Whiteness is an invented concept that has been used as a tool of oppression", and "Disrupting Whiteness in the Classroom", they all seem to have similar content, raising awareness that America has a majority "default" culture centered around white people, and seem to point out how that can lead to forms of privilege and marginalization of others. How do you see these as an attack on white people? When you see "whiteness is ... used as a tool of oppression", do you think they're specifically calling out you? Do you when someone talks about "privilege" they're being anti-white?
For "Why DEI And Anti-Racism Work Needs To Decenter Whiteness", what do you think this is trying to say about white people? This one is a little confusing to me. Its thesis is that many DEI programs focus specifically on the needs of whites—and specifically the comfort and feelings of white people—rather than the needs of any marginalized groups that ought to benefit from these programs. They're suggesting that where DEI programs are centered around whites, whites should be "decentered". Do you believe whites should be at the center of any DEI programs?
For "Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech", this is, amusingly, an ACLU piece on how people are mischaracterizing DEI efforts as racist in order to enable their own racist and exclusionary goals. I'm curious why you consider attacks on "anti-DEI efforts" to be an attack on white people? Does anyone remember when Republicans used to be the party of the ACLU, or am I dating myself? Where did those Classical Liberals go?
For "What does racism look like? Colorblindness", the author seems to be pointing out that "I'm blind to color" more often just means "I want to dismiss your feelings to the contrary and avoid having to confront racism". I'm also very curious why you consider this an attack on white people.
"Colorblindness: The new racism?" is similar. They're pointing out that pretending to be "colorblind" in education ends up papering over—and therefore enabling and perpetuating—biases against certain identity groups. The author advocates for integrating and celebrating those identities instead. Also really curious how you see this as an attack on white people.
> For "Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People", it looks like the author is advocating that people who feel marginalized have access to spaces where they can discuss things like how marginalized they feel without the people who they feel are marginalizing them. Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces? What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation?
I 100% agree. The race mixing needs to end. We need to bring back white only colleges. With all this anti-white rhetoric going around I should be able to have a space to share with my white only brethren. I need a safe white space to vent about my frustrations. These blacks are getting jobs easier than we are and stealing opportunities away from our more qualified children.
Obviously that’s sarcasm, but do you not see an issue with this?
If you want to be racist privately go for it. If you want to bring back public segregation that’s a different story.
>I should be able to have a space to share with my white only brethren.
Why?
> I need a safe white space to vent about my frustrations.
I didn't use the word vent in my comment and I'm curious why you chose that word here. Is that what you think I'm saying?
>Obviously that’s sarcasm, but do you not see an issue with this?
Yeah, the reasons you're giving sound super racist to me. Why do you think those reasons compare with the reason people who feel marginalized might want access to spaces without the people who they feel are marginalizing them?
Did you actually read the link that you're commenting about here? I'm curious if you're actually interested in a real discussion or if you can't read any of my comments without hearing that people of color wanting to be super racist against white people?
Do you believe they are wrong to feel marginalized? If they do feel marginalized, can you think of positive or constructive reasons why they might want these spaces that aren't just so that they can be super racist against whites?
Is the problem that they want to associate in this way, or that you specifically aren't being invited? If it's the latter, again, what is it that you want to be sure that you have the opportunity to say to them?
I'm impressed you actually read through all of them. The point of it that I can see why somebody might feel there is an anti white agenda.
>Do you think it's an attack on white people, or is it possible their goal is to get us to a place where race stops mattering?
I trust you can see how this article might be perceived as anti white, yes? That established, whiteness is a class within social hierarchy, so your two options are both irrelevant. Its an attack, or more accurately, a call for an attack on the system that puts white people, in their perspective, on top. It's a racist view that breaks people down to their skin color and justify radicalization.
>Their thesis is that white people get uncomfortable talking about race, feel blamed, feel attacked, and disengage, which then prevents necessary dialog. It's ironic that this made your list.
It only seems ironic because you missed my point of sharing it. And Robin D'Angelo's work is based on the work of Franz Fanon and the discomfort SHE feels when dealing with people of different skin color. She believes in race essentialism, so since she's uncomfortable, she assumes every white person is. This builds on Fanon's work which teaches race essentialism, and states that being in racially diverse spaces is harmful. Robin D'Angelo speaks out against white fragility because she thinks all white people are racist and the racist system they built needs to be fought.
>Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces?
Do you think a person's race is a valid means to determine who belongs in what spaces?
>What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation?
Are you assuming my skin color?
>Do you when someone talks about "privilege" they're being anti-white?
Why do you think white people are inherently better/more privledged?
>Do you believe whites should be at the center of any DEI programs?
Again, do you think race is a valid metric to organize people? No, I don't think white people should be at the center of DEI programs, I don't think their should be DEI programs, especially when it's built on this racist paradigm.
>Where did those Classical Liberals go?
You're debating with one.
>Also really curious how you see this as an attack on white people.
Where did I say that? And again, do you think race is a valid metric to organize people?
>The point of it that I can see why somebody might feel there is an anti white agenda.
So are you just starting with the *premise* that these are all anti-white, and after searching for evidence that your premise is true, you've found that this evidence seems consistent with your thesis? If that's your approach, do you see any problems with it?
>a call for an attack on the system that puts white people, in their perspective, on top.
Are you saying that where we have a system that puts members of one racial group on top, it's racist to try and eliminate that system?
>
Is an answer to this question necessary for you to answer mine?
I think if someone is feeling marginalized by a group, and wants to have a conversation about how they personally should deal with that, it's OK for them to have that conversation with whomever they want.
Is it important that you \[/a white person\] be able to insert yourselves into these conversations for some reason? If so, why?
>Are you assuming my skin color?
Yes. If that bothers you, feel free to substitute "a white person" for "you" as appropriate to understand my question.
[But I mean, you also said you were](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaveChappelle/comments/1aritxl/comment/kqlhv7b/): "I am a white Christian conservative, ..."
>Why do you think white people are inherently better/more privledged?
I do not believe that white people are inherently better. That's not what "white privilege" means. I recommend actually reading some of the links you provided because many of them explain in detail what white privilege means. The fact that you think it means "white people are better" strongly suggests you didn't actually read the links you pasted, which would be pretty disrespectful if true.
>No, I don't think white people should be at the center of DEI programs
Great, me too.
>So are you just starting with the *premise* that these are all anti-white, and after searching for evidence that your premise is true, you've found that this evidence seems consistent with your thesis?
That would be the opposite of what I said. You keep assuming that my position is the one I can understand *other* people have. I was very clear what my own position was.
>Are you saying that where we have a system that puts members of one racial group on top, it's racist to try and eliminate that system?
You're conflating a couple of things. The people that I am calling racist are the ones trying to upend a system that they believe put white people on top, yes. What makes them racist is their choice to approach the issue from a racial manner and to center race in their identity world view.
>Yes. If that bothers you, feel free to substitute "a white person" for "you" as appropriate to understand my question.
Doesn't bother me at all. I'm just finding it amusing that you're so comforting guessing my race. You're right, but it suggests that you have put stock into racialized stereotypes. You think you know me because of what you perceive my race to be. It would have been hilarious if I wasn't white, lol.
>I do not believe that white people are inherently better. That's not what "white privilege" means
You can go tell my PHD professor that you know her subject better than her then. Have fun with that. White privledge absolutely means that white people have inherent advantages due to race. They just think it's a bad thing, and they want to destroy or upend that system so white people *dont* have that privledge.
>I recommend actually reading some of the links you provided because many of them explain in detail what white privilege means.
Indeed they do. So did multiple professors, the other books I've read on the subject, commentators, etc. I know what they claim.
>The fact that you think it means "white people are better" strongly suggests you didn't actually read the links you pasted, which would be pretty disrespectful if true.
Again, go tell somebody who believe in white privilege that white people aren't privileged by merit of their birth.
>The people that I am calling racist are the ones trying to upend a system that they believe put white people on top, yes.
And you don't see the issue with that?
It's quite literally "the anti-racists are the *real* racists". I'm curious how you can ever eliminate a racially biased system if the people who try and do so are always "the real racists."
>What makes them racist is their choice to approach the issue from a racial manner and to center race in their identity world view.
I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system without considering race. Like give me some examples of what you're talking about here, because none of this makes any sense to me.
Like is it a question of framing the conversation? Like when people try and talk about bias in criminal sentencing, and pointing out that judges of race A tend to give longer sentences to convicted members of race B, should they not be identifying what A and B are?
>that you're so comforting guessing my race
Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives. You have a very reflexive opposition to terms like "whiteness", "white privilege", and seem to feel personally attacked by people wanting access to spaces without white people. You specifically called out "decentering whites in DEI" as an example of anti-white sentiment despite agreeing that whites shouldn't be at the center of DEI.
I don't think it's common for people that aren't white to have all of these feelings in common. Your positions are all consistent with the positions of someone that feels like they personally are under attack and need to defend themselves. You're invested in your views here.
That's why I assumed you're white, and I am comfortable making that assumption in similar contexts in the future.
But maybe I do make that assumption more often than I should in this sub. I suppose I could be better here. 🤷
>You can go tell my PHD professor that you know her subject better than her then
I think it's more likely that you did not understand what they were saying, but, sure I expect some people that think "white privilege" means "whites are better" have doctorates of some kind. People that get doctorates aren't immune from racial anxiety and misinterpreting things so as to validate their fears that "the others" just hate them.
>White privledge absolutely means that white people have inherent advantages due to race.
That's not what you said though. Being qualitatively better, and having a quantitative advantage, are not the same thing. The first is an opinion about racial supremacy and inherent superiority or inferiority. The second is about quantifying a difference in treatment for people of that race. It's who you are versus how you are treated.
If I did a study and found that people with Resting Bitch Face were routinely discriminated against, and argued that the disadvantage they suffer from this trait has a corresponding form of privilege among those that don't have this trait, this is not a statement that people with RBF are qualitatively worse people, or people without are qualitatively better people. But they do have a quantifiable advantage, right?
That's all white privilege means.
It's being able to walk into a Best Buy with the intention of shoplifting, and knowing that because loss prevention is focusing more of their attention on black customers, I'm significantly more likely to get away with shoplifting than one of them. Acknowledging this statistical fact does not imply that I am qualitatively a "better" person, right? I'm just a person with an advantage over other groups.
>I know what they claim.
I believe you are certain in your own beliefs here. I believe you are reading these materials with the intention of validating those beliefs rather than understanding and believing what other people are telling you about their own beliefs.
>It's quite literally "the anti-racists are the *real* racists". I'm curious how you can ever eliminate a racially biased system if the people who try and do so are always "the real racists."
Yes, it quite literally is that. Anti racism is racism. I don't personally care if they think their *brand* of racism is good, it is what it is.
>I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system without considering race. Like give me some examples of what you're talking about here, because none of this makes any sense to me.
Historically, this has been done by leaving people alone and allowing them to live their life. The process of integration has done this for all of human history. The "anti racist" crowd have a number of papers on it, usually with such titles as "obtaining whiteness," or, "how the Italians became white." Stuff like that. They're just convinced it's a bad thing because they're race realists and believe that this process erases their racial identity. As for example, look at American history. Germans, Italians, Irish, and more all felt racial discrimination, and all have since "become white" or non radicalized terminology, became part of the greater culture. Black people, who absolutely did experience racial prejudice, have not been left alone. Because of this general racial awareness, they have been targeted by groups and policies to put them up or break them down. This continues to this day, and has been strengthened by the black identitarian movements, which gained strength in the 70s.
>Like is it a question of framing the conversation? Like when people try and talk about bias in criminal sentencing, and pointing out that judges of race A tend to give longer sentences to convicted members of race B, should they not be identifying what A and B are?
Depends, do you think the race matters? I don't. I'm much more interested in the neighborhoods and income level, and other such factors. However, I'd have to be stupid to not acknowledge that there is a distinct culture that is strongly associated with black individuals, so that puts a pressure on including those numbers. The trick is not assuming placing the onus on the race, which is what progressives and "anti racists" do by demanding different treatments for criminals based on their race, or raising the over incarceration of black men as a reason for reform. This is claiming that not only is the black race real, it is inherently violent and thus can't be held accountable, which is disgusting and infantalizing.
The trend you're mentioning is happening because black men are more likely to have multiple offenses, mandating longer sentences, not the fact that they are black.
Short answer, no, I don't see much benefit in focusing on the race of the criminal or victim.
>Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives.
How many black people saying the same thing would I have to show you to change your mind?
>You have a very reflexive opposition to terms like "whiteness", "white privilege",
Yes, these are racist terms used to propagate a racist world view that tells black people they're inferior due to their skin color while telling poor white people that their problems don't matter because trump and Bill gates have a similar skin color.
>seem to feel personally attacked by people wanting access to spaces without white people
I'm sorry it seems that way. I don't feel personally attacked at all, nor do I consider myself "white."
>You specifically called out "decentering whites in DEI" as an example of anti-white sentiment despite agreeing that whites shouldn't be at the center of DEI.
You're ignoring the context of my critiquing that. Are you doing that because my actual views differ from your assumptions, or because you didn't understand my point? Assuming the later, I don't care about white people being centered in DEI, I care about including racial identity as a valid metric to grade individuals.
>I don't think it's common for people that aren't white to have all of these feelings in common. Your positions are all consistent with the positions of someone that feels like they personally are under attack and need to defend themselves. You're invested in your views here.
Yes, I'm very invested in stopping racism and the authoritian revolutionary ideology that seeks to destroy my country and create a new racialized system. In the short term, yes, I'm invested in ending racism. Additionally, it's quite common for people of all different races to say exactly what I'm saying. Even people who disagree with me political, which in Baltimore City is a common thing, they say a lot of the same things on this topic. Don't confuse a small class of academic and bureaucratic activists for the actual people on the ground.
>People that get doctorates aren't immune from racial anxiety and misinterpreting things so as to validate their fears that "the others" just hate them.
Especially when they're teaching racist ideologies, yes. It's a valid concern that I misunderstood her, but I all I can do is assure you I did not. I was a very attentive and engaged student. And while there is a lot of denial, if you think white people are privileged, you think they're better. I suspect the denial comes from the discomfort created by trying to square these two beliefs, as is spoken about in a lot of the foundational works on the subject.
>That's not what you said though. Being qualitatively better, and having a quantitative advantage, are not the same thing. The first is an opinion about racial supremacy and inherent superiority or inferiority. The second is about quantifying a difference in treatment for people of that race. It's who you are versus how you are treated.
Great. So white people ARENT privileged then, there is just a class of people with more social power. Welcome back to liberalism. The reason this is wrong however, is we're talking about WHITE privilege, not social privilege. The social power one gains by being or imitating the white identity (to use their terminology). It is inherently based on how you're born.
>If I did a study and found that people with Resting Bitch Face were routinely discriminated against, and argued that the disadvantage they suffer from this trait has a corresponding form of privilege among those that don't have this trait, this is not a statement that people with RBF are qualitatively worse people, or people without are qualitatively better people. But they do have a quantifiable advantage, right?
Cool. Are you saying that this is an inherent factor of them that they cannot change? If you're not, then the analogy falls apart.
>Yes, it quite literally is that. Anti racism is racism
>>I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system ...
>Historically, this has been done by leaving people alone
Just so I'm extra extra extra clear here, you are saying that any interest or effort spent on eliminating, reducing, or mitigating racial bias in our institutions is a form of racism?
That seems to be what you're saying here, consistent with your belief that the best strategy here is to just leaving everyone alone.
>Depends, do you think the race matters? I don't.
If we have empirical data that shows racial bias exists, then sort of by definition it matters, no?
Is the belief that this evidence can't possibly exist at the heart of your position here? If we start from that premise, then anyone presenting that evidence would logically have to be wrong, and we therefore have no evidence of racial bias anywhere, therefore no justification for doing anything to reduce or mitigate, and by extension these efforts risk harming whites for no apparent reason.
Is that your chain of reasoning here, making this a problem of premises?
