That was just one way to say that you're full of shit.Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:33 amYou edited my words to say what you wish I said, and called it 'fixed'.
No, I just thought the pillow guy's cyber symposium debacle was funny. Would you like me to change it back? Well, Cunt?
The pillow guy is a fucking hoot. I don't know where they dug him up, but kudos to the casting director.
What?
You can find sibling inequality anywhere. It is not racism because unequal siblings are found among white families as well as black ones. any where at all, really. We can agree on that. The difference between inequality among siblings and inequality among demographic strata of societies is that unequal siblings suffer from racial discrimination in addition to sibling inequality. Can we agree on that as well?
Which is where we might talk about the anti-CRT sentiments that getting the 'concerned' so all up in a froth at the moment. CRT was rooted in the idea that when the civil rights act was brought in it only made certain forms of discrimination illegal but did nothing to address the institutions or the individuals who had, until that point, lived by and benefited from racist polices: which is to say, the existence of the law didn't in and of itself change racist structures or attitudes. Not that one would necessarily expect it to - that was not the law's purpose. To some extent this was understood at the time. As Kendi notes in the first chapter of his book mentioned above...Seabass wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:04 am...
Basically, US conservatives think that in order to lift black people out of the bottom caste in the US, you'd have to do it at the expense of white people. So they feel that once you achieve equality under the law, you're done. Pass the Civil Rights act, and wash our hands of the matter. Never mind that centuries of racism in the US have led to black people having far less wealth than white people. Nothing we can do about that because to pursue equity would be punishing current white people for something whites in the past did.
If you've been brought up to consider that the exercise of one's rights and protections under the law are somehow conditional on someone else being denied those rights and protections, or at least not being able to exercise them to the same extent as you--say, that you and people like you should naturally be the first in line for a job or a loan etc and that some other people should be put to the back of the line; that you and people like you should have unrestricted access to land or be allowed to amass personal wealth and that some other people should have their access and that ability limited; etc--then you're probably more likely to think that granting everybody an equal shot at a job or a loan or a decent lawyer etc is not very just or fair, to you and people like you, because it bumps you off the top of the list. This is how conservatives and their minions and masters like to frame things: that on the basis of justice and fairness equality is essentially inequitable, because it removes certain rights, protections, and privileges which you have a natural right to expect, and to which you had traditionally lay greater claim.As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
Trump negotiated this with the Taliban.
I don't disagree Sean, but can that not also act as fodder for the kind of framing by conservatives that I mentioned - implying that equality is essentially inequitable for poor Whites because it appears, at least in this context, to offer Blacks something extra, something additional? "Why do we need to give Blacks a leg up? Nobody ever gave me or my kind a leg up." etc. We know that some people with a substantial platform do indeed frame equality as being neither just nor fair to certain and particular demographics, because pursuing equality apparently affords some undue additional advantage to another demographic - the previously disadvantaged. That this is divisive among the broader demographic of 'the poor' (for want of a better term) seems to be the point of it imo. And in that regard we should probably look to Power, and specifically White Power, to understand why creating that kind of context has more than a modicum of force in society and also who is ultimately benefiting from it - because it isn't the poor of any stripe that's for sure.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:41 pmThere must be something to that. But it's also more simple than that. If you were poor as a kid you're unlikely to be sympathetic towards talk of all the privileges you've enjoyed. Because, well, you can't see them, and they may not in fact have benefited you much at all. Your father was a drunk and your mom worked minimum wage jobs. Your schools never produced the best, and nobody in your family ever became a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer or an executive.
White poverty is rampant in the US, and none of those people are going to agree that they've been privileged. How could they? Because an abstraction --which says nothing about any individual-- clearly demonstrates privilege in the average --please.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
