Skatologist said:
runic knight said:
I can't tell if you didn't bother hearing his reply,
No I bothered, it just happened to reduce my respect for the man even further. How he managed to do that after coming off as one of those Bob Whittaker bots crying about white genocide with only slightly more nuance and slightly less bile still surprises me. I refuse to let him sweep his comments under the rug as if they might actually have merit though.
Don't people sweep things under the run when they don't care about them, not as a means to somehow make them seem valid? Isn't sweeping things under the rug the exact opposite thing you do if you value them?
Oh and "Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable statistic, you freak out, and burn things down." Well, those "uncomfortable statistics" tend to be brought up as half truths or misunderstandings used in ways in order to harm marginalized groups.
So, like "wage gap" nonsense that gets echoed all the time? Would it be fair to call anyone who claims that as "sexist" then? Or does it not apply that the stat that has been debunked time and again is brought up specifically as a call against one group of people on behalf of another not count because you feel the group it is called against isn't marginalized overall? Because if so, I do have to point out that viewing the groups in that manner relies on stereotypes and preconceived biases about a group of people solely on the trait that defines them as a group.
"Well they are disproportionately involved in those kinds of crimes" was used in reply to trans people and sexual assaults/sex crimes insinuating they are overly represented as an aggressor rather than the actual fact they are victims of those kinds of crimes.
I remember that line, and that one was very dishonest. However I don't see the stat jon cited as being intentionally misleading in that way. His stat was pretty cut and dry about the economic status not differentiating in who committed crimes in the way one would expect. Not that it isn't without flaws mind you, but certainly not the intentional dishonesty you are implying it is now.
Jon did a similar thing, spouted off something with no evidence supporting it, asserting it as unobjectionable fact, and the closest thing he has doesn't say what he think he's saying and instead can act as evidence against his claim that discrimination is over.
Except, the stat wasn't intentionally misleading in its reporting in the same way as the previous one you used here. Ironically this attempt here supports jon's claim about how the presentation of an uncomfortable stat alone is enough to get people to freak out and misrepresent him based on hearing stats they don't want to hear.
Which leads me to believe people just want to believe this shit about black people. Now, what would you call someone who goes out and looks for any opportunity to shit on black people even if those things about said black people aren't necessarily true? (BTW, don't try and turn this on "replace black with white and you got a similar problem with a certain group yaddayaddayadda" nonsense. People don't go out and lie about white people like they do for Muslims, Hispanics, or black people. It's not even close to being the same. I mean FFS,
our president even retweeted neonazi statistics on racial homicides[footnote]Should I have to denote these statistics are untrue before you claim I think they are "uncomfortable"?[/footnote])
You attempt to dismiss that people openly shit on white people in the media all the time and want me to take you seriously at all? And you cite trump as evidence of something jon supports in the same argument?
-shakes head-
First off, just because it is inconvenient to realize that people constantly shitting on white people as a race is entirely racist itself, doesn't mean it isn't still racist. If you would like I can cite the countless media articles and stories that carry that theme as the new cultural normal, though I think we both know that is such an obvious occurrence at this point that it is wasting both our time there. Nearly any article in major news talking about race in a way that reinforces the differences between race does so while maligning whites, be it by the argument of original
sin racism to claim all people are racist, or by specifically talking about "white" behavior without a hint of irony to the use of such stereotypical views to justify biases against the race itself. Just because it is directed at a perceived "non-marginalized" group does not make the action any less racist.
Secondly, your conclusion itself is inherently based on a faulty set up as I explained already. You took an example that was intentionally dishonest to compare to one that was not, then used that to justify your conclusion that people were intentionally looking for excuse to shit on black people in general. Logically, you tripped and stumbled two steps back, so your conclusion is neither sound nor valid at this point. So rationally, you failed to support your conclusion here. And while I don't disagree that some people likely do look for any excuse, I don't think jon is in this case in any form, nor do I think the insinuations made do anything but highlight his overall point, as you yourself clearly demonstrated that this is done because he cited a statistic you dislike resulting in implicating his character and comparing him to those intentionally trying to shit on black people (essentially, you are claiming his actions are racist in all but directly calling him racist). The result is that in response to jon pointing out that people who hear statistics they dislike will respond poorly was to latch onto the statistics he used and attack his character as though he was intentionally trying to shit on black people.