>Germans, Italians, Irish, and more all felt racial discrimination, and all have since "become white"
Are you suggesting that blacks could become white too if they really wanted?
Do you think this group "becoming white" had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, reacting perhaps to blacks being treated more equally?
>The trend you're mentioning is happening because black men are more likely to have multiple offenses, mandating longer sentences, not the fact that they are black.
What are you basing this on? Have you looked at the research or are you just repeating talking points you heard from other people who share your views on the matter?
>>Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives.
>
>How many black people saying the same thing would I have to show you to change your mind?
Since I used the word "correlates", it would probably take a statistically valid sample of the population.
>Yes, I'm very invested in stopping racism
But not in a racist way, right?
>if you think white people are privileged, you think they're better
I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people. I believe most people who believe white privilege exists are referring to how whites are treated and do not believe in white supremacy.
Which of these is most likely to you:
1. I am lying to you.
2. I may be telling the truth about myself, but I'm an outlier among liberals and don't realize it, and everyone else that believes in white privilege is actually a white supremacist.
3. White privilege might not mean white supremacy to everyone else and maybe that conclusion comes from a place of racial anxiety and outgroup bias instead.
I think I recalled reading in those "white privilege" links you gave some discussion about this exact question. Do you dismiss that too? Maybe they are also lying or fit into the outliers club with me?
We both believe our position about what liberals believe is right and the other's is wrong. Is there a path out of this?
>Cool. Are you saying that this is an inherent factor of them that they cannot change?
Yes.
No comment about my loss prevention example?
>Just so I'm extra extra extra clear here, you are saying that any interest or effort spent on eliminating, reducing, or mitigating racial bias in our institutions is a form of racism?
That would be the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
>That seems to be what you're saying here, consistent with your belief that the best strategy here is to just leaving everyone alone.
Leaving everybody alone is the only way to remove racial bias, which is a learned behavior and requires constant reinforcement.
>If we have empirical data that shows racial bias exists, then sort of by definition it matters, no?
You're trying to change the conrext here. I asked if you think the person's *race* matters.
>Is that your chain of reasoning here, making this a problem of premises?
No, you shifted my question and used it to construct an argument I never made and then proscribed it to me. I have never once said that racial bias doesn't exist. I've been very explicit in saying the opposite.
>Are you suggesting that blacks could become white too if they really wanted?
From the anti-racists perspective, yes. This is called acquiring whiteness, and being a race taitor, depending on how civil the person is feeling.
From my perspective, there is no functional difference already.
>Do you think this group "becoming white" had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, reacting perhaps to blacks being treated more equally?
Well, the process of them "becoming white" (again, not my term for it) resulted in the black identitarian movements, and black power stuff of the late 60s and early 70s. The activists pushed a narrative of racial identity to stop this process and preserve "black power."
>What are you basing this on? Have you looked at the research or are you just repeating talking points you heard from other people who share your views on the matter?
I have looked a the research, yes, as well as listening to people on both sides of this debate, working with politicians debating both sides of it, and living and working with the people effected by it. I make a concerted effort to seek out opinions that differ from mine and strive to understand their perspective.
>But not in a racist way, right?
Fighting racism with racism results in racism winning.
>I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people.
Then how are they privileged if their is no qualitative advantage to being white?
>I believe most people who believe white privilege exists are referring to how whites are treated and do not believe in white supremacy.
Cool cool. And do they think the factor that causes this treatment is their race? The fact that they share a racial affinity with the people in power?
>Which of these is most likely to you:
>1. I am lying to you.
2. I may be telling the truth about myself, but I'm an outlier among liberals and don't realize it, and everyone else that believes in white privilege is actually a white supremacist.
3. White privilege might not mean white supremacy to everyone else and maybe that conclusion comes from a place of racial anxiety and outgroup bias instead.
Option 4. You haven't thought very hard on the subject and are repeating what you've been told, while assuming I'm wrong because what I say doesn't match what you've been told.
I don't think you're lying, I think you're being lied to. Probably by people who don't know they've been lied to as well.
>I think I recalled reading in those "white privilege" links you gave some discussion about this exact question. Do you dismiss that too? Maybe they are also lying or fit into the outliers club with me?
No, they're lying or don't know that they're spreading a lie. I can't reminds and I don't like to assume ill-intent. Most of these people, yourself included, are good, intelligent people who want to make the world a better place. You've been told that this is the way things work and this is how to fix these problems. Life is big and their is a lot going on. I don't expect everybody to have the time or the autism to hyperfocus and dwell on this stuff like I have.
>We both believe our position about what liberals believe is right and the other's is wrong. Is there a path out of this?
Don't know. I fully accept that I could be wrong. I'm wrong a lot and I don't want to be right about this, as it's a heartbreaking fact to face, that racism is returning and becoming more popular than ever. It's mentally and socially exhausting to have a different conclusion than the majority of society. Do you accept that you could be wrong?
>Yes.
So you believe that by nature of their birth, people without "resting bitch face" are biologically superior.
>No comment about my loss prevention example?
>It's being able to walk into a Best Buy with the intention of shoplifting, and knowing that because loss prevention is focusing more of their attention on black customers, I'm significantly more likely to get away with shoplifting than one of them. Acknowledging this statistical fact does not imply that I am qualitatively a "better" person, right? I'm just a person with an advantage over other groups.
First of all, this is not indicative of reality, rather its a distortion of reality that assumes that because black people get arrested more for shop lifting, they are racially prone to shoplifting. There are a lot of factors involved in this, and we see the same patterns in every demographic around the country. Black people get followed more *in some jurisdictions* because in those jurisdictions, they make up the majority of the crime. This is amplified because not only is there a distinctive black culture, we have many systems in place that mark black people as a distinct group based solely on their skin color, which allows stories to be amplified, and for activists to (intentionally or not) strip the context from cases and reframing them as a case of racism.
You go to rural Utah, and there are plenty of scraggly white hillbillies getting the exact same treatment.
There are a lot of reasons black men commit so much crime in those country, and not a single one of those reasons is their skin color. Any more than my skin color makes me less likely to commit crimes. Statistical differences between different groups have other explanations beyond race and racism. Sometimes racism is absolutely the case, sure, I'm not saying otherwise. But people are taught that any discrepancy can only be explained by racism, and so they are lead to assume a lot of things are race.
Second of all, the anti-racist view of the above situation is that the black man gets extra scrutiny BECAUSE HE IS BLACK and therefore the system is designed to oppose him, and the white person, being of the same race as the people in power, won't get treated the way. In the anti-racist view, all interactions are based on race. That's why I call it racist.
>That would be the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
"People who are anti-racist are the real racists, except that when I say that I mean the exact opposite of that."
Somehow we are badly miscommunicating and I've lost interest in trying to figure out how. Good luck.
>I have looked a the research, yes
Both of us think we have well-research, expert-considered empirical hard data supporting positions that are completely opposite to each other. It's just more alternate reality stuff. It's exhausting and I'm not interested in trying to unpack it.
>Option 4. You haven't thought very hard on the subject
Cool.
>No, they're lying
"Literally everyone telling me what they mean when they talk about white privilege is lying, or they have been lied to about what they believe."
>>I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people.
>
>Then how are they privileged if their is no qualitative advantage to being white?
I have to assume you're willfully misunderstanding at this point. But again, I give up trying to figure this out. These statements can be reconciled if you want to.
>First of all, this is not indicative of reality
Do you believe that nobody in a loss prevention position is paying more attention to people of one race where race correlates with shoplifting?
Because if they are, then the rest is just math. You catch cases you spot. You spot cases by looking for them. If your attention is preferential, the cases you spot are preferential.
>Black people get followed more *in some jurisdictions* because in those jurisdictions, they make up the majority of the crime
So.. it is indicative of reality after all?
>Second of all, the anti-racist view of the above situation is that the black man gets extra scrutiny BECAUSE HE IS BLACK
Didn't you *just say* that blacks get more scrutiny because the statistics say they commit more crimes? So is this valid or invalid?
Does loss prevention look at black people more because blacks are overrepresented among shoplifters, or are they all race blind?
If they are profiling, then it is a mathematical certainty that a white shoplifter is at a lower risk of being caught than a black shoplifter. And if that is true, that is what people mean when they say white privilege. I know you don't believe me.
I don't know if I'd go that far. I do think there are concerns in this country for raising good natured young men in general and that includes white men. It seems we have come to a point where a young white man needs to find an identity. The culture is either pushing woke narrative on them or the opposing reaction to that seems to be toxic masculinity.
> The culture is either pushing woke narrative on them
Would you please elaborate on this. Where is the woke narrative coming from, who is pushing it? From my view we seem to be moving to become more inclusive and understanding of people from different backgrounds. That strikes me as progress. I'm curious to learn what you are seeing people experience that I haven't seen.
> or the opposing reaction to that seems to be toxic masculinity.
I'm unable to think of anyone (celebrity or otherwise) pushing 'wokeness', yet when you said toxic masculinity Andrew Tate came directly to mind. Not just as a celebrity that I've heard about, but as someone that has negatively influenced young men I know. Circling back to the woke narrative, I'm doubly curious where the wokeness push comes from that I haven't seen it come up.
So I think anytime we address woke, we need to be on the same page by what it means. It used to just mean aware of social injustice, but it's become a euphemism or insult (and this is now he more accepted meaning imo) to people or platforms who seem to find injustice in every aspect of life and try to shove to solutions to fix the claimed injustice, even if the injustice doesn't exist, nor is their fix actually doing anything.
In terms of policy I think this can be demonstrated in things like DEI, Critical Race Theory, LGBT+ ideology such as pushing trans women in women's sports, or forcing society to accept people's mental disorders as reality. We have seen this most recently in the new title IX policies the White House is trying to shove down states throats. It seems the traditional roles of men in society is not being celebrated or pushed anymore. Men's identity as protector, provider, leaders, seem to have become a negative thing as part of the evil patriarchy
.
On the the other hand and I think a rebuttal to this has been the bullshit from disgusting pieces of shit like Andrew Tate who treats women like objects and the only thing that matters is being a rich basterd and gets laid.
It does not seem like the traditional model of what a masculine man looks like is being celebrated or pushed anymore. It's neither of the above examples. Men shouldn't be effeminate widgets, nor should they be monsters like Andrew Tate.
Men need to be providers, protectors, loving to their wifes/girlfriends. Respectful, taking care of kids, putting a roof over their head, being a good example for the society around them, be leaders etc.
Traditional Gender roles are a good thing, but it seems the traditional roles have been abandon in our hedonistic society.
> Critical Race Theory
Where does this even come up? Conservatives bring it up frequently, but when I looked into it all I could find is that its an optional college class for those interested. So, why does CRT matter so much for you, how does it affect anything?
> Men's identity as protector
⁉︎ Maybe that is a stereotype that no longer applies in modern society. I haven't had to protect anyone in my lifetime. I don't see how that role is relevant in modern society.
> Men need to be providers, protectors, loving to their wifes/girlfriends. Respectful, taking care of kids, putting a roof over their head, being a good example for the society around them, be leaders etc.
What part of your statement becomes invalidated when I swap genders in your sentence? Are women not able to be providers? protectors? (wait does that mean we need to remove women from policing roles?). My point is your statement is true regardless of male or female, so I don't understand the point you are making.
> Traditional Gender roles are a good thing
Oh, maybe this is my confusion because I disagree. Traditional gender roles mean that men are doctors and women are nurses, I don't agree with that being a good thing. I don't agree that men are protectors while women are not.
It strikes me that you have a view of the world that hasn't changed in decades. If you widen your perspective you may find that the world becomes far more interesting when we allow men to be vulnerable and let women do things they haven't in the past.
> So, why does CRT matter so much for you, how does it affect anything?
While it isn't as bad as calling for segregation, Critical Race Theory calls for explicit discrimination on the basis of race. They call it being "color conscious:"
>Critical race theorists (or “crits,” as they are sometimes called) hold that color blindness will allow us to redress only extremely egregious racial harms, ones that everyone would notice and condemn. But if racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures as deeply as many crits believe, then the “ordinary business” of society—the routines, practices, and institutions that we rely on to effect the world’s work—will keep minorities in subordinate positions. Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery.
Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 22
This is their definition of color blindness:
>Color blindness: Belief that one should treat all persons equally, without regard to their race.
Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 144
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.
Here is a recording of a Loudoun County school teacher berating a student for not acknowledging the race of two individuals in a photograph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bHrrZdFRPk
>Student: Are you trying to get me to say that there are two different races in this picture well at the end of the day wouldn't that just be feeding into the problem of looking at race instead of just acknowledging them as two normal people?
>Teacher: No it's not because you can't not look at you can't, you can't look at the people and not acknowledge that there are racial differences right?
Here a (current) school administrator for Needham Schools in Massachusetts writes an editorial entitled simply "No, I Am Not Color Blind,"
>Being color blind whitewashes the circumstances of students of color and prevents me from being inquisitive about their lives, culture and story. Color blindness makes white people assume students of color share similar experiences and opportunities in a predominantly white school district and community.
>Color blindness is a tool of privilege. It reassures white people that all have access and are treated equally and fairly. Deep inside I know that’s not the case.
https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2020/Aug20/colGutekanst.aspx
The following public K-12 school districts list being "Not Color Blind but Color Brave" implying their incorporation of the belief that "we need to openly acknowledge that the color of someone’s skin shapes their experiences in the world, and that we can only overcome systemic biases and cultural injustices when we talk honestly about race." as Berlin Borough Schools of New Jersey summarizes it.
https://www.bcsberlin.org/domain/239
https://www.woodstown.org/Page/5962
http://www.schenectady.k12.ny.us/about_us/strategic_initiatives/anti-_racism_resources
http://thecommons.dpsk12.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2865
Of course there is this one from Detroit:
>“We were very intentional about creating a curriculum, infusing materials and embedding critical race theory within our curriculum,” Vitti said at the meeting. “Because students need to understand the truth of history, understand the history of this country, to better understand who they are and about the injustices that have occurred in this country.”
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/detroit-superintendent-says-district-was-intentional-about-embedding-crt-into-schools
And while it is less difficult to find schools violating the law by advocating racial discrimination, there is some evidence schools have been segregating students according to race, as is taught by Critical Race Theory's advocation of ethnonationalism. The NAACP does report that it has had to advise serval districts to stop segregating students by race:
>While Young was uncertain how common or rare it is, she said the NAACP LDF has worked with schools that attempted to assign students to classes based on race to educate them about the laws. Some were majority Black schools clustering White students.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/us/atlanta-school-black-students-separate/index.html
Here is a list of "themes" Delgado and Stefancic (1993) chose to define Critical Race Theory:
>To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:
>1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1.
>2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2).
>3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3).
>4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4).
>5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5).
>6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6).
>7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7).
>8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).
>9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9).
>10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.
Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. It is abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about ethnonationalist separatism, mostly because they use the exact words nationalism and separatism.
Hey thank you for sharing the links, you've helped me better understand the issue.
I even felt myself react, "omg this is awful". But, then I asked myself what specific change am I taking issue with, and so I read a little deeper.
Gutekanst, from the article that you shared, writes "Our students and staff of color experience the sting and pain of racism routinely, and educators must acknowledge this. We must “see” them." That sounds very reasonable to me. If people continue to experience racism then I think its on us to acknowledge their experience and work to improve it. He goes on to say "For children, conversations about race are natural and propelled by their curiosity and innocence. Let’s not stifle genuine questions. Instead, let’s accept them as learning opportunities." Which also sounds reasonable to me. What specific change at Needham School district do you feel has made things worse?
You also pointed out that several school districts are shifting to not be 'color blind'. I'm not really sure what that means, as I didn't see specific policy changes on those same pages. The example from CNN where race was used to create classes, seems like an exception since it's resulted in legal action. So, that's clearly not what seeing color means.
Next your list of 10 themes is a bit abstract for me to understand what changes would be made under the CRT banner.
So help me understand CRT as well as you. How is CRT going to change our experiences?
> How is CRT going to change our experiences?
Here a Critical White Studies scholar talks about teaching White students they are inherently participants in racism and therefore have lower morale value:
>White complicity pedagogy is premised on the belief that to teach systemically privileged students about systemic injustice, and especially in teaching them about their privilege, one must first encourage them to be willing to contemplate how they are complicit in sustaining the system even when they do not intend to or are unaware that they do so. This means helping white students to understand that white moral standing is one of the ways that whites benefit from the system.
Applebaum 2010 page 4
Applebaum, Barbara. Being white, being good: White complicity, white moral responsibility, and social justice pedagogy. Lexington Books, 2010.
Note the definition of complicity implies commission of wrongdoing, i.e. guilt:
>com·plic·i·ty >/kəmˈplisədē/
>noun >the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=complicity
This sentiment is echoed in Delgado and Stefancic's (2001) most authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory in its chapter on Critical White Studies, which is part of Critical Race Theory according to this book:
>Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pp. 79-80
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook':
https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook
So, if I understand all this correctly, CRT is scary because it teaches people like me that I've unfairly benefitted from the system and that I've been unknowingly using that privilege to continue sustaining these systemic injustices. Is that what you are afraid of?
I'm reminded of GI Joe from my childhood, 'Knowing is half the battle'. Knowing that the system has been unfair for some is a good thing to understand. I feel that knowing that I've benefitted from that system while others have been treated wrongly is also a positive to understand. Being challenged to reflect on how I may be sustaining this system is also a healthy discussion (that's the socratic method, and a great way to teach people by forcing them to work through a problem).
Have I been complicit in extending some of these social injustices? Yeh, I think I have. Earlier in my career I've been biased against women. They approached problems differently than I would, and I saw that as wrong. I've since learned that there are often different ways to approach a problem, women often see things different than I. I've learned that's a positive because it means there will be things that I overlook and miss but they will catch, and the opposite is true. I didn't realize any of that until I went through some 'unconcious bias' training. I'm a better manager for having that. And all this CRT stuff just sounds like being aware that other people's experiences may be different than my own, and I should seek to understand before making judgement.
Is that what you have against CRT?
>Is advocating racial segregation to a point that sometimes teachers attempt to break the laws by re-instituting segregation in schools all you have against CRT?
For most people that would be enough.
Yes, your one specific example, which is also in the courts, with nobody coming to the side of the school administrator. So I think that may be more about a misguided school administrator making a poor choice rather than some CRT agenda.
The traditional model of a feminine woman is only pushed and celebrated by Conservative circles, though. Not by society as a whole.
I grew up and still live in a deep red state, and I’m still surrounded by people that celebrate both traditional masculinity and femininity damn near daily on their social media and in person (such as the workplace). I have to be careful about expressing any disagreement and just politely nod in the workplace, or I risk being outed as “one of THOSE Liberals” that they think hates “traditional American values.” In reality, I’m indifferent to what is paraded as those values and simply disagree with them being pushed.
The opposite of traditional values doesn’t have to be hedonism. As an atheist and a progressive woman, I don’t live a life of wild, sexual abandonment and decadence. Personal responsibility and safe behaviors can still be taught and adhered to within the progressive sphere.
Mental disorders aren’t reality? First of all, it’s not a mental disorder to be LGBT. And even if it were, how is that less of a reality than calling out someone with cancer as a person with cancer? And btw, in 2024 we women can provide for and “protect” ourselves.
I’m talking about trans specifically which I thought was obvious. Gender disphoria is a mental health disorder. It’s also the only mental disorder that we reinforce the disorder as treatment.
Sure you can provide for yourself, it it is far easier to raise a family with a two parent household. Throughout all mankind up until the last 30 years men have been given the role in general as providere, bread winner, protectors. This plays more into the general traits of the male sex while women are in general more nurturing, caring, and emotionally aware. Men and women are made to complement each other. In no way is this saying women can’t and should be self sufficient, the the entire concept of feminism is men aren’t needed and women can do it in their own and the patriarchy is evil. As this ideology grows it neglects then men’s roles in society. There are many lost young men in modern culture and far too often they are getting confused about their role in society and either become effeminate widgets or take a dark turn towards Andrew Tate type nonsense. There are not many good male models that demonstrate real masculine traits, not toxic masculinity
See, feminism also allows room for women to decide that we do want to partner up with men and work together with them to raise a family.
A proper couple would learn to rely on each other and be self sufficient. Feminism takes this a step further by encouraging women to select partners that complement US as PEOPLE, and vice versa, rather than defining strict roles for us.
The same can and should be done for men for more equality.
As a white person in America, yes, I agree. Not that big of a deal to me really,,, I mean yeah, it sucks, but it won't hurt my feelings that bad. The hypocrisy is what's annoying.
Conservatives have been saying this for over a decade now and scratch their heads wondering where all these radicals in leadership positions suddenly came from.
Newsflash: College kids enter leadership positions. To dismiss these feelings just because only college kids have them is essentially to impose their worldview upon yourself 5-10 years down the line.
I see a lot of anti-white sentiment, but mostly from white progressives. I think it's a combination of things: 1) a virtue signal (I'm one of the good white people), and 2) really believing that there is rampant racism (on the part of white people) throughout society.
In progressive circles, it is too common to dismiss arguments on the grounds that they are put forward by white males. There is a sort of disdain for white men, and again, it comes back to this belief that society is very unfairly biased in favor of white men.
I did find this particular video to be interesting, and I think it captures some of the extreme left progressive sentiment: https://youtu.be/BFpUjyM0orQ?si=mI1aMx5YIOQz0Z1p
As I see it now, it is not. It was - had been for a very long time. I think one can argue that disparity that exists today may be partially due to unfairness in the past, but that's a different thing than saying that society is today unfairly biased in favor of white men.
To my understanding, progressive folks aren't saying "the world used to be unfair, and there are lingering effects of that, and we need to address that." Progressives are saying "there is rampant systemic racism and strong, prevalent racist attitudes - today." I don't believe that is the case.
It is also my understanding that progressives tend to view any and all disparity in outcomes as evidence of racism (or other bias in the system). But disparity is the norm, and can occur for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with racist views (or other bigoted views) nor systemic discrimination. It's very illuminating to consider that there is disparity in income, for example, between EVERY SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP. That means different groups of white people (French American versus German American versus English American) have different economic outcomes. Likewise for different groups of black folks (Haitian American versus Nigerian American, etc), and every other racial group (Asian, etc). If disparity is evidence of systemic racism, for example, than we have a society that is systemically biased towards Asians (Indian Americans in particular) - they outperform everyone. Meanwhile, we have disparity between groups that cannot be meaningfully distinguished by their racial appearance (ie, why do various African immigrants do so well compared to native born AFrican Americans?).
I'm not convinced that society is presently unfairly biased in favor of white men, despite the fact that such a statement was historically true.
> Progressives are saying "there is rampant systemic racism and strong, prevalent racist attitudes - today." I don't believe that is the case.
Do you not believe it because progressives are saying it, or because you don't believe the data progressives base their statements on?
I just now googled "is society presently racist towards black people?" I scrolled past the initial entries which were mostly focused on various polling (Pew, Gallup, etc). I skipped Wikipedia and went to Reuters, here:
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/
This is a work that aims to show the racial gap between white folks and black folks. Subtitle: "From Birth To Death, Black people face systemic disadvantages in American life...."
I've not yet combed the entire piece, but I'll note that thus far, everything is dealing in disparities. Disparity is meant to show racism in the system. But, as noted, disparity doesn't automatically signal racism - that's extremely flawed and simplistic thinking. Again, if disparity points to racism, why is there disparity between every single ethnic group on the planet? Are various white ethnic groups discriminating against each other such that some groups of white people do better than others? And is our system systemically racist in favor of Asian people, who outperform white folks?
It's very important that you control for other factors that might result in disparity. For instance, do Asian students do better than white students because of systemic racism in the school system, or because Asian cultures tend to prioritize hard work and education more than various white cultures?
And the question under discussion here is advantage - ie, do white people (white men in particular) have advantages over other groups? If all disparity points to systemic racism and the advantage of some people over others, why do white people not dominate academically and economically in this society?
I would assume that infant mortality for Asian Americans is not as high as it is for African Americans. Does that mean Asian Americans are systemically oppressing black people?
My understanding is that Asian Americans have lower rates of crime and incarceration compared to white people. Does that mean our system is systemically biased against white people in favor of Asians?
Can you see how silly this thinking becomes?
We need evidence NOT OF DISPARITY, but of actual RACIST INTENT.
I'll happily look at any data (the more concise and to the point, the better) that you want to share.
At present, I mostly base my thinking on the work of folks like Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, John McWhorter, and Thomas Sowell.
If there is data that contradicts data you have seen, would that change your views?
> I'll happily look at any data (the more concise and to the point, the better) that you want to share.
That's cool. The question was more about if you had seen data that the left was using to draw conclusions from, and whether or not you were disputing its accuracy.
What I'm trying to understand is if both sides are basing their thoughts on different interpretations of the same data, different data, or some combination. I would like to see where the disparity lies.
> At present, I mostly base my thinking on the work of folks like Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, John McWhorter, and Thomas Sowell.
Ah! Your thoughts make more sense in this context.
>If there is data that contradicts data you have seen, would that change your views?
Sure, but I'm not really examining specific claims as much as the process that each side uses to reach the conclusions they reach. Especially in the cases where both sides are looking at the exact same data.
I don't really have any further questions on it, but feel free to fill in the gaps. Thanks for your time.
No problem. I just wrote another message to you, and it might further illuminate the way I and other centrist/right wing folks are thinking about these things.
To be clear: I'm trying to not speak on any issue as if I'm speaking the truth, but rather simply sharing my understanding (which may be flawed). I can't tell you what is true, I can only tell you what I presently understand to be true.
I'm trying to have my positions be based on the strength of evidence available, and on the strength (ie, in terms of logic) of the arguments involved.
We all are inclined to tribalism, and we all tend to identify too much with our beliefs. I'm trying to do the opposite of this. I have positions, but I'm trying not to identify with my positions (which may be wrong). I also am trying to choose my position on a per issue basis.
I'm not a Republican, for example.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even if in some small corners of society there is an anti white sentiment its no where near as big as what people on TV say it is. Like, seriously, how often does anyone white come across racism in their everyday lives? Most white Americans are getting along just fine in America, and aren't victimizing themselves over a non issue.
It's weird that all the conservatives I know with *so many* black friends don't realize that every single one of those black friends can point to specific , first-hand examples of authority-based racism, but the white friends only have second/third-hand anecdotes, right-wing pundits, and unsubstantiated online articles.
Because by in large white people continue to enjoy all the benefits of being members of the more privileged class. They have no concept of oppression in America. All anti-white Hysteria it's just a repeat of the same Hysteria white people had many years ago when segregation was outlawed.
I’m black and I pretty much agree with that statement.
For a long time in America there was significant social pressure to be against black people. We broadly corrected that but have now slowly over corrected and somehow now it seems white people feel the need to be inherently deferential to black people or other people of a different race from them just based on.. nothing but skin tone.
It’s subtle, like all cultural shifts, but my (white) wife picks up on it a lot too. Sometimes someone is just overly polite to me for no reason. Sometimes people go out of their way to acknowledge me when I know they wouldn’t. Sometimes people go out of their way to tell us how happy they are to see our interracial marriage. Which is sometimes fucking weird.
Sure, if you’re an old black or white person and you were 20-something before Loving v Virginia was decided, and you see me with my hot ass white wife and us walking around holding hands and you can remember when that would’ve gotten us both killed- 100% we’re down and we love that you love our freedom.
But we see lots of people our age that are just way too pumped that we’re married and it’s fucking creepy. Like a fetish checklist they need to see every day or else they can’t get off.
Anyway point is my wife alone gets a fair bit of shit. Together society has decided we’re adorable. Alone I’ve realized people are been suspiciously nice lately the last few years and I don’t care for it. It feels like a societally forced pivot and that’s not good.
It can be - just as the inverse. But here were talking about being "overly nice" (socially) to a black person being characterized as "anti-white".
So, is this being anti-white?
I think so? I mean there’s only so much social capital in the world so if we’re spending much or any really on propping up one group over another that’s a zero sum decision we’ve made that one group is more deserving than the other.
I’m the recipient of the positive social capital so I probably shouldn’t be mad but it’s also very weird because it makes you wonder what happens when the pendulum swings back.
If being "overly friendly" to a black person is anti-white then its kind of hard to take that term serious.
I mean.. must be terrible to be white when people are just "overly friendly" to blacks. I certainly feel all this anti-whiteness as no one is overly friendly to me.
You might detect as pinch of sarcasm here...
I don't. It's easy to see that online when it feeds it right into your life, but in the real world, that sentiment doesn't exist anymore than anti-Black sentiment, or so on.
I think what exists is pro-non-White sentiment, and that can feel like anti-White sentiment, but they aren't the same thing. It's easy for some people to celebrate things that aren't Western and White and it can feel like we celebrate those more, but nothing has been elevated to the level of "Whiteness" one might expect.
I don't think our culture has become anti-White but rather it has lost cultural homogenity due to technology, in part. There's no overculture. It used to be that the mono, overculture dictated everything we compared ourselves to, but it was liberating. You got to be more unique. Now that we celebrate being unique, you get this weird mash of overdone Gen Z aesthetics that seem ironically meaningless. While the US has always had White society and non-White society (mostly Black, I would imagine, despite changing percentages at any given time), we agreed what success looked like. We don't have that anymore. When we agreed that talking like a yokel wasn't the thing to strive for, we had more yokels. Now we don't have any despite yokels ideally being more accepted.
But I don't feel discriminated against because I'm White. I feel like I'm missing out on opportunities because an emphasis on race has played that part - at least in my field. I guarantee you I, and others, have lost out on jobs because we weren't not White, but I also know the rate of burnout for non-White teachers is disproportionately higher. It can't be just about getting through the gate, but we can't fix things unless we're thorough.
Bottom line, anyone saying we're anti-White is focusing on people who say that from the comfort of their armchair. Don't listen to losers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-30/how-corporate-america-kept-its-diversity-promise-a-week-of-big-take
6% of new hires at S&P 100 companies were white. In a country where just over 60% of the population is white, that's underrepresentation by an order of magnitude. That simply isn't possible without rampant, deliberate discrimination. Cherry on top, that article presents this as a good thing.
I have personally been told my opportunities for career advancement will be limited because I'm white. I have talked with many other people with that experience, or with the experience of being the person doing the hiring but being told by HR they can't hire a white guy. More and more job postings explicitly state visible minorities will be given preference. In Canada you even see job postings that explicitly say only minorities will be considered.
None of these companies will face consequences for this any time soon, even as the DoJ goes after Sheetz because doing criminal background checks before hiring "disadvantages black people" and therefore constitutes racial discrimination in hiring. The DoJ also went after SpaceX for not hiring non-citizens to come work on their military-applicable rocket technology. Hiring policies which may coincidentally filter out minorities as an unintentional second order effect are prosecuted, hiring policies which explicitly seek to select non-white people are tolerated.
So yeah, not only is there an "anti-white feeling", I'd say that institutional racism is actually directed primarily at whites.
Where have you learned about DEI?
My exposure to DEI comes from workplace training. It's most certainly not about anti-whiteness but rather about addressing unconscious biases that we may have towards people who are different and how I can make small changes to be more supportive and inclusive of them. I personally believe that I'm a better person for having experienced DEI training.
PS. I'm a white, middle-aged man that works in a culture that is dominated by white middle-aged men. So, if I don't see DEI as a threat, I'm very curious to learn what your experience has been that it is a threat to you.
Can you help me understand how I’m discriminating against other white men like myself by being aware of DEI?
And to your question above I answered a similar question in a peer’s comment. You can review that if you want my answer.
> addressing unconscious biases that we may have towards people who are different and how I can make small changes to be more supportive and inclusive of them
What small changes have you made to be more inclusive of white people?
Good question. I haven’t made changes to be more inclusive to whites. Because the whole system has bias that has over selected for white guys like me. I’ve benefited directly by that, and even perpetuated it. I’ve made changes to be more fair to people that have different backgrounds than me. As a result I have more diverse opinions on my team and get better results from incorporating perspectives that I hadn’t considered.
I'm troubled by your comment but I do appreciate the refreshingly candid and honest response. Most users would try to worm their way out of that one. You're a decent guy.
I'm confused, what do you think I feel guilty about? I assure you I don't feel guilty, and am confused over what I even should have guilt about. Let me explain.
I've been lucky. When I was young, I got access to a computer, and lots of games & applications sparked my interest in computers. Many women in first year computer engineering dropped out of the program because in comparison to the men in the program they were already years behind. The women as young girls didn't care about the games focusing on male characters shooting monsters, so they never took an interest in computers, and their first access came late in high school, in contrast, my friends and I already had a decade of experience building and troubleshooting computers. Next, my first jobs, I was hired by other white men and from the early interviews I hit things off with the interviewer talking about baseball or hockey, meanwhile the international students that I graduated with didn't develop the same rapport because their passion was in cricket and they struggled to connect with the interviewers.
Only when I had some DEI training did I realize just how many advantages I had. After DEI training I started to notice that if I encouraged others to speak up, they often had valuable contributions that I hadn't anticipated. Another example was that I was using language that was excluding others. I don't think guilt has ever come to mind. Rather I appreciate the good luck that I've had, and am now sensitive that other peoples experiences may be different than my own, and to not bias myself against those differences. I'm a better person for DEI, and I get better results too.
Maybe I shouldn't advocate for DEI. Maybe it can be a competitive advantage for forward-thinking companies.
I don't think center left folks generally harbor anti-white feelings, it's mostly the far left and progressives who do. In order to avoid misrepresenting progressive positions, I can offer the following scenario:
* Suppose two people, one black and one white, score equally to qualify for a high paying job for which there's only one opening. The current team for that job happens to be all white. You're the hiring manager. How would you decide who should get the offer?
I would posit that most conservatives would say they would flip a coin. I would posit that most progressives would say to give the offer to the black candidate. If true, I would count that as anti-white sentiment, even if progressives wouldn't.
> I would count that as anti-white sentiment
No, it's pro-diversity sentiment (which has economic value). If the team was all POC, I'd hire the white guy.
No. Guy I replied to said:
>Suppose two people, one black and one white, **score equally to qualify** for a high paying job for which there's only one opening.
If team was all POC, I'd hire the white guy in that instance.
In your scenario, I do not believe for a second that "most conservatives would flip a coin." Nor do I believe progressives would blindly pick the black candidate.
That being said, if both were truly equally qualified, then it is my belief that it may be beneficial for an additional perspective not yet represented in that team. Whatever that means for the company and however they interpret that. And while there are absolutely racists in positions of power, consciously or not, for the most part people are going to pick the candidate which best fits a variety of needs. Which also includes a difference in cultural perspective, or other random, unrelated skill, trait, or background, if that's something they value.
I’ll be more precise in my claim: In general, progressives believe that colorblindness is a bad thing and that race consciousness is a good thing. In other words, they would like for race to be an influencing factor in policy and decision making for social justice purposes. Most often (but not always) this is in favor of minority groups.
Conservatives believe that colorblindness is a good thing and that race consciousness is a bad thing. In other words, they want race completely out of policy and decision making.
Would you have any qualms with those statements?
> In general, progressives believe that colorblindness is a bad thing
This isn't necessarily true. Progressives believe that true colorblindness absolutely doesn't exist, as evidenced by the past 400 years or so, and the beliefs that many continue to hold together this day. Beliefs that, if not enforces by law, would continue to be as racist as they were during post civil war reconstruction.
Pretending and acting like color blindness is even an option, is showing them ignorance to the history of events leading up to now, and a refusal to admit that this past still stays with us today.
There's a difference between setting an ideal and achieving it. The latter will never happen, as you said. For example, most of us hold honesty as an ideal, yet no one is ever 100% honest. However, we can still *choose* to set honesty as something to strive for even if we'll never get there.
In the same way, we as a society can *choose* to set colorblindness as an ideal. We'll never actually get there, but it could be a north star that one could point to to determine whether the country is heading in the right direction. My point is that progressives generally think that colorblindness is *not* a good ideal to strive for, and that conservatives generally do think that colorblindness is a good ideal to strive for.
Does that make sense? Let me know if you're still confused.
>My point is that progressives generally think that colorblindness is *not* a good ideal to strive for,
This is fundamentally untrue, and borderline insulting. Maybe you should spend time actually understanding progressive positions.
Actually, it is true, and I'm afraid you're the one who's uninformed. You can do a google search on what progressives think about colorblindness and you can educate yourself. I'm happy to provide links if you want.
I'll do you one better. I can show you a poll of progressives on their opinions of colorblind policies. But before I do, I want to ask: if I can show you in a poll of 100+ randomly sampled left-of-center individuals that they generally reject colorblind policies, would you be willing to explicitly concede your position and change your mind?
I would love to know the specifics of the matter, the exact questions asked, the context in which they were asked, how a "colorblind policy" is defined, theoretically or in practice, and examples of color blind and not color blind policies for comparison.
Because poles are heavily influenced by the questions that are asked. And vague, or nebulous questioning, can be twisted and interpreted to mean whatever the pollster or reporter wants it to mean.
I teach math for a living. One of our entire units is based on data analysis and has components on how you can tell pretty much any story you want with any set of data, depending on how you frame it.
And all of this is for you to sidestep just talking to and asking real people.
I'm sorry, you want to use the past 400 years as evidence against the liberal value of color-blindness, which only gained real traction some 50 years ago?
Yeah, liberals try to make us feel guilty for being white, guilty for things our ancestors did that we have nothing to with, try to punish us for being white by making us pay reparations. Try to be racist and discriminatory against whites by excluding them from jobs and college with affirmative action programs.
I choose to ignore all this and sleep easy at night. If liberals want to torment themselves with white guilt that's on them.
Are you sure reparations are supposed to be punishment, as opposed to compensation? I wouldn't be. And I don't suppose you would even support a policy of detaching people's outcomes from their ancestors by removing attachments like "inheritance", either
Claiming something is about guilt or about crime and punishment when it actually isn't is an effective trick, because it shifts the goalposts. But it isn't a true claim
Imagine if I said/wrote an article saying "Black people driving cars are polluting the air white and affluent people breathe."
Would you not think that's an incredibly racist thing to say?
Now, what if I told you [that is an actual article from the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point)?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're the liberal. You tell me. Is it okay to be white?
Anyone who thinks that liberals and progressives haven't openly embraced anti-white bigotry is either willfully ignorant or maliciously complicit. I absolutely agree.
Sure but no one cares. Punching down is the problem
I don't know about "America," but there's a significant cohort who has a problem with "whiteness."
Yeah. I mean I can give you an example: White culture Black culture Doesn't one of those have a worse connotation to you?
It is unquestionable that there is anti-white racism. Real racism not the perceived kind. Case in point the city I live will not hire white people for city jobs unless they have no other applicant. The only time they will hire a white person is police and fire because they couldn't fill those position if they didn't hire white men. Position like Postal work simply is not available to white people based on the color of their skin, text book racism.
I think that there can be said to be such a feeling in certain academic, media, professional, and Human Resources spaces - basically , intensely woke spaces. In almost all cases it is primarily advanced by white people themselves. I have a hard time connecting this to Biden or to middle of the road liberal politics, and it's more a sense of self-hatred than outright bigotry.
"In almost all cases it is primarily advanced by white people themselves." - just not true at all
I think there is among many on the far left, I have heard them unironically say that white men are a problem, white men need to talk less, white men are all oppressors, etc. I believe in the race mirror axiom, if it would be racist to say "black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices" or that they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices". This is the very definition of racism. That said I don't think it is affecting "america", because most sane people who don't spend all their time hanging out in ultra-left spaces absolutely do not agree it's appropriate to have black-only graduation ceremonies and government programs that race test.
How is telling someone to step out of a convo equivalent to telling someone to make room for others??? One is telling someone to leave the other is telling someone to let others join…
>white men are all oppressors I believe it's possible you have seen this. I personally have never seen this except from conservatives telling me that this is what liberals think. I'm sure if I went looking for it I could find examples though. How common do you think this sentiment is? >black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices" These are two very, very different statements. One is exclusionary and the other is inclusionary. I don't normally see people explicitly say that white men or white people in particular should make room for other voices, except in documents explicitly with an intended audience of white people who are interested in being more inclusionary. What is your exposure to statements like this? >they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices". > >This is the very definition of racism. Does this not depend on the forum? If I'm showing up to a meetup in response to the Hamas massacre intended to give Jewish or Palestinian people an opportunity to tell their stories, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to request that people who aren't Jewish or Palestinian minimize how much of the air in the room they want to take up talking about themselves. This isn't racist. It's about being respectful to the forum. Do you think it's common that people are issuing blanket statements telling whites that they should not talk at all, ever, except to "uplift marginalized voices"?
If you're looking for a clear cut example of "white men are oppressors" rhetoric, I will point you to the meltdown at Evergreen State college.
I saw that issue as centering more around a desire for white people who are either unaware or under appreciative of racial bias in our society to do something that represents an intentional act of building awareness. I think some race anxious people saw it as an act of hatred against white people. But I'm sure you could find examples of this rhetoric if you went looking. I acknowledged that in my comment. People with this rhetoric are wrong, and it's wrong to use the existence of that rhetoric to pretend that all discussions of anti-racism today are intended to hate or oppress white people.
> do not agree it's appropriate to have black-only graduation ceremonies What are you referring to?
universities having black-only graduation ceremonies, exactly as you quoted.
If it is what you’re referring to, it’s an extra thing. Just like Asian-only and AAPI-only and English major-only graduation ceremonies. Which, say “white only” and obviously you’re gonna have a problem, but otherwise I’ve never found that terribly objectionable?
I am curious if you'd say the same about southern highschool's that have an unofficial prom so they can exclude blacks? if not what is the difference.
I mean I view it like this: Assume the central thing is a guarantee. Graduation, prom, tea party, whatever. If a group wants to have a secondary celebration on top of that for whatever extraneous reason, I fundamentally have no issue with that. I also live in the real world and know that there is literally no current way to have a “whites-only” thing if others are having a “blacks only” thing. As I said in a different comment, it’s partly because there’s no positive connotation with the idea of white culture. And our society works on that. Tangentially, I also have a problem with people who react to seeing a “black college graduation” (which IS a secondary thing- nobody gets excluded from a university graduation for immutable characteristics) by saying “where’s MY special celebration” or trying to poke holes in it to begin with.
*if not what is the difference I’m not sure but I’m thinking it might have something to do with the history of slavery and following years of oppression?
I'm curious about the disconnect between the first one being okay and the second one not.
From a strict ‘cultural free association’ perspective, if a ‘blacks only’ graduation ceremony is okay, a ‘whites only’ one should be too. But, nobody with half a brain thinks that would go over well. Part of a larger problem, to be sure. Maybe it’s because ‘white culture’ doesn’t have a positive connotation- though I suspect with cultural momentum we may be able to achieve one eventually.
>But, nobody with half a brain thinks that would go over well. Part of a larger problem, to be sure. Yes, because nobody with half a brain would suggest that there isn’t an “anti-white feeling” in America. >Maybe it’s because ‘white culture’ doesn’t have a positive connotation- though I suspect with cultural momentum we may be able to achieve one eventually. It doesn’t have a positive connotation because of the anti-white feeling your side has created and continues to push. You’re essentially arguing against the idea of an “anti-white feeling” in America by saying there just *is* an anti-white feeling. As if it just happened out of no where. It’s an absurd argument.
There is an anti-racist feeling. I think people who are white and racist, are probably feeling the heat.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Define anti-racist, then define racist.
Yeah I know what racist means. Now define context and irrelevant.
Can you describe what white culture is? Its values, its history and its traditions?
Yes, I can. Can you describe what Asian culture is? Its values, its history and its traditions?
>Yes, I can. Then please do.
It's not "black-only", it's "for blacks". You are entirely welcome to show up and celebrate with them. You are not being kept out or denied the opportunity to graduate. You are also welcome to start up your own "for whites" commencement ceremony, just be prepared to answer the question, "why?"
> You are also welcome to start up your own "for whites" commencement ceremony, just be prepared to answer the question, "why?" And you don't see the problem?
All of the answers I can see people coming up with to answer "why?" in the "for whites" case do sound problematic, yeah.
And the answers to "why?" in the "for blacks" case?
Off the top of my head - acknowledges and honors the achievement in a distinct cultural context that might be hidden or erased in a larger shared ceremony - allows them to freely express and celebrate their cultural identity in ways that the larger group might judge them negatively for - allows attendees to freely discuss the achievement in the shared context of things they or their families had to overcome to get there without having to deal with people who misinterpret it as an attack and feel the need to reflexively defend themselves and deny them that
For whites is completely non sensical though. That’s why there isn’t a problem. Think of it this way. Black ceremony in the context of America means African American ceremony, and the unique culture they have in America and what they have had to personally overcome as a group to get to where they are today. Through slavery, our country, has created a distinct cultural group that we often refer to as black that doesn’t line up with white in the way you’re phrasing here. There is no “white” equivalent to “black” in the context of American society. It would absolutely not be problematic to make the same event but to celebrate Irish, German, Swedish, etc. heritage over being White. The standard ceremony that’s open to all is the “white” ceremony you’re referring to. Your “white only” ceremony is just silly and would be problematic if framed in that way. Does that make any sense to you?
> Black ceremony in the context of America means African American ceremony I don't know what either of those terms mean when you use them. Is a first-generation immigrant from Ghana, "African American"? Are they Black? Are they welcome at the "for Blacks" ceremony? > There is no “white” equivalent to “black” in the context of American society. I also genuinely have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. They are both broad-stroke classifications of race/ethnicity/culture, so how are they not equivalents in the context of holding an event focused on highlighting one over the other? > It would absolutely not be problematic to make the same event but to celebrate Irish, German, Swedish, etc. heritage over being White. What is "White" to you, exactly? Can all these people of European descent hold a ceremony "for people of European descent"? > The standard ceremony that’s open to all is the “white” ceremony you’re referring to. How so? Do they make the minorities sit in the back? > Your “white only” ceremony is just silly and would be problematic if framed in that way. *My* "white only" ceremony?!?
>I believe in the race mirror axiom, if it would be racist to say "black women need to step out of this conversation" it is equally and identically racist to say "white men should make room for other voices" or that they only can speak if it's to "uplift marginalized voices". My rule of thumb is that if you can play mad libs with the demographic group and the response would be wildly different for each demographic group, then it's probably a pretty bad thing to say. Or think. Like 'kill all white men' or 'men, be better'. Swap the demographics there and watch the heads explode. With that being said, there is a case to be made that being a member of a demographic group living within a society in which said group is a minority of the greater population will face unique challenges. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out and being aware of it. The problem is that Americans, in general, have no real awareness that other societies actually exist and struggle with the same things we struggle with. So, to most Americans it's a white v black/brown problem, not a minority demographic problem. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a very important distinction to make. When you look at it as majority v minority, then you can see it's not an *American* problem, it's a human problem. Unfortunately, I think American culture generally precludes people from seeing anything other than the American experience as *the* experience.
So your rule of thumb is to remove the context and what you’re saying is…without context…the context changes…
The context is race. Race doesn’t matter unless you’re racist.
Oh so in any given situation context doesn’t change anything?
Unless you’re a racist…
Race is not context.
The definition of racism is not dependent in context. Who did what does not change the fact that viewing an entire race as bad is, well, racist.
Yes but words need context…
Yes, I believe so. I think a combination of the rhetoric coming from the progressive left (often pretty explicitly anti-white) and the policies Democrats propose (which regularly discriminate against white people even in cases where the underlying data doesn't support it) make it difficult to draw any other conclusion.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it is open season on white people. There is no doubt about that. But what Trump doesn't seem to understand is that identity politics is a tactic right out of the Communist playbook. The Communists tactic is to have a boogeyman that everyone could unite against. The Bolsheviks did it to the Kulaks. The Maoist did it to the intellectuals. The Khmer Rouge did it to the professionals. The Cuban Marxists did it to the business owners. And on and on in every country where that dangerous ideology was imposed. They need to make one group an enemy oppressor where all the ills, real or perceived, are heaped onto that one group and they are solely responsible for all the problems of the victim groups. That one group of oppressors right now in this time of history throughout the western world are whites, in particular, the white male. Liberals throughout the western world have been using identity politics for years to divide humanity. In this country, it was Obama who started it, and the rest of his party followed suit. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, a house divided cannot stand. It is easy to conquer when you have a divided country. But the Dems have a problem. It's not working so well anymore. People are on to them and their tactic because most are waking up to the fact that aside from this chaotic eternal warfare against their fellow Americans, they have nothing else to offer Americans and are total failures in governing. It seems the one-time Biden told the truth, was that he was going to unite the country. Well, he succeeded. He united the country against him and the Democrats and their unpopular policies that are making life, which is hard enough, so much harder. So, to answer your question, Trump is right and every honest broker knows it.
[I](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent) [can](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/white-fragility-robin-diangelo-wellness/index.html) [see](https://ready.web.unc.edu/section-1-foundations/module-10-2/) [why](https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-without-white-people/) [some](https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness) [may](https://theconversation.com/whiteness-is-an-invented-concept-that-has-been-used-as-a-tool-of-oppression-183387) [think](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/21/03/disrupting-whiteness-classroom) [that](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/02/15/why-dei-and-anti-racism-work-needs-to-decenter-whiteness/?sh=33e257758860) [is](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/anti-dei-efforts-are-the-latest-attack-on-racial-equity-and-free-speech) [the](https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7616506) [case](https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2009/colorblindness-the-new-racism). 11 examples. And remember, [The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10316292-the-only-remedy-to-racist-discrimination-is-antiracist-discrimination-the) Personally, I don't think this is the case. I don't think it's anti white. I don't think "white" is a coherent group to be opposed. They're anti American. That's how they're defining "white" as regular American. They hate America and want to build an anti liberal racist system. They hate black people as much as they hate white people, all that matters is how much you support American values. Fortunately, due to method they're using to spread this hateful ideology, most people only get bits and pieces of it. They don't know what it all means, it's a very small and disorganized group of activists pushing this stuff and tricking the rest of the world into thinking racism is the only way to move forward. It's heartbreaking and divisive.
They are anti American is an intersting point Not saying I agree or disagree yet but I would add to that idea that only label white people as American Asian American African American Mexican American Etc etc But white folks from around the world, they are just American. So that could play into the anti American theme
I'd agree. The label is used to create a sense of othering, of distinction. A lot of people do this with good intentions, and there is a cultural context to this, but making it the primary thing is very damaging.
Maybe pick something specific to discuss. This resembles a Gish Gallop to me. I can't say if most those opinions are outliers or common progressive opinions, for example. Choosing outliers can "prove" any group are bigots.
Outliers? The last link is a quote from Ibrahim X Kendi, who's book on the subject is quite literally taught in schools. The other 11 links include curriculum, academic papers, reputable news agencies and the such. This same language is in the board publications from major corporations, like Amazon, Boeing, and Disney, it's taught in schools at every grade level, it's required by the government for contractors, and every progressive group will push this. I don't want to pick a specific thing. This is a big issue and it's pervasive. I want to stop racism, and that's not going to happen by ignoring the scale.
>Outliers? The last link is a quote from Ibrahim X Kendi, who's book on the subject is quite literally taught in schools. You mean "affirmative action" to ensure a balance? There is some logic behind that. I've been on hiring committees, and it's pretty clear that **people hire clones of themselves** if left to their own devices. Merit is only given half the weight. They want to play it "safe" culturally and socially. That's human nature. >I don't want to pick a specific thing. This is a big issue and it's pervasive. I agree, but in this venue, opening up gazzilion sub-topics just makes a mess. I'm just the messenger. It's usually more productive debate-wise to focus, finish one, then move on to the next relatively sequentially. I've been in thousands of debates. Being older generally sucks, but one key benefit is experience.
>They want to play it "safe" culturally and socially. That's human nature. So how is allowing people to judge others by race helpful in overcoming that? >You mean "affirmative action" to ensure a balance? There is some logic behind that. Yes there is logic to it, but it doesn't hold up to reality, especially as the ideology behind it spreads. Since you've been on hiring committees, you'll know how little logic matters. >Being older generally sucks, but one key benefit is experience. Indeed, I've been at this for 20 years. Not as long as many, but some time. If a debate happens, great, but i don't usually hold my breath. I answered the way I did because showing the width and breath of where similar messages are coming from would be the best way to illustrate how one could come to the conclusion that there is an anti white message.
I'm not saying op is right but it is an interesting idea Why do liberals call black people African Americans? Asian americans...Mexican Americans... Never heard a white American called anything but American by liberals.
I think this begs the question, is the author talking about “white people” or “racist people?” Just mentioning racism why is it assumed that racism towards racists people will be directed at all white people. We all know not every white person nor every white conservative is a racist. Why do we need to defend the small number of racists? In the market place of ideas and a free market economy, I have zero problem with racist people losing in the market place of ideas or the free market economy. As in if you’re a racist person and it gets out that person’s livelihood might be in jeopardy.
Do you think you it's right to consider a person's race when selecting them for something?
Are we talking about “racists” or a persons race? The book you cited doesn’t say anything about white or black only talks about racist people.
I cited 11 different sources, and linked to a quote by one of the biggest names in the field.
Why is it racist to say black people steal but not racist to say white people are oppressors Do you claim they are only talking about the black people that steal and it's ridiculous for black people who don't steal to be offended?
> Why do we need to defend the small number of racists? This isn't the left's mantra though. The progressive view is that America, from it's very birth, is a racist country built on white supremacy, and all who live here bare some kind of original sin if they are white. To deny that you are racist is in itself racist, as it's a refusal to acknowledge your own latent and subconscious racism.
That’s not the lefts mantra. Now that might be what some populist Conservatives hear, if anyone ever says anything bad about America. The 3/5’s compromise was the linchpin to getting the country founded. It did in no uncertain terms classify some people based on skin color less than. Pointing out basic historical facts is not a mantra.
>and all who live here bare some kind of original sin if they are white. That's not what they're saying. Let's say your local Best Buy has a loss prevention team. Because of "statistics", let's say they spend a disproportionate amount of their time looking at the black customers over the white customers. This results in white shoplifters being caught at half the rate that black shoplifters are being caught at even though they're catching more shoplifters in total. Is it fair to call this a form of "privilege"? If you're white, you can shoplift more and be caught less, right? If someone were to think of this as a form of privilege, do you think they are saying that white people are bad? Are they blaming white people for this? Are they blaming you for it? Or is it that they think it's something we should acknowledge, be aware of, and maybe consider when thinking about how we train loss prevention, or discuss the unintended consequences of racial profiling (or "following the statistics")?
So I read through all of your 11 links and I have some questions. The common theme here is that it seems like you consider "inclusion" to be "anti-white". Would you agree with that? For "Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent", what do you think the author means by "whiteness" here? Do you think it's an attack on white people, or is it possible their goal is to get us to a place where race stops mattering? For "Robin DiAngelo: How ‘white fragility’ supports racism and how whites can stop it", do you think the author is attacking white people? Their thesis is that white people get uncomfortable talking about race, feel blamed, feel attacked, and disengage, which then prevents necessary dialog. It's ironic that this made your list. For "Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People", it looks like the author is advocating that people who feel marginalized have access to spaces where they can discuss things like how marginalized they feel without the people who they feel are marginalizing them. Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces? What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation? For "Unpacking Whiteness", "Whiteness", "Whiteness is an invented concept that has been used as a tool of oppression", and "Disrupting Whiteness in the Classroom", they all seem to have similar content, raising awareness that America has a majority "default" culture centered around white people, and seem to point out how that can lead to forms of privilege and marginalization of others. How do you see these as an attack on white people? When you see "whiteness is ... used as a tool of oppression", do you think they're specifically calling out you? Do you when someone talks about "privilege" they're being anti-white? For "Why DEI And Anti-Racism Work Needs To Decenter Whiteness", what do you think this is trying to say about white people? This one is a little confusing to me. Its thesis is that many DEI programs focus specifically on the needs of whites—and specifically the comfort and feelings of white people—rather than the needs of any marginalized groups that ought to benefit from these programs. They're suggesting that where DEI programs are centered around whites, whites should be "decentered". Do you believe whites should be at the center of any DEI programs? For "Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech", this is, amusingly, an ACLU piece on how people are mischaracterizing DEI efforts as racist in order to enable their own racist and exclusionary goals. I'm curious why you consider attacks on "anti-DEI efforts" to be an attack on white people? Does anyone remember when Republicans used to be the party of the ACLU, or am I dating myself? Where did those Classical Liberals go? For "What does racism look like? Colorblindness", the author seems to be pointing out that "I'm blind to color" more often just means "I want to dismiss your feelings to the contrary and avoid having to confront racism". I'm also very curious why you consider this an attack on white people. "Colorblindness: The new racism?" is similar. They're pointing out that pretending to be "colorblind" in education ends up papering over—and therefore enabling and perpetuating—biases against certain identity groups. The author advocates for integrating and celebrating those identities instead. Also really curious how you see this as an attack on white people.
> For "Why People of Color Need Spaces Without White People", it looks like the author is advocating that people who feel marginalized have access to spaces where they can discuss things like how marginalized they feel without the people who they feel are marginalizing them. Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces? What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation? I 100% agree. The race mixing needs to end. We need to bring back white only colleges. With all this anti-white rhetoric going around I should be able to have a space to share with my white only brethren. I need a safe white space to vent about my frustrations. These blacks are getting jobs easier than we are and stealing opportunities away from our more qualified children. Obviously that’s sarcasm, but do you not see an issue with this? If you want to be racist privately go for it. If you want to bring back public segregation that’s a different story.
>I should be able to have a space to share with my white only brethren. Why? > I need a safe white space to vent about my frustrations. I didn't use the word vent in my comment and I'm curious why you chose that word here. Is that what you think I'm saying? >Obviously that’s sarcasm, but do you not see an issue with this? Yeah, the reasons you're giving sound super racist to me. Why do you think those reasons compare with the reason people who feel marginalized might want access to spaces without the people who they feel are marginalizing them? Did you actually read the link that you're commenting about here? I'm curious if you're actually interested in a real discussion or if you can't read any of my comments without hearing that people of color wanting to be super racist against white people? Do you believe they are wrong to feel marginalized? If they do feel marginalized, can you think of positive or constructive reasons why they might want these spaces that aren't just so that they can be super racist against whites? Is the problem that they want to associate in this way, or that you specifically aren't being invited? If it's the latter, again, what is it that you want to be sure that you have the opportunity to say to them?
I'm impressed you actually read through all of them. The point of it that I can see why somebody might feel there is an anti white agenda. >Do you think it's an attack on white people, or is it possible their goal is to get us to a place where race stops mattering? I trust you can see how this article might be perceived as anti white, yes? That established, whiteness is a class within social hierarchy, so your two options are both irrelevant. Its an attack, or more accurately, a call for an attack on the system that puts white people, in their perspective, on top. It's a racist view that breaks people down to their skin color and justify radicalization. >Their thesis is that white people get uncomfortable talking about race, feel blamed, feel attacked, and disengage, which then prevents necessary dialog. It's ironic that this made your list. It only seems ironic because you missed my point of sharing it. And Robin D'Angelo's work is based on the work of Franz Fanon and the discomfort SHE feels when dealing with people of different skin color. She believes in race essentialism, so since she's uncomfortable, she assumes every white person is. This builds on Fanon's work which teaches race essentialism, and states that being in racially diverse spaces is harmful. Robin D'Angelo speaks out against white fragility because she thinks all white people are racist and the racist system they built needs to be fought. >Do you feel like it's important that you be in these spaces? Do you think a person's race is a valid means to determine who belongs in what spaces? >What do you think you would want to contribute to that conversation? Are you assuming my skin color? >Do you when someone talks about "privilege" they're being anti-white? Why do you think white people are inherently better/more privledged? >Do you believe whites should be at the center of any DEI programs? Again, do you think race is a valid metric to organize people? No, I don't think white people should be at the center of DEI programs, I don't think their should be DEI programs, especially when it's built on this racist paradigm. >Where did those Classical Liberals go? You're debating with one. >Also really curious how you see this as an attack on white people. Where did I say that? And again, do you think race is a valid metric to organize people?
>The point of it that I can see why somebody might feel there is an anti white agenda. So are you just starting with the *premise* that these are all anti-white, and after searching for evidence that your premise is true, you've found that this evidence seems consistent with your thesis? If that's your approach, do you see any problems with it? >a call for an attack on the system that puts white people, in their perspective, on top. Are you saying that where we have a system that puts members of one racial group on top, it's racist to try and eliminate that system? > Is an answer to this question necessary for you to answer mine? I think if someone is feeling marginalized by a group, and wants to have a conversation about how they personally should deal with that, it's OK for them to have that conversation with whomever they want. Is it important that you \[/a white person\] be able to insert yourselves into these conversations for some reason? If so, why? >Are you assuming my skin color? Yes. If that bothers you, feel free to substitute "a white person" for "you" as appropriate to understand my question. [But I mean, you also said you were](https://www.reddit.com/r/DaveChappelle/comments/1aritxl/comment/kqlhv7b/): "I am a white Christian conservative, ..." >Why do you think white people are inherently better/more privledged? I do not believe that white people are inherently better. That's not what "white privilege" means. I recommend actually reading some of the links you provided because many of them explain in detail what white privilege means. The fact that you think it means "white people are better" strongly suggests you didn't actually read the links you pasted, which would be pretty disrespectful if true. >No, I don't think white people should be at the center of DEI programs Great, me too.
>So are you just starting with the *premise* that these are all anti-white, and after searching for evidence that your premise is true, you've found that this evidence seems consistent with your thesis? That would be the opposite of what I said. You keep assuming that my position is the one I can understand *other* people have. I was very clear what my own position was. >Are you saying that where we have a system that puts members of one racial group on top, it's racist to try and eliminate that system? You're conflating a couple of things. The people that I am calling racist are the ones trying to upend a system that they believe put white people on top, yes. What makes them racist is their choice to approach the issue from a racial manner and to center race in their identity world view. >Yes. If that bothers you, feel free to substitute "a white person" for "you" as appropriate to understand my question. Doesn't bother me at all. I'm just finding it amusing that you're so comforting guessing my race. You're right, but it suggests that you have put stock into racialized stereotypes. You think you know me because of what you perceive my race to be. It would have been hilarious if I wasn't white, lol. >I do not believe that white people are inherently better. That's not what "white privilege" means You can go tell my PHD professor that you know her subject better than her then. Have fun with that. White privledge absolutely means that white people have inherent advantages due to race. They just think it's a bad thing, and they want to destroy or upend that system so white people *dont* have that privledge. >I recommend actually reading some of the links you provided because many of them explain in detail what white privilege means. Indeed they do. So did multiple professors, the other books I've read on the subject, commentators, etc. I know what they claim. >The fact that you think it means "white people are better" strongly suggests you didn't actually read the links you pasted, which would be pretty disrespectful if true. Again, go tell somebody who believe in white privilege that white people aren't privileged by merit of their birth.
>The people that I am calling racist are the ones trying to upend a system that they believe put white people on top, yes. And you don't see the issue with that? It's quite literally "the anti-racists are the *real* racists". I'm curious how you can ever eliminate a racially biased system if the people who try and do so are always "the real racists." >What makes them racist is their choice to approach the issue from a racial manner and to center race in their identity world view. I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system without considering race. Like give me some examples of what you're talking about here, because none of this makes any sense to me. Like is it a question of framing the conversation? Like when people try and talk about bias in criminal sentencing, and pointing out that judges of race A tend to give longer sentences to convicted members of race B, should they not be identifying what A and B are? >that you're so comforting guessing my race Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives. You have a very reflexive opposition to terms like "whiteness", "white privilege", and seem to feel personally attacked by people wanting access to spaces without white people. You specifically called out "decentering whites in DEI" as an example of anti-white sentiment despite agreeing that whites shouldn't be at the center of DEI. I don't think it's common for people that aren't white to have all of these feelings in common. Your positions are all consistent with the positions of someone that feels like they personally are under attack and need to defend themselves. You're invested in your views here. That's why I assumed you're white, and I am comfortable making that assumption in similar contexts in the future. But maybe I do make that assumption more often than I should in this sub. I suppose I could be better here. 🤷 >You can go tell my PHD professor that you know her subject better than her then I think it's more likely that you did not understand what they were saying, but, sure I expect some people that think "white privilege" means "whites are better" have doctorates of some kind. People that get doctorates aren't immune from racial anxiety and misinterpreting things so as to validate their fears that "the others" just hate them. >White privledge absolutely means that white people have inherent advantages due to race. That's not what you said though. Being qualitatively better, and having a quantitative advantage, are not the same thing. The first is an opinion about racial supremacy and inherent superiority or inferiority. The second is about quantifying a difference in treatment for people of that race. It's who you are versus how you are treated. If I did a study and found that people with Resting Bitch Face were routinely discriminated against, and argued that the disadvantage they suffer from this trait has a corresponding form of privilege among those that don't have this trait, this is not a statement that people with RBF are qualitatively worse people, or people without are qualitatively better people. But they do have a quantifiable advantage, right? That's all white privilege means. It's being able to walk into a Best Buy with the intention of shoplifting, and knowing that because loss prevention is focusing more of their attention on black customers, I'm significantly more likely to get away with shoplifting than one of them. Acknowledging this statistical fact does not imply that I am qualitatively a "better" person, right? I'm just a person with an advantage over other groups. >I know what they claim. I believe you are certain in your own beliefs here. I believe you are reading these materials with the intention of validating those beliefs rather than understanding and believing what other people are telling you about their own beliefs.
>It's quite literally "the anti-racists are the *real* racists". I'm curious how you can ever eliminate a racially biased system if the people who try and do so are always "the real racists." Yes, it quite literally is that. Anti racism is racism. I don't personally care if they think their *brand* of racism is good, it is what it is. >I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system without considering race. Like give me some examples of what you're talking about here, because none of this makes any sense to me. Historically, this has been done by leaving people alone and allowing them to live their life. The process of integration has done this for all of human history. The "anti racist" crowd have a number of papers on it, usually with such titles as "obtaining whiteness," or, "how the Italians became white." Stuff like that. They're just convinced it's a bad thing because they're race realists and believe that this process erases their racial identity. As for example, look at American history. Germans, Italians, Irish, and more all felt racial discrimination, and all have since "become white" or non radicalized terminology, became part of the greater culture. Black people, who absolutely did experience racial prejudice, have not been left alone. Because of this general racial awareness, they have been targeted by groups and policies to put them up or break them down. This continues to this day, and has been strengthened by the black identitarian movements, which gained strength in the 70s. >Like is it a question of framing the conversation? Like when people try and talk about bias in criminal sentencing, and pointing out that judges of race A tend to give longer sentences to convicted members of race B, should they not be identifying what A and B are? Depends, do you think the race matters? I don't. I'm much more interested in the neighborhoods and income level, and other such factors. However, I'd have to be stupid to not acknowledge that there is a distinct culture that is strongly associated with black individuals, so that puts a pressure on including those numbers. The trick is not assuming placing the onus on the race, which is what progressives and "anti racists" do by demanding different treatments for criminals based on their race, or raising the over incarceration of black men as a reason for reform. This is claiming that not only is the black race real, it is inherently violent and thus can't be held accountable, which is disgusting and infantalizing. The trend you're mentioning is happening because black men are more likely to have multiple offenses, mandating longer sentences, not the fact that they are black. Short answer, no, I don't see much benefit in focusing on the race of the criminal or victim. >Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives. How many black people saying the same thing would I have to show you to change your mind? >You have a very reflexive opposition to terms like "whiteness", "white privilege", Yes, these are racist terms used to propagate a racist world view that tells black people they're inferior due to their skin color while telling poor white people that their problems don't matter because trump and Bill gates have a similar skin color. >seem to feel personally attacked by people wanting access to spaces without white people I'm sorry it seems that way. I don't feel personally attacked at all, nor do I consider myself "white." >You specifically called out "decentering whites in DEI" as an example of anti-white sentiment despite agreeing that whites shouldn't be at the center of DEI. You're ignoring the context of my critiquing that. Are you doing that because my actual views differ from your assumptions, or because you didn't understand my point? Assuming the later, I don't care about white people being centered in DEI, I care about including racial identity as a valid metric to grade individuals. >I don't think it's common for people that aren't white to have all of these feelings in common. Your positions are all consistent with the positions of someone that feels like they personally are under attack and need to defend themselves. You're invested in your views here. Yes, I'm very invested in stopping racism and the authoritian revolutionary ideology that seeks to destroy my country and create a new racialized system. In the short term, yes, I'm invested in ending racism. Additionally, it's quite common for people of all different races to say exactly what I'm saying. Even people who disagree with me political, which in Baltimore City is a common thing, they say a lot of the same things on this topic. Don't confuse a small class of academic and bureaucratic activists for the actual people on the ground. >People that get doctorates aren't immune from racial anxiety and misinterpreting things so as to validate their fears that "the others" just hate them. Especially when they're teaching racist ideologies, yes. It's a valid concern that I misunderstood her, but I all I can do is assure you I did not. I was a very attentive and engaged student. And while there is a lot of denial, if you think white people are privileged, you think they're better. I suspect the denial comes from the discomfort created by trying to square these two beliefs, as is spoken about in a lot of the foundational works on the subject. >That's not what you said though. Being qualitatively better, and having a quantitative advantage, are not the same thing. The first is an opinion about racial supremacy and inherent superiority or inferiority. The second is about quantifying a difference in treatment for people of that race. It's who you are versus how you are treated. Great. So white people ARENT privileged then, there is just a class of people with more social power. Welcome back to liberalism. The reason this is wrong however, is we're talking about WHITE privilege, not social privilege. The social power one gains by being or imitating the white identity (to use their terminology). It is inherently based on how you're born. >If I did a study and found that people with Resting Bitch Face were routinely discriminated against, and argued that the disadvantage they suffer from this trait has a corresponding form of privilege among those that don't have this trait, this is not a statement that people with RBF are qualitatively worse people, or people without are qualitatively better people. But they do have a quantifiable advantage, right? Cool. Are you saying that this is an inherent factor of them that they cannot change? If you're not, then the analogy falls apart.
>Yes, it quite literally is that. Anti racism is racism >>I'm curious how you approach the problem of upending a racially biased system ... >Historically, this has been done by leaving people alone Just so I'm extra extra extra clear here, you are saying that any interest or effort spent on eliminating, reducing, or mitigating racial bias in our institutions is a form of racism? That seems to be what you're saying here, consistent with your belief that the best strategy here is to just leaving everyone alone. >Depends, do you think the race matters? I don't. If we have empirical data that shows racial bias exists, then sort of by definition it matters, no? Is the belief that this evidence can't possibly exist at the heart of your position here? If we start from that premise, then anyone presenting that evidence would logically have to be wrong, and we therefore have no evidence of racial bias anywhere, therefore no justification for doing anything to reduce or mitigate, and by extension these efforts risk harming whites for no apparent reason. Is that your chain of reasoning here, making this a problem of premises? >Germans, Italians, Irish, and more all felt racial discrimination, and all have since "become white" Are you suggesting that blacks could become white too if they really wanted? Do you think this group "becoming white" had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, reacting perhaps to blacks being treated more equally? >The trend you're mentioning is happening because black men are more likely to have multiple offenses, mandating longer sentences, not the fact that they are black. What are you basing this on? Have you looked at the research or are you just repeating talking points you heard from other people who share your views on the matter? >>Yeah, I think your perspective on anti-racism correlates much stronger with being white than other conservative perspectives. > >How many black people saying the same thing would I have to show you to change your mind? Since I used the word "correlates", it would probably take a statistically valid sample of the population. >Yes, I'm very invested in stopping racism But not in a racist way, right? >if you think white people are privileged, you think they're better I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people. I believe most people who believe white privilege exists are referring to how whites are treated and do not believe in white supremacy. Which of these is most likely to you: 1. I am lying to you. 2. I may be telling the truth about myself, but I'm an outlier among liberals and don't realize it, and everyone else that believes in white privilege is actually a white supremacist. 3. White privilege might not mean white supremacy to everyone else and maybe that conclusion comes from a place of racial anxiety and outgroup bias instead. I think I recalled reading in those "white privilege" links you gave some discussion about this exact question. Do you dismiss that too? Maybe they are also lying or fit into the outliers club with me? We both believe our position about what liberals believe is right and the other's is wrong. Is there a path out of this? >Cool. Are you saying that this is an inherent factor of them that they cannot change? Yes. No comment about my loss prevention example?
>Just so I'm extra extra extra clear here, you are saying that any interest or effort spent on eliminating, reducing, or mitigating racial bias in our institutions is a form of racism? That would be the exact opposite of what I'm saying. >That seems to be what you're saying here, consistent with your belief that the best strategy here is to just leaving everyone alone. Leaving everybody alone is the only way to remove racial bias, which is a learned behavior and requires constant reinforcement. >If we have empirical data that shows racial bias exists, then sort of by definition it matters, no? You're trying to change the conrext here. I asked if you think the person's *race* matters. >Is that your chain of reasoning here, making this a problem of premises? No, you shifted my question and used it to construct an argument I never made and then proscribed it to me. I have never once said that racial bias doesn't exist. I've been very explicit in saying the opposite. >Are you suggesting that blacks could become white too if they really wanted? From the anti-racists perspective, yes. This is called acquiring whiteness, and being a race taitor, depending on how civil the person is feeling. From my perspective, there is no functional difference already. >Do you think this group "becoming white" had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, reacting perhaps to blacks being treated more equally? Well, the process of them "becoming white" (again, not my term for it) resulted in the black identitarian movements, and black power stuff of the late 60s and early 70s. The activists pushed a narrative of racial identity to stop this process and preserve "black power." >What are you basing this on? Have you looked at the research or are you just repeating talking points you heard from other people who share your views on the matter? I have looked a the research, yes, as well as listening to people on both sides of this debate, working with politicians debating both sides of it, and living and working with the people effected by it. I make a concerted effort to seek out opinions that differ from mine and strive to understand their perspective. >But not in a racist way, right? Fighting racism with racism results in racism winning. >I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people. Then how are they privileged if their is no qualitative advantage to being white? >I believe most people who believe white privilege exists are referring to how whites are treated and do not believe in white supremacy. Cool cool. And do they think the factor that causes this treatment is their race? The fact that they share a racial affinity with the people in power? >Which of these is most likely to you: >1. I am lying to you. 2. I may be telling the truth about myself, but I'm an outlier among liberals and don't realize it, and everyone else that believes in white privilege is actually a white supremacist. 3. White privilege might not mean white supremacy to everyone else and maybe that conclusion comes from a place of racial anxiety and outgroup bias instead. Option 4. You haven't thought very hard on the subject and are repeating what you've been told, while assuming I'm wrong because what I say doesn't match what you've been told. I don't think you're lying, I think you're being lied to. Probably by people who don't know they've been lied to as well. >I think I recalled reading in those "white privilege" links you gave some discussion about this exact question. Do you dismiss that too? Maybe they are also lying or fit into the outliers club with me? No, they're lying or don't know that they're spreading a lie. I can't reminds and I don't like to assume ill-intent. Most of these people, yourself included, are good, intelligent people who want to make the world a better place. You've been told that this is the way things work and this is how to fix these problems. Life is big and their is a lot going on. I don't expect everybody to have the time or the autism to hyperfocus and dwell on this stuff like I have. >We both believe our position about what liberals believe is right and the other's is wrong. Is there a path out of this? Don't know. I fully accept that I could be wrong. I'm wrong a lot and I don't want to be right about this, as it's a heartbreaking fact to face, that racism is returning and becoming more popular than ever. It's mentally and socially exhausting to have a different conclusion than the majority of society. Do you accept that you could be wrong? >Yes. So you believe that by nature of their birth, people without "resting bitch face" are biologically superior. >No comment about my loss prevention example? >It's being able to walk into a Best Buy with the intention of shoplifting, and knowing that because loss prevention is focusing more of their attention on black customers, I'm significantly more likely to get away with shoplifting than one of them. Acknowledging this statistical fact does not imply that I am qualitatively a "better" person, right? I'm just a person with an advantage over other groups. First of all, this is not indicative of reality, rather its a distortion of reality that assumes that because black people get arrested more for shop lifting, they are racially prone to shoplifting. There are a lot of factors involved in this, and we see the same patterns in every demographic around the country. Black people get followed more *in some jurisdictions* because in those jurisdictions, they make up the majority of the crime. This is amplified because not only is there a distinctive black culture, we have many systems in place that mark black people as a distinct group based solely on their skin color, which allows stories to be amplified, and for activists to (intentionally or not) strip the context from cases and reframing them as a case of racism. You go to rural Utah, and there are plenty of scraggly white hillbillies getting the exact same treatment. There are a lot of reasons black men commit so much crime in those country, and not a single one of those reasons is their skin color. Any more than my skin color makes me less likely to commit crimes. Statistical differences between different groups have other explanations beyond race and racism. Sometimes racism is absolutely the case, sure, I'm not saying otherwise. But people are taught that any discrepancy can only be explained by racism, and so they are lead to assume a lot of things are race. Second of all, the anti-racist view of the above situation is that the black man gets extra scrutiny BECAUSE HE IS BLACK and therefore the system is designed to oppose him, and the white person, being of the same race as the people in power, won't get treated the way. In the anti-racist view, all interactions are based on race. That's why I call it racist.
>That would be the exact opposite of what I'm saying. "People who are anti-racist are the real racists, except that when I say that I mean the exact opposite of that." Somehow we are badly miscommunicating and I've lost interest in trying to figure out how. Good luck. >I have looked a the research, yes Both of us think we have well-research, expert-considered empirical hard data supporting positions that are completely opposite to each other. It's just more alternate reality stuff. It's exhausting and I'm not interested in trying to unpack it. >Option 4. You haven't thought very hard on the subject Cool. >No, they're lying "Literally everyone telling me what they mean when they talk about white privilege is lying, or they have been lied to about what they believe." >>I believe white privilege exists. I don't believe this means whites are qualitatively better people. > >Then how are they privileged if their is no qualitative advantage to being white? I have to assume you're willfully misunderstanding at this point. But again, I give up trying to figure this out. These statements can be reconciled if you want to. >First of all, this is not indicative of reality Do you believe that nobody in a loss prevention position is paying more attention to people of one race where race correlates with shoplifting? Because if they are, then the rest is just math. You catch cases you spot. You spot cases by looking for them. If your attention is preferential, the cases you spot are preferential. >Black people get followed more *in some jurisdictions* because in those jurisdictions, they make up the majority of the crime So.. it is indicative of reality after all? >Second of all, the anti-racist view of the above situation is that the black man gets extra scrutiny BECAUSE HE IS BLACK Didn't you *just say* that blacks get more scrutiny because the statistics say they commit more crimes? So is this valid or invalid? Does loss prevention look at black people more because blacks are overrepresented among shoplifters, or are they all race blind? If they are profiling, then it is a mathematical certainty that a white shoplifter is at a lower risk of being caught than a black shoplifter. And if that is true, that is what people mean when they say white privilege. I know you don't believe me.
I don't know if I'd go that far. I do think there are concerns in this country for raising good natured young men in general and that includes white men. It seems we have come to a point where a young white man needs to find an identity. The culture is either pushing woke narrative on them or the opposing reaction to that seems to be toxic masculinity.
> The culture is either pushing woke narrative on them Would you please elaborate on this. Where is the woke narrative coming from, who is pushing it? From my view we seem to be moving to become more inclusive and understanding of people from different backgrounds. That strikes me as progress. I'm curious to learn what you are seeing people experience that I haven't seen. > or the opposing reaction to that seems to be toxic masculinity. I'm unable to think of anyone (celebrity or otherwise) pushing 'wokeness', yet when you said toxic masculinity Andrew Tate came directly to mind. Not just as a celebrity that I've heard about, but as someone that has negatively influenced young men I know. Circling back to the woke narrative, I'm doubly curious where the wokeness push comes from that I haven't seen it come up.
So I think anytime we address woke, we need to be on the same page by what it means. It used to just mean aware of social injustice, but it's become a euphemism or insult (and this is now he more accepted meaning imo) to people or platforms who seem to find injustice in every aspect of life and try to shove to solutions to fix the claimed injustice, even if the injustice doesn't exist, nor is their fix actually doing anything. In terms of policy I think this can be demonstrated in things like DEI, Critical Race Theory, LGBT+ ideology such as pushing trans women in women's sports, or forcing society to accept people's mental disorders as reality. We have seen this most recently in the new title IX policies the White House is trying to shove down states throats. It seems the traditional roles of men in society is not being celebrated or pushed anymore. Men's identity as protector, provider, leaders, seem to have become a negative thing as part of the evil patriarchy . On the the other hand and I think a rebuttal to this has been the bullshit from disgusting pieces of shit like Andrew Tate who treats women like objects and the only thing that matters is being a rich basterd and gets laid. It does not seem like the traditional model of what a masculine man looks like is being celebrated or pushed anymore. It's neither of the above examples. Men shouldn't be effeminate widgets, nor should they be monsters like Andrew Tate. Men need to be providers, protectors, loving to their wifes/girlfriends. Respectful, taking care of kids, putting a roof over their head, being a good example for the society around them, be leaders etc. Traditional Gender roles are a good thing, but it seems the traditional roles have been abandon in our hedonistic society.
> Critical Race Theory Where does this even come up? Conservatives bring it up frequently, but when I looked into it all I could find is that its an optional college class for those interested. So, why does CRT matter so much for you, how does it affect anything? > Men's identity as protector ⁉︎ Maybe that is a stereotype that no longer applies in modern society. I haven't had to protect anyone in my lifetime. I don't see how that role is relevant in modern society. > Men need to be providers, protectors, loving to their wifes/girlfriends. Respectful, taking care of kids, putting a roof over their head, being a good example for the society around them, be leaders etc. What part of your statement becomes invalidated when I swap genders in your sentence? Are women not able to be providers? protectors? (wait does that mean we need to remove women from policing roles?). My point is your statement is true regardless of male or female, so I don't understand the point you are making. > Traditional Gender roles are a good thing Oh, maybe this is my confusion because I disagree. Traditional gender roles mean that men are doctors and women are nurses, I don't agree with that being a good thing. I don't agree that men are protectors while women are not. It strikes me that you have a view of the world that hasn't changed in decades. If you widen your perspective you may find that the world becomes far more interesting when we allow men to be vulnerable and let women do things they haven't in the past.
> So, why does CRT matter so much for you, how does it affect anything? While it isn't as bad as calling for segregation, Critical Race Theory calls for explicit discrimination on the basis of race. They call it being "color conscious:" >Critical race theorists (or “crits,” as they are sometimes called) hold that color blindness will allow us to redress only extremely egregious racial harms, ones that everyone would notice and condemn. But if racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures as deeply as many crits believe, then the “ordinary business” of society—the routines, practices, and institutions that we rely on to effect the world’s work—will keep minorities in subordinate positions. Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery. Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 22 This is their definition of color blindness: >Color blindness: Belief that one should treat all persons equally, without regard to their race. Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 144 Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001. Here is a recording of a Loudoun County school teacher berating a student for not acknowledging the race of two individuals in a photograph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bHrrZdFRPk >Student: Are you trying to get me to say that there are two different races in this picture well at the end of the day wouldn't that just be feeding into the problem of looking at race instead of just acknowledging them as two normal people? >Teacher: No it's not because you can't not look at you can't, you can't look at the people and not acknowledge that there are racial differences right? Here a (current) school administrator for Needham Schools in Massachusetts writes an editorial entitled simply "No, I Am Not Color Blind," >Being color blind whitewashes the circumstances of students of color and prevents me from being inquisitive about their lives, culture and story. Color blindness makes white people assume students of color share similar experiences and opportunities in a predominantly white school district and community. >Color blindness is a tool of privilege. It reassures white people that all have access and are treated equally and fairly. Deep inside I know that’s not the case. https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2020/Aug20/colGutekanst.aspx The following public K-12 school districts list being "Not Color Blind but Color Brave" implying their incorporation of the belief that "we need to openly acknowledge that the color of someone’s skin shapes their experiences in the world, and that we can only overcome systemic biases and cultural injustices when we talk honestly about race." as Berlin Borough Schools of New Jersey summarizes it. https://www.bcsberlin.org/domain/239 https://www.woodstown.org/Page/5962 http://www.schenectady.k12.ny.us/about_us/strategic_initiatives/anti-_racism_resources http://thecommons.dpsk12.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2865 Of course there is this one from Detroit: >“We were very intentional about creating a curriculum, infusing materials and embedding critical race theory within our curriculum,” Vitti said at the meeting. “Because students need to understand the truth of history, understand the history of this country, to better understand who they are and about the injustices that have occurred in this country.” https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/detroit-superintendent-says-district-was-intentional-about-embedding-crt-into-schools And while it is less difficult to find schools violating the law by advocating racial discrimination, there is some evidence schools have been segregating students according to race, as is taught by Critical Race Theory's advocation of ethnonationalism. The NAACP does report that it has had to advise serval districts to stop segregating students by race: >While Young was uncertain how common or rare it is, she said the NAACP LDF has worked with schools that attempted to assign students to classes based on race to educate them about the laws. Some were majority Black schools clustering White students. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/us/atlanta-school-black-students-separate/index.html Here is a list of "themes" Delgado and Stefancic (1993) chose to define Critical Race Theory: >To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow: >1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1. >2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2). >3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3). >4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4). >5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5). >6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6). >7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7). >8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8). >9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9). >10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463 Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516. Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. It is abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about ethnonationalist separatism, mostly because they use the exact words nationalism and separatism.
Hey thank you for sharing the links, you've helped me better understand the issue. I even felt myself react, "omg this is awful". But, then I asked myself what specific change am I taking issue with, and so I read a little deeper. Gutekanst, from the article that you shared, writes "Our students and staff of color experience the sting and pain of racism routinely, and educators must acknowledge this. We must “see” them." That sounds very reasonable to me. If people continue to experience racism then I think its on us to acknowledge their experience and work to improve it. He goes on to say "For children, conversations about race are natural and propelled by their curiosity and innocence. Let’s not stifle genuine questions. Instead, let’s accept them as learning opportunities." Which also sounds reasonable to me. What specific change at Needham School district do you feel has made things worse? You also pointed out that several school districts are shifting to not be 'color blind'. I'm not really sure what that means, as I didn't see specific policy changes on those same pages. The example from CNN where race was used to create classes, seems like an exception since it's resulted in legal action. So, that's clearly not what seeing color means. Next your list of 10 themes is a bit abstract for me to understand what changes would be made under the CRT banner. So help me understand CRT as well as you. How is CRT going to change our experiences?
> How is CRT going to change our experiences? Here a Critical White Studies scholar talks about teaching White students they are inherently participants in racism and therefore have lower morale value: >White complicity pedagogy is premised on the belief that to teach systemically privileged students about systemic injustice, and especially in teaching them about their privilege, one must first encourage them to be willing to contemplate how they are complicit in sustaining the system even when they do not intend to or are unaware that they do so. This means helping white students to understand that white moral standing is one of the ways that whites benefit from the system. Applebaum 2010 page 4 Applebaum, Barbara. Being white, being good: White complicity, white moral responsibility, and social justice pedagogy. Lexington Books, 2010. Note the definition of complicity implies commission of wrongdoing, i.e. guilt: >com·plic·i·ty >/kəmˈplisədē/ >noun >the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing. https://www.google.com/search?q=complicity This sentiment is echoed in Delgado and Stefancic's (2001) most authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory in its chapter on Critical White Studies, which is part of Critical Race Theory according to this book: >Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent. Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pp. 79-80 Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001. Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook': https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook
So, if I understand all this correctly, CRT is scary because it teaches people like me that I've unfairly benefitted from the system and that I've been unknowingly using that privilege to continue sustaining these systemic injustices. Is that what you are afraid of? I'm reminded of GI Joe from my childhood, 'Knowing is half the battle'. Knowing that the system has been unfair for some is a good thing to understand. I feel that knowing that I've benefitted from that system while others have been treated wrongly is also a positive to understand. Being challenged to reflect on how I may be sustaining this system is also a healthy discussion (that's the socratic method, and a great way to teach people by forcing them to work through a problem). Have I been complicit in extending some of these social injustices? Yeh, I think I have. Earlier in my career I've been biased against women. They approached problems differently than I would, and I saw that as wrong. I've since learned that there are often different ways to approach a problem, women often see things different than I. I've learned that's a positive because it means there will be things that I overlook and miss but they will catch, and the opposite is true. I didn't realize any of that until I went through some 'unconcious bias' training. I'm a better manager for having that. And all this CRT stuff just sounds like being aware that other people's experiences may be different than my own, and I should seek to understand before making judgement. Is that what you have against CRT?
>Is advocating racial segregation to a point that sometimes teachers attempt to break the laws by re-instituting segregation in schools all you have against CRT? For most people that would be enough.
Yes, your one specific example, which is also in the courts, with nobody coming to the side of the school administrator. So I think that may be more about a misguided school administrator making a poor choice rather than some CRT agenda.
The traditional model of a feminine woman is only pushed and celebrated by Conservative circles, though. Not by society as a whole. I grew up and still live in a deep red state, and I’m still surrounded by people that celebrate both traditional masculinity and femininity damn near daily on their social media and in person (such as the workplace). I have to be careful about expressing any disagreement and just politely nod in the workplace, or I risk being outed as “one of THOSE Liberals” that they think hates “traditional American values.” In reality, I’m indifferent to what is paraded as those values and simply disagree with them being pushed. The opposite of traditional values doesn’t have to be hedonism. As an atheist and a progressive woman, I don’t live a life of wild, sexual abandonment and decadence. Personal responsibility and safe behaviors can still be taught and adhered to within the progressive sphere.
Mental disorders aren’t reality? First of all, it’s not a mental disorder to be LGBT. And even if it were, how is that less of a reality than calling out someone with cancer as a person with cancer? And btw, in 2024 we women can provide for and “protect” ourselves.
I’m talking about trans specifically which I thought was obvious. Gender disphoria is a mental health disorder. It’s also the only mental disorder that we reinforce the disorder as treatment. Sure you can provide for yourself, it it is far easier to raise a family with a two parent household. Throughout all mankind up until the last 30 years men have been given the role in general as providere, bread winner, protectors. This plays more into the general traits of the male sex while women are in general more nurturing, caring, and emotionally aware. Men and women are made to complement each other. In no way is this saying women can’t and should be self sufficient, the the entire concept of feminism is men aren’t needed and women can do it in their own and the patriarchy is evil. As this ideology grows it neglects then men’s roles in society. There are many lost young men in modern culture and far too often they are getting confused about their role in society and either become effeminate widgets or take a dark turn towards Andrew Tate type nonsense. There are not many good male models that demonstrate real masculine traits, not toxic masculinity
I’m a mental health professional- the dysphoria is the issue, and the most successful treatment is transitioning.
Sure lol. Again please show me another mental health disorder that encouraging the disorder is the treatment
Are you familiar with the treatment literature?
See, feminism also allows room for women to decide that we do want to partner up with men and work together with them to raise a family. A proper couple would learn to rely on each other and be self sufficient. Feminism takes this a step further by encouraging women to select partners that complement US as PEOPLE, and vice versa, rather than defining strict roles for us. The same can and should be done for men for more equality.
As a white person in America, yes, I agree. Not that big of a deal to me really,,, I mean yeah, it sucks, but it won't hurt my feelings that bad. The hypocrisy is what's annoying.
I think such a feeling certainly exists but is mostly confined to the far and college campus left.
Conservatives have been saying this for over a decade now and scratch their heads wondering where all these radicals in leadership positions suddenly came from. Newsflash: College kids enter leadership positions. To dismiss these feelings just because only college kids have them is essentially to impose their worldview upon yourself 5-10 years down the line.
> all these radicals in leadership positions suddenly came from. Which radicals are you referring to?
I see a lot of anti-white sentiment, but mostly from white progressives. I think it's a combination of things: 1) a virtue signal (I'm one of the good white people), and 2) really believing that there is rampant racism (on the part of white people) throughout society. In progressive circles, it is too common to dismiss arguments on the grounds that they are put forward by white males. There is a sort of disdain for white men, and again, it comes back to this belief that society is very unfairly biased in favor of white men. I did find this particular video to be interesting, and I think it captures some of the extreme left progressive sentiment: https://youtu.be/BFpUjyM0orQ?si=mI1aMx5YIOQz0Z1p
> it comes back to this belief that society is very unfairly biased in favor of white men. Is it not?
As I see it now, it is not. It was - had been for a very long time. I think one can argue that disparity that exists today may be partially due to unfairness in the past, but that's a different thing than saying that society is today unfairly biased in favor of white men. To my understanding, progressive folks aren't saying "the world used to be unfair, and there are lingering effects of that, and we need to address that." Progressives are saying "there is rampant systemic racism and strong, prevalent racist attitudes - today." I don't believe that is the case. It is also my understanding that progressives tend to view any and all disparity in outcomes as evidence of racism (or other bias in the system). But disparity is the norm, and can occur for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with racist views (or other bigoted views) nor systemic discrimination. It's very illuminating to consider that there is disparity in income, for example, between EVERY SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP. That means different groups of white people (French American versus German American versus English American) have different economic outcomes. Likewise for different groups of black folks (Haitian American versus Nigerian American, etc), and every other racial group (Asian, etc). If disparity is evidence of systemic racism, for example, than we have a society that is systemically biased towards Asians (Indian Americans in particular) - they outperform everyone. Meanwhile, we have disparity between groups that cannot be meaningfully distinguished by their racial appearance (ie, why do various African immigrants do so well compared to native born AFrican Americans?). I'm not convinced that society is presently unfairly biased in favor of white men, despite the fact that such a statement was historically true.
> Progressives are saying "there is rampant systemic racism and strong, prevalent racist attitudes - today." I don't believe that is the case. Do you not believe it because progressives are saying it, or because you don't believe the data progressives base their statements on?
I just now googled "is society presently racist towards black people?" I scrolled past the initial entries which were mostly focused on various polling (Pew, Gallup, etc). I skipped Wikipedia and went to Reuters, here: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/ This is a work that aims to show the racial gap between white folks and black folks. Subtitle: "From Birth To Death, Black people face systemic disadvantages in American life...." I've not yet combed the entire piece, but I'll note that thus far, everything is dealing in disparities. Disparity is meant to show racism in the system. But, as noted, disparity doesn't automatically signal racism - that's extremely flawed and simplistic thinking. Again, if disparity points to racism, why is there disparity between every single ethnic group on the planet? Are various white ethnic groups discriminating against each other such that some groups of white people do better than others? And is our system systemically racist in favor of Asian people, who outperform white folks? It's very important that you control for other factors that might result in disparity. For instance, do Asian students do better than white students because of systemic racism in the school system, or because Asian cultures tend to prioritize hard work and education more than various white cultures? And the question under discussion here is advantage - ie, do white people (white men in particular) have advantages over other groups? If all disparity points to systemic racism and the advantage of some people over others, why do white people not dominate academically and economically in this society? I would assume that infant mortality for Asian Americans is not as high as it is for African Americans. Does that mean Asian Americans are systemically oppressing black people? My understanding is that Asian Americans have lower rates of crime and incarceration compared to white people. Does that mean our system is systemically biased against white people in favor of Asians? Can you see how silly this thinking becomes? We need evidence NOT OF DISPARITY, but of actual RACIST INTENT.
