Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[Jez]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

.... indicates you have no clue what minority groups in the US want.  Or what their obstacles are.  

 

I think I just wasted 20 mins laying out my thoughts on the subject.

Of course I have not got a clue! I would deliberately avoid seeking a clue!

What makes you think you do [assuming you are white]? You don't, for a moment, consider implying that you do might be condescending, a white person who tells others they don't know what the obstacles of blacks are? Wow.  I mean .. WOW!

I'm asking you to dwell on that for a moment, before actually commenting on it!

The question of voting raises another aspect of being ingrained into American thinking and not seeing it 'neutrally' from within.

Your politics look like a joke from the outside.

You are taught that voting actually makes a difference when in fact you can vote for one of two parties whose polices are objectively almost indistinguishable. Of course, you believe you can see the [tiny] differences because you've been conditioned to see them and to argue one end of the egg is better to break than the other.

You can vote for the party under whose auspices and by whose members the KKK was set up, fought to keep slavery, and voted in the Jim Crow laws, or you can vote for the Republicans who 'everyone knows' are the worst for black rights but happened be the party formed by the abolitionists. Oh, OK, I'll pick ... err ...... 🤣

In the UK we can vote for multiple parties and I don't even bother they are all as bad as each other. The culture in which Americans are so deeply submerged in is the ironic belief that you live in a 'true' democracy. I don't believe you can say you live in a democracy unless you have the right, and moderate likelihood, of being able to vote in independent candidates that can stand for YOUR rights rather than those of a political party, and to do so on some form of proportional representation basis.

But I am not expecting you to see that the US system is a very poor example of a democratic system, I expect Americans to believe they have the highest democratic principles. Difficult to see that, if you are not 'neutral' and outside that system.

[TheVat]

 

23 minutes ago, Jez said:

Of course I have not got a clue! I would deliberately avoid seeking a clue!

What makes you think you do [assuming you are white]? You don't, for a moment, consider implying that you do might be condescending, a white person who tells others they don't know what the obstacles of blacks are? Wow.  I mean .. WOW!

Way off base there.  I learned the old-faahioned way: listening to black people, and working as a social worker for a decade.  In the US.  Where understanding systemic racism and discrimination is rightly considered to be essential to having America live up to its Constitutional principles.   The only way your hypothesized Self-Reliant Minority can get political traction to fix things in the US is to coalition with other groups who share their goals.  12‰ of the US population is not going to remedy 400 years of discrimination without another 39% (or at least, a strong plurality in some cases) lending some support.  And given how the voting system deck is stacked, probably more than that.  Progressives here are mostly committed to coming together to help Dr. King's dream along, and not shaming each other on personal experience credentials. 

I also have never been a woman seeking reproductive care, or gay.  Are you suggesting I shouldn't bother to march with them, too, or donate money or publicly express support?   I'm curious what sort of America we'll have if white guys like me sit meekly with our hands folded while all those discriminated minorities try their luck on tje streets and in the courts.

[Jez]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

Way off base there.  I learned the old-faahioned way: listening to black people, and working as a social worker for a decade. ....Are you suggesting I shouldn't bother to march with them, too, or donate money or publicly express support?

That's completely non-sequitur to what I wrote.

If you are listening and have been asked for help, then of course you, and I, and all good people would want to support.

Where have I said otherwise?

I was accused earlier of not reading the thread, but the problem from my POV is that others don't seem to be reading my posts!#

I'll wait to be invited to a march (on a topic that does not affect me) before just turning up unexpected and possibly unwanted, thanks all the same. 

I accept I could be wrong about all of this. Let me ask you if you accept that you could be?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Jez said:

Just to say, I'm uncomfortable continuing in a debate where someone can name call and say that they are right and anyone who isn't on their 'side' is wrong and a fool or liar. I'd expect that sort of proposition to be suppressed in a good-faith discussion.

If you are asking me that question in good faith I have to say that I have not alluded to biases, I alluded to neutrality. It was @iNow who created the false synonym and dichotomy by switching the word between phrases. They are probably a lawyer or something?

One of our principles here is that we only attack ideas, not the people who have them, so I could tell from the way iNow phrased it that he was trying to adhere to that principle. It's not name-calling to say that an idea is foolish, it's not calling you a fool, just the idea. The distinction is important if we want to discuss anything meaningfully.

And see, you claim to me to be neutral wrt biases, but later in this post you admit to iNow that "of course we all have biases". The "of course" tells me you might even suggest that it would be foolish to think otherwise. Does this make sense to you?

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is a problem with 'idealists'; they are so convinced they are right, they won't even consider alternate viewpoints worthy of discussion.

If you don't agree with their method, then obviously you want to do nothing, right Phi ?

I'm sorry, this is exactly what I thought YOU were espousing, that reparations are just more discrimination, so we should put a stop to it when we discover it, and nothing more. Perhaps I got this impression because you didn't offer any alternative other than what I consider criminal behavior. I tried to explain my position and even offer some links to support it. 

If this is your method, then you're right, I don't agree with it. It seems like giving criminal behavior a pass as long as the perp promises not to do it again.

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you guys want to have this discussion or not ?
Because if you simply want converts to your ideology, no discussion is required.

That's right. It's all our fault. You were right all along and I just wanted to convert everyone to my ideology, while you and others were simply trying to discuss the topic. I'm so ashamed.

[mistermack]

59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So when you sit one out, it's because neither candidate seems better.  But when a black voter sits one out, they are just lazy.

I didn't say they were lazy. That's "lazy" debating, erecting a straw man. IF someone can't be bothered, that generally means that they don't consider the vote to be worth the bother that it entails. People who do vote are not necessarily less lazy, but they put a higher value on voting. 

If I said that many of the white people who don't vote do so because it's too much bother, I wouldn't get a reaction on this thread. But say the same thing about black people, and the hackles rise. I have news for you. Black people can be just as uninterested as white people. 

The difference between the two is that the blacks have more to fight for and gain in the USA. Especially when it comes to voting facilities. LIke I said before, there's no point in bellyaching about voting procedures, if you can't be bothered to go and vote for someone who might change it. 

[Jez]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One of our principles here is that we only attack ideas, not the people who have them, so I could tell from the way iNow phrased it that he was trying to adhere to that principle. It's not name-calling to say that an idea is foolish, it's not calling you a fool, just the idea. The distinction is important if we want to discuss anything meaningfully.

 

How can an idea be 'a liar or a fool'? Those are descriptors only of a person, not of the concept of an idea.

"Pretending otherwise makes you a liar or a fool. "

An idea cannot 'pretend'.

An idea could be a misrepresentation, a mendacity, a deceit, a duplicity, even a deception, but it cannot be 'a liar'.

How can that be what @inow was seeking to imply? You seem unwilling to see it for what it was. I'll disengage here.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Jez

[MigL]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

In the US.  Where understanding systemic racism and discrimination is rightly considered to be essential to having America live up to its Constitutional principles. 

How is that working out  ???

 

The first step, before redress of any prior injustices, is ending racism, Phi.
It doesn't make sense, to me, that the mechanism used for mitigating the consequences of those past wrongs, uses racism.
Just my opinion.
If you want to call that 'doing nothing', then you're not serious about this topic.

And after you all accuse me, and others, of wanting to do nothing, Zap acts all butt-hurt, when called out on it.

( I'm sure you can tell, but I don't give neg reps,Phi )

Edited June 8, 2023 by MigL

[Jez]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

And see, you claim to me to be neutral wrt biases

I want to fix this misquote.

When have I ever said that? I've been going over to try to find what you are referring to.

Quote me.

@iNow 's initial post falsely implied it, I never said it. I never related 'neutrality' with 'a lack of bias', I just went over that very point, in depth. 

I said I am neutral from the point of view of Americans' social views of their own society. I would argue that stands to reason, as I cannot have a view of being an American, given I am not an American.

The 'actual' exchange went like this;-

 

 

Are you seeking to argue that I am NOT neutral with respect to American social influences and you are, even though I have never been part of American society and you have been? How would you argue that?

Edited June 8, 2023 by Jez

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Jez said:

How can an idea be 'a liar or a fool'? Those are descriptors only of a person, not of the concept of an idea.

OK. You originally claimed to be neutral wrt racial bias, and I think iNow (and I) took that to mean you had no biases. But you've cleared it up that, of course, we ALL have biases. So isn't the idea that one can be bias-free only be held by either a fool or a liar? Is anyone defending the belief that they are completely unbiased? I think he's only calling YOU a fool or a liar if you believe you have no biases.

It's the same response I'd give if someone told me they could survive a twenty-story fall wearing just a grin and a Speedo.

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

The first step, before redress of any prior injustices, is ending racism, Phi.

How are you going to take such a huge leap without addressing instances of discrimination, which is the actionable part of racism? The law doesn't say anything about punishing racists, just those who discriminate against groups of people.

This seems like you're saying "The first step in winning any race is to cross that finish line!" Don't you have to do a LOT of little things first to insure that you have a chance to put a toe on that line?

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

It doesn't make sense, to me, that the mechanism used for mitigating the consequences of those past wrongs, uses racism.
Just my opinion.

And this insistence that a focus on the victims of state discrimination is wrong simply because those victims were singled out BECAUSE of their race and the only ways to make it right, by definition, is by using race as a factor. OMG, MigL, you may not be a racist but they want you as legal counsel. Using your definitions, the US will never have to compensate any taxpayer funded discrimination done to groups of people.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but have you suggested alternatives that involve more than just "Stop that!"?

[Jez]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

OK. You originally claimed to be neutral wrt racial bias,

I did not.

Our posts just crossed then, I have just clarified what I actually said, and it wasn't 'that'.

It was strictly neutrality with respect to the permeation of discrimination in the USA.

How could I be less neutral on that than you?

Edited June 8, 2023 by Jez

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Jez said:

I want to fix this misquote.

When have I ever said that? I've been going over to try to find what you are referring to.

Quote me.

3 hours ago, Jez said:

If you are asking me that question in good faith I have to say that I have not alluded to biases, I alluded to neutrality.

I asked, "I'd like to know if Jez thinks we DON'T all have biases." It was definitely asked in good faith. I'm honestly unsure of where you stand now. Do we not ALL have biases, or are you somehow magically neutral in that regard?

 

[Jez]

I'm just doing a bit of searching into the background of American slavery history. Curious findings.

According to the page; https://sittingbull1845.blogspot.com/2015/05/black-social-history-americas-first.html , it was not legal for whites to own slaves until 1670, but it was legalised for blacks to own slaves in 1655.

The page says

"

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

"

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I asked, "I'd like to know if Jez thinks we DON'T all have biases." It was definitely asked in good faith. I'm honestly unsure of where you stand now. Do we not ALL have biases, or are you somehow magically neutral in that regard?

 

Again you are conflating bias with neutrality.

I've just gone over that SEVERAL times that these are not synonymous. I spelt it out in various different ways.

'Bias' and 'neutrality' are DIFFERENT, and first @iNow and now yourself continue to conflate them.

Why do you believe they are synonymous? If we are all biased, then name any 'neutral' person who is capable of passing, or has ever passed, a 'neutral' opinion.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Jez said:

'Bias' and 'neutrality' are DIFFERENT, and first @iNow and now yourself continue to conflate them.

Why do you believe they are synonymous? If we are all biased, then name any 'neutral' person who is capable of passing, or has ever passed, a 'neutral' opinion.

Actually, I have to admit I had no idea what you were talking about when you brought up "neutrality" wrt what the rest of us were talking about, which was racial biases. I don't know what a "'neutral' person" is, or how to go about defining one when it comes to racial bias. I hope this isn't a red herring, but what's the difference between a normal person with racial biases and a neutral person?

[Jez]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Actually, I have to admit I had no idea what you were talking about when you brought up "neutrality" wrt what the rest of us were talking about, which was racial biases. I don't know what a "'neutral' person" is, or how to go about defining one when it comes to racial bias. I hope this isn't a red herring, but what's the difference between a normal person with racial biases and a neutral person?

I already answered this in the second part of the post on the previous page;

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131660-physical-revue-says-whiteboards-are-racist/?do=findComment&comment=1241754

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Jez said:

I'm just doing a bit of searching into the background of American slavery history. Curious findings.

According to the page; https://sittingbull1845.blogspot.com/2015/05/black-social-history-americas-first.html , it was not legal for whites to own slaves until 1670, but it was legalised for blacks to own slaves in 1655.

The page says

"

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

Clearly, the US was right to enact laws that discriminated against this particular group of people. 

1 minute ago, Jez said:

I already answered this in the second part of the post on the previous page;

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131660-physical-revue-says-whiteboards-are-racist/?do=findComment&comment=1241754

I'm sorry, but I think that's a horrible misuse of the term "neutrality". If I have it right, you're saying that you're neutral wrt racial biases if they don't apply to you? If you aren't black, you can't give a shit about what happens to black people? Please thank your friend for marching in  solidarity with the BLM movement even though they aren't black. To me, that's someone who understands that compassion is more important to this species than competition. 

[MigL]

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm sorry if I missed it, but have you suggested alternatives that involve more than just "Stop that!"?

How about good laws that punish injustices when they happen,not try to fix them 200 years later ?
How about a Constitution that enshrines human rights for ALL States, not the mix-match of different laws and rights for different States ?
How about an impartial Supreme Court that doesn't do the bidding of the party that appointed them ?

Need I go on ?
Other countries have things like this.
Also gun control and Universal Health care.
Why must the most advanced country in the orld be the most backward in some respects ?

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Zap acts all butt-hurt

Why must you always make these discussions personal?

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

How about good laws that punish injustices when they happen,not try to fix them 200 years later ?

And this again suggests that the issues are those of the past and not ongoing (which is where I took my queue that racism is fixed). Unless you are for laws that repays families that fell victim to redlining and predatory mortgages? As well as municipalities to pay for underserved communities and schools and keeping them from getting higher degrees? Punishing health systems that create worse outcomes for certain folks? I am sure there won't be any pushback for that.

 

[zapatos]

I'm posting this just because of its timing in relation to this discussion. 

For the third time in seven years Ohio lawmakers are making an attempt to eliminate the clause in their constitution that allows for slavery in some cases. This is the first time the Republicans are on board. Here is the clause in question:

Quote

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio currently says: “There shall be no slavery in this state; nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/us/ohio-constitution-slavery-punishment-reaj/index.html

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How about good laws that punish injustices when they happen,not try to fix them 200 years later ?

Relate this to the housing discrimination we've most recently been talking about. 80 years ago, the US government (Canada too) set up the redlining process to keep ethnic people from owning property in white areas. The practice was a secret one, the effects weren't known until studies were done later, and it was a legal practice supported by the FHA. How would you have punished the injustice when it happened when the white folks perpetrating the discrimination were doing it legally? How do you punish the government when it's the cause of the injustice? I know the answer, do you? 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How about a Constitution that enshrines human rights for ALL States, not the mix-match of different laws and rights for different States ?

Here here! Unfortunately, Christo-fascist conservatives in my country prevent this from happening, and they believe like you that paying reparations to black families disenfranchised by the FHA's redlining practices is an absolute no-go. Can you please talk some sense into them about the Equal Rights Amendment?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How about an impartial Supreme Court that doesn't do the bidding of the party that appointed them ?

Yes! You're on a roll now! 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Need I go on ?
Other countries have things like this.
Also gun control and Universal Health care.
Why must the most advanced country in the orld be the most backward in some respects ?

No, yes, yes, yes, I think it's a lack of compassion for the "others" we've been trained to hate and trying like fools and liars to make 100% capitalism work. But now you're off in new thread territory.

 

[TheVat]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm posting this just because of its timing in relation to this discussion. 

For the third time in seven years Ohio lawmakers are making an attempt to eliminate the clause in their constitution that allows for slavery in some cases. This is the first time the Republicans are on board. Here is the clause in question:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/us/ohio-constitution-slavery-punishment-reaj/index.html

Just curious, bit of a digress, but wouldn't eliminating involuntary servitude (a broader category than chattel slavery) eliminate military conscription?  I suppose they've got a clause in there somewhere...

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Just curious, bit of a digress, but wouldn't eliminating involuntary servitude (a broader category than chattel slavery) eliminate military conscription?  I suppose they've got a clause in there somewhere...

I think that one has been adjudicated. The government gets to do what must be done.

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why must you always make these discussions personal?

Because being in a minority is often hard. 

8 hours ago, Jez said:

Of course we all have biases

Indeed. I’m genuinely happy to have FINALLY convinced you and to have moved your commentary thankfully AWAY from your previously heels dug far more foolish unrespectable espoused position of:

On 6/7/2023 at 2:10 PM, Jez said:

I am a neutral outside observer

 

On 6/7/2023 at 5:56 PM, Jez said:

one is an outside neutral observer when one is not part of either of the groups being discussed

Were it not for the pushback from me and others here, NONE of us would’ve benefited from your 17 paragraph freshman philosopher level treatise on the intricacies of “neutrality” nor cringy stalkerish at-ing and tagging and repeated mentions of me personally by name… as if, Me… I’m the problem… it’s me? 

See. It’s win/win. We’re all better now for it. Even got to throw in some Taylor Swift there at the end. You should be thanking me, but you don’t have to. You’re welcome. 

[MigL]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why must you always make these discussions personal?

'That's right. It's all my fault. You were right all along and I just wanted to make it personal, while you and others were simply trying to discuss the topic. I'm so ashamed.'

Sound familiar ( and condescending ) ?
I thought it was obvious.
( nothing to do with being 'hard', INow; get your mind out of the gutter )

Edited June 9, 2023 by MigL