You've demonstrated the very point he used in his video.
Also
[link=https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/wealth-doesn-t-protect-u-s--blacks-from-greater-chance-of-incarceration/7820280]Even though the obvious racial disparity does shrink as levels of wealth grow, it is never fully eliminated. According to Zaw, this might be because of other economic factors, such as the wealth of extended family members, or factors such as education, job experience and social connections.
"To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to look at the impact of prior wealth on the odds of incarceration and to demonstrate that wealth does not provide the same degree of insulation from imprisonment for black and Hispanic males as it does for white males," said co-author William A. Darity. Darity is a professor of public policy, African and African American studies and economics at Duke University.[/link]
Black people going to jail disproportionately doesn't "scare" me. Insinuating that as evidence of an inferior race, subculture, or set of values (which racists will do) rather than assessment of historically unjust judicial systems with both conscious and unconscious biases against minorities just pisses me off.
And that is a great defense to the stat being used to support any conclusion. But here's the question I have to ask, what was jon using the statistic to argue here? Because I don't recall it being used to are anything specific, rather just used in shotgun examples while talking about how concentrating on race results in people concentrating on race in reply. You latched onto the implications of the stat itself and argue against a conclusion based on the stat itself that wasn't actually being argued. That, in turn, was what jon's reply video specifically called out, the reply to an uncomfortable statistic.
As he states himself, the point made was that you can't keep harping on about everything being racial and then act surprised when everything is thought of in those terms.
I still don't know what this specifically means. Acknowledging unconscious racism is a thing? Overstating the importance of race in specific instances? Saying that things (maybe more specifically things from certain individuals like Trump) were racist? I'd like some examples of what you mean.
the point was that by concentrating on everything being about race, it inevitably makes people respond based on race as well. The media constantly attacking white people because of racism inevitably caused some white people to reply based on race as well, drawing up examples such as he used about black crime stats. By constantly drawing attention to the divides based on race, especially when making one race the negative one in every example, all it does is serve to perpetuate the idea that race means anything in the first place. It is racism that is being used to fight other racism succeeding in only promoting more racism.
I can only assume, it was the constant attention given to race over the years in the media that made the racial divide so much worse and noticeable now. When making every issue about race is the norm, people reply based on race, even when it isn't just against white people anymore.
Ignoring that and ignoring that discrimination is universally wrong
Define discrimination. Also please give examples that don't sound like strawmen of events I've probably heard of and you are overly biased representing one way or another(aka what Jon did in his "this is supposed to be my apology video, but instead of saying I'm sorry for the heinous stuff I was saying, I'm only going to apologize on
how I was saying such heinous stuff instead." video). Because I refuse to agree with this statement until I get a clear answer on how you define "discrimination". Because discrimination can literally be
"I discriminate by
1. eating apples over oranges
2. Wearing polos over tank tops,
3. Hanging out with Steve who is my friend than Brett who's an abusive fuckwad
4. Watching anything with intellectual merit rather than a Sargon video
5. Giving my money to a cause that I feel needs it versus a cause I don't support"
And wait, since you said that, you must be against
this?! I mean, it does
discriminate entry of people from certain countries.
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on a trait, and within context of the discussion and usual use of the word in social contexts, it is treating them differently based on a trait they can not change or that which doesn't reasonably explain the different treatment. Discrimination requires actually determining how to act toward someone based upon a trait. Racism specifically is treating someone different based on race. Sexism is that for sex. Can be positive and negative discrimination.
Discrimination would be treating a person with distrust during a job interview and not hiring them because of whatever trait. It would be firing someone because they are of a certain trait you personally dislike even though it doesn't affect their ability to do the job.