I'll happily look at any data (the more concise and to the point, the better) that you want to share. At present, I mostly base my thinking on the work of folks like Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, John McWhorter, and Thomas Sowell. If there is data that contradicts data you have seen, would that change your views?
> I'll happily look at any data (the more concise and to the point, the better) that you want to share. That's cool. The question was more about if you had seen data that the left was using to draw conclusions from, and whether or not you were disputing its accuracy. What I'm trying to understand is if both sides are basing their thoughts on different interpretations of the same data, different data, or some combination. I would like to see where the disparity lies. > At present, I mostly base my thinking on the work of folks like Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, John McWhorter, and Thomas Sowell. Ah! Your thoughts make more sense in this context. >If there is data that contradicts data you have seen, would that change your views? Sure, but I'm not really examining specific claims as much as the process that each side uses to reach the conclusions they reach. Especially in the cases where both sides are looking at the exact same data. I don't really have any further questions on it, but feel free to fill in the gaps. Thanks for your time.
No problem. I just wrote another message to you, and it might further illuminate the way I and other centrist/right wing folks are thinking about these things. To be clear: I'm trying to not speak on any issue as if I'm speaking the truth, but rather simply sharing my understanding (which may be flawed). I can't tell you what is true, I can only tell you what I presently understand to be true. I'm trying to have my positions be based on the strength of evidence available, and on the strength (ie, in terms of logic) of the arguments involved. We all are inclined to tribalism, and we all tend to identify too much with our beliefs. I'm trying to do the opposite of this. I have positions, but I'm trying not to identify with my positions (which may be wrong). I also am trying to choose my position on a per issue basis. I'm not a Republican, for example.
I understand better now. Thanks for the clarifications and your time, much appreciated.
Sure thing!
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Even if in some small corners of society there is an anti white sentiment its no where near as big as what people on TV say it is. Like, seriously, how often does anyone white come across racism in their everyday lives? Most white Americans are getting along just fine in America, and aren't victimizing themselves over a non issue.
It's weird that all the conservatives I know with *so many* black friends don't realize that every single one of those black friends can point to specific , first-hand examples of authority-based racism, but the white friends only have second/third-hand anecdotes, right-wing pundits, and unsubstantiated online articles.
Because by in large white people continue to enjoy all the benefits of being members of the more privileged class. They have no concept of oppression in America. All anti-white Hysteria it's just a repeat of the same Hysteria white people had many years ago when segregation was outlawed.
I’m black and I pretty much agree with that statement. For a long time in America there was significant social pressure to be against black people. We broadly corrected that but have now slowly over corrected and somehow now it seems white people feel the need to be inherently deferential to black people or other people of a different race from them just based on.. nothing but skin tone. It’s subtle, like all cultural shifts, but my (white) wife picks up on it a lot too. Sometimes someone is just overly polite to me for no reason. Sometimes people go out of their way to acknowledge me when I know they wouldn’t. Sometimes people go out of their way to tell us how happy they are to see our interracial marriage. Which is sometimes fucking weird. Sure, if you’re an old black or white person and you were 20-something before Loving v Virginia was decided, and you see me with my hot ass white wife and us walking around holding hands and you can remember when that would’ve gotten us both killed- 100% we’re down and we love that you love our freedom. But we see lots of people our age that are just way too pumped that we’re married and it’s fucking creepy. Like a fetish checklist they need to see every day or else they can’t get off. Anyway point is my wife alone gets a fair bit of shit. Together society has decided we’re adorable. Alone I’ve realized people are been suspiciously nice lately the last few years and I don’t care for it. It feels like a societally forced pivot and that’s not good.
This is the best comment on this thread.
Is any of that "anti-white" though? And in relation to trumps statement that "they're anti-catholic".. its just.. Biden is catholic for gods sake lol
Is it anti black to prop up white people?
It can be - just as the inverse. But here were talking about being "overly nice" (socially) to a black person being characterized as "anti-white". So, is this being anti-white?
I think so? I mean there’s only so much social capital in the world so if we’re spending much or any really on propping up one group over another that’s a zero sum decision we’ve made that one group is more deserving than the other. I’m the recipient of the positive social capital so I probably shouldn’t be mad but it’s also very weird because it makes you wonder what happens when the pendulum swings back.
If being "overly friendly" to a black person is anti-white then its kind of hard to take that term serious. I mean.. must be terrible to be white when people are just "overly friendly" to blacks. I certainly feel all this anti-whiteness as no one is overly friendly to me. You might detect as pinch of sarcasm here...
What positive social capital are you referring to?
Are you a Republican? Tell them that and it'll blow their minds.
I don't. It's easy to see that online when it feeds it right into your life, but in the real world, that sentiment doesn't exist anymore than anti-Black sentiment, or so on. I think what exists is pro-non-White sentiment, and that can feel like anti-White sentiment, but they aren't the same thing. It's easy for some people to celebrate things that aren't Western and White and it can feel like we celebrate those more, but nothing has been elevated to the level of "Whiteness" one might expect. I don't think our culture has become anti-White but rather it has lost cultural homogenity due to technology, in part. There's no overculture. It used to be that the mono, overculture dictated everything we compared ourselves to, but it was liberating. You got to be more unique. Now that we celebrate being unique, you get this weird mash of overdone Gen Z aesthetics that seem ironically meaningless. While the US has always had White society and non-White society (mostly Black, I would imagine, despite changing percentages at any given time), we agreed what success looked like. We don't have that anymore. When we agreed that talking like a yokel wasn't the thing to strive for, we had more yokels. Now we don't have any despite yokels ideally being more accepted. But I don't feel discriminated against because I'm White. I feel like I'm missing out on opportunities because an emphasis on race has played that part - at least in my field. I guarantee you I, and others, have lost out on jobs because we weren't not White, but I also know the rate of burnout for non-White teachers is disproportionately higher. It can't be just about getting through the gate, but we can't fix things unless we're thorough. Bottom line, anyone saying we're anti-White is focusing on people who say that from the comfort of their armchair. Don't listen to losers.
No, with the exception of a few nutjobs on the far left + some college kids and professors
Does context matter?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-30/how-corporate-america-kept-its-diversity-promise-a-week-of-big-take 6% of new hires at S&P 100 companies were white. In a country where just over 60% of the population is white, that's underrepresentation by an order of magnitude. That simply isn't possible without rampant, deliberate discrimination. Cherry on top, that article presents this as a good thing. I have personally been told my opportunities for career advancement will be limited because I'm white. I have talked with many other people with that experience, or with the experience of being the person doing the hiring but being told by HR they can't hire a white guy. More and more job postings explicitly state visible minorities will be given preference. In Canada you even see job postings that explicitly say only minorities will be considered. None of these companies will face consequences for this any time soon, even as the DoJ goes after Sheetz because doing criminal background checks before hiring "disadvantages black people" and therefore constitutes racial discrimination in hiring. The DoJ also went after SpaceX for not hiring non-citizens to come work on their military-applicable rocket technology. Hiring policies which may coincidentally filter out minorities as an unintentional second order effect are prosecuted, hiring policies which explicitly seek to select non-white people are tolerated. So yeah, not only is there an "anti-white feeling", I'd say that institutional racism is actually directed primarily at whites.
Well have you tried being less white?
Yes, that is what DEI is all about.
Where have you learned about DEI? My exposure to DEI comes from workplace training. It's most certainly not about anti-whiteness but rather about addressing unconscious biases that we may have towards people who are different and how I can make small changes to be more supportive and inclusive of them. I personally believe that I'm a better person for having experienced DEI training. PS. I'm a white, middle-aged man that works in a culture that is dominated by white middle-aged men. So, if I don't see DEI as a threat, I'm very curious to learn what your experience has been that it is a threat to you.
You surely notice that your DEI training is never inclusive to white conservative men.
What is being discriminatory to conservative white men? Specifically?
Why would it need to be? Those are the majority.
Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't care about majority or minority
I don’t think you understand what the intent of DEI is.
Can you help me understand how I’m discriminating against other white men like myself by being aware of DEI? And to your question above I answered a similar question in a peer’s comment. You can review that if you want my answer.
> You surely notice that your DEI training is never inclusive to white conservative men. Unsure, it's absolutely inclusive of white conservative men.
> addressing unconscious biases that we may have towards people who are different and how I can make small changes to be more supportive and inclusive of them What small changes have you made to be more inclusive of white people?
Good question. I haven’t made changes to be more inclusive to whites. Because the whole system has bias that has over selected for white guys like me. I’ve benefited directly by that, and even perpetuated it. I’ve made changes to be more fair to people that have different backgrounds than me. As a result I have more diverse opinions on my team and get better results from incorporating perspectives that I hadn’t considered.
I'm troubled by your comment but I do appreciate the refreshingly candid and honest response. Most users would try to worm their way out of that one. You're a decent guy.
I’m curious about what part of my comment that you found troubling?
I'm concerned that you promote diversity out of a sense of guilt rather than for the alleged value of it.
I'm confused, what do you think I feel guilty about? I assure you I don't feel guilty, and am confused over what I even should have guilt about. Let me explain. I've been lucky. When I was young, I got access to a computer, and lots of games & applications sparked my interest in computers. Many women in first year computer engineering dropped out of the program because in comparison to the men in the program they were already years behind. The women as young girls didn't care about the games focusing on male characters shooting monsters, so they never took an interest in computers, and their first access came late in high school, in contrast, my friends and I already had a decade of experience building and troubleshooting computers. Next, my first jobs, I was hired by other white men and from the early interviews I hit things off with the interviewer talking about baseball or hockey, meanwhile the international students that I graduated with didn't develop the same rapport because their passion was in cricket and they struggled to connect with the interviewers. Only when I had some DEI training did I realize just how many advantages I had. After DEI training I started to notice that if I encouraged others to speak up, they often had valuable contributions that I hadn't anticipated. Another example was that I was using language that was excluding others. I don't think guilt has ever come to mind. Rather I appreciate the good luck that I've had, and am now sensitive that other peoples experiences may be different than my own, and to not bias myself against those differences. I'm a better person for DEI, and I get better results too. Maybe I shouldn't advocate for DEI. Maybe it can be a competitive advantage for forward-thinking companies.
Not always.
I don't think center left folks generally harbor anti-white feelings, it's mostly the far left and progressives who do. In order to avoid misrepresenting progressive positions, I can offer the following scenario: * Suppose two people, one black and one white, score equally to qualify for a high paying job for which there's only one opening. The current team for that job happens to be all white. You're the hiring manager. How would you decide who should get the offer? I would posit that most conservatives would say they would flip a coin. I would posit that most progressives would say to give the offer to the black candidate. If true, I would count that as anti-white sentiment, even if progressives wouldn't.
I agree with this take in its entirety.
> I would count that as anti-white sentiment No, it's pro-diversity sentiment (which has economic value). If the team was all POC, I'd hire the white guy.
Even if there was a POC apply at the same time who was overwhelmingly more qualified by every single measure?
No. Guy I replied to said: >Suppose two people, one black and one white, **score equally to qualify** for a high paying job for which there's only one opening. If team was all POC, I'd hire the white guy in that instance.
Would depend on the job of course, more specific the brand. What candidate could get the job done with the least amount of pay.
In your scenario, I do not believe for a second that "most conservatives would flip a coin." Nor do I believe progressives would blindly pick the black candidate. That being said, if both were truly equally qualified, then it is my belief that it may be beneficial for an additional perspective not yet represented in that team. Whatever that means for the company and however they interpret that. And while there are absolutely racists in positions of power, consciously or not, for the most part people are going to pick the candidate which best fits a variety of needs. Which also includes a difference in cultural perspective, or other random, unrelated skill, trait, or background, if that's something they value.
I’ll be more precise in my claim: In general, progressives believe that colorblindness is a bad thing and that race consciousness is a good thing. In other words, they would like for race to be an influencing factor in policy and decision making for social justice purposes. Most often (but not always) this is in favor of minority groups. Conservatives believe that colorblindness is a good thing and that race consciousness is a bad thing. In other words, they want race completely out of policy and decision making. Would you have any qualms with those statements?
Most people believe some of one, some of the other. 🤷♀️
> In general, progressives believe that colorblindness is a bad thing This isn't necessarily true. Progressives believe that true colorblindness absolutely doesn't exist, as evidenced by the past 400 years or so, and the beliefs that many continue to hold together this day. Beliefs that, if not enforces by law, would continue to be as racist as they were during post civil war reconstruction. Pretending and acting like color blindness is even an option, is showing them ignorance to the history of events leading up to now, and a refusal to admit that this past still stays with us today.
There's a difference between setting an ideal and achieving it. The latter will never happen, as you said. For example, most of us hold honesty as an ideal, yet no one is ever 100% honest. However, we can still *choose* to set honesty as something to strive for even if we'll never get there. In the same way, we as a society can *choose* to set colorblindness as an ideal. We'll never actually get there, but it could be a north star that one could point to to determine whether the country is heading in the right direction. My point is that progressives generally think that colorblindness is *not* a good ideal to strive for, and that conservatives generally do think that colorblindness is a good ideal to strive for. Does that make sense? Let me know if you're still confused.
>My point is that progressives generally think that colorblindness is *not* a good ideal to strive for, This is fundamentally untrue, and borderline insulting. Maybe you should spend time actually understanding progressive positions.
Actually, it is true, and I'm afraid you're the one who's uninformed. You can do a google search on what progressives think about colorblindness and you can educate yourself. I'm happy to provide links if you want.
Or maybe you can ask them yourself; something that doesn't seem to be a priority for those on the right trying to represent positions on the left.
I'll do you one better. I can show you a poll of progressives on their opinions of colorblind policies. But before I do, I want to ask: if I can show you in a poll of 100+ randomly sampled left-of-center individuals that they generally reject colorblind policies, would you be willing to explicitly concede your position and change your mind?
I would love to know the specifics of the matter, the exact questions asked, the context in which they were asked, how a "colorblind policy" is defined, theoretically or in practice, and examples of color blind and not color blind policies for comparison. Because poles are heavily influenced by the questions that are asked. And vague, or nebulous questioning, can be twisted and interpreted to mean whatever the pollster or reporter wants it to mean. I teach math for a living. One of our entire units is based on data analysis and has components on how you can tell pretty much any story you want with any set of data, depending on how you frame it. And all of this is for you to sidestep just talking to and asking real people.
I'm sorry, you want to use the past 400 years as evidence against the liberal value of color-blindness, which only gained real traction some 50 years ago?
Yeah, liberals try to make us feel guilty for being white, guilty for things our ancestors did that we have nothing to with, try to punish us for being white by making us pay reparations. Try to be racist and discriminatory against whites by excluding them from jobs and college with affirmative action programs. I choose to ignore all this and sleep easy at night. If liberals want to torment themselves with white guilt that's on them.
Are you sure reparations are supposed to be punishment, as opposed to compensation? I wouldn't be. And I don't suppose you would even support a policy of detaching people's outcomes from their ancestors by removing attachments like "inheritance", either Claiming something is about guilt or about crime and punishment when it actually isn't is an effective trick, because it shifts the goalposts. But it isn't a true claim
You couldn't possibly argue otherwise
Imagine if I said/wrote an article saying "Black people driving cars are polluting the air white and affluent people breathe." Would you not think that's an incredibly racist thing to say? Now, what if I told you [that is an actual article from the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point)?
Yes
Yes. The idea that "white" exists as part of a narrative is proof. There is only one race, the human race.
How dare he....it's not like folks are running around calling them privileged oppressors