Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I give up !
You guys take an analogy meant to simplify things and ease understanding, and make it more complicated than the reality of the situation.

Its really not that complicated.
Racism exists.
The longer it is allowed to go on unchecked, the more people will suffer injustices  for which they will need reparations.
If you first stop the injustices from happening, you only have to worry about reparations for past injustices.
If you first compensate for past injustices, you still have to worry about on-going and future injustices, because you haven't attempted