Discrimination would not be pointing to actual facts about said trait. Pointing out that there is a crime stat imbalance is not discriminating any more than pointing out medical patterns within certain ethnicities, pointing out biological differences between sexes, or pointing out patterns in how people are treated is not itself discrimination. Facts, of which stats can be, are not discriminatory themselves. Conclusions drawn from those facts may be though.
Your definitions of discrimination is weird. While your examples are true of discriminating, few related to people, and most just demonstrate that discrimination between things is nothing more than personal preference. That, in relation to the discussion itself, seems to be intentionally downplaying the seriousness of it. You are after all comparing racism against black people with not wanting to eat an apple. furthermore, your examples all have reason to make the discrimination based on reason in a way that discrimination as discussed in the topic currently does not. You even hint at some of them yourself by having a person judged by their actions of being an asshole(a trait they can certainly control) and not being a cause you feel needs the money (a trait that would dictate how you respond to them).
My thoughts on the refugee block? I am not for it, nor am I greatly against it. With regard to discrimination though, it is yet another example of yours that has justification in treating things differently. The refugees represent a security risk in the government's eyes, and can even base this on incidents with crime and riots in countries where populations of such has resulted in incidents.
So once again, you are pulling up examples that seem to be playing with the wording of "discrimination" to simply mean "treat different than something else in general" rather than the use when relating to how people are discriminated against because of traits that don't actually provide valid reasons for treating them differently but instead are based on biases against those traits they can't change or that which affect nothing on their own. Lets be honest, the discrimination in this case would be against citizens of certain nations currently unstable and in wartime, not a certain race, nor a certain religion though those traits are also shared among them. And while it is still discriminating based on nationality, it is not a trait that is arbitrary or unrelated to why they are treated differently for it, which undercuts comparisons to discrimination against black people which this entire exercise has been implying.
By your examples, hiring a person with a license to drive as a delivery person is discrimination against those without a license who applied. That is not a very good definition for the word as it renders it completely worthless and entirely synonymous with "chose".
And yet that is so commonplace in the media itself, it is harmful to the very notion of tackling race issues.
You can't fight racism by enacting racism, and yet that seems to be the acceptable answer nowadays.
Again, examples of what you fucking mean. Because essentially saying "hey wait, maybe white people are ignorant of what black people have to go through and maybe we all have an unconscious bias against blackness and should take measures correcting that." doesn't really sound all that objectionable.
Not hard to understand what I was saying if you put it in context to the video you said you actually listened to. Though you also claim it is something it isn't while saying you watched it, so pretty obvious you were seeing it as something other than what it is based entirely on biases to begin with.
Ok then, context. Jon was talking about how the media have used racism as a means to combat racism. In particular, racism against white people that would not fly if they were against black people. Sammantha Bee and other media examples showcases this point clearly. This in turn defines the new cultural normal of using racism of one type to combat racism of another, something that doesn't work and is in my opinion abhorrent and disgusting. But it also was used to show the double standard in how one race is treated compared to another, demonstrating that it is indeed racism being used to fight racism.
Arguments such as "black people have to go through something different than white people" rely upon grossly generalized statements based entirely on preconceived views of race that are created solely by stereotypes about said races. They are answers to racism that are done in a way that completely reaffirms the differences in race and that which make one race the "bad guy" while the other is the "victim" regardless that individual occurrences could and do wildly vary. Such arguments done by the media often are racist themselves done to fight racism, and yet which merely reaffirm the notion that race actually mean differences and thus just serves the purpose or perpetually reinforcing the divides between race.
And while one can certainly make arguments based on stats about each race in order to justify conclusions directed at various races, it does leave me with a question about those that choose to do so. If jon is racist for even pointing out the uncomfortable stats, what does it say about those who are actively using such stats in order to justify a conclusion that people should be treated differently based on those traits themselves and specifically about traits that they can not change or that which do not justify treating differently when looked at individually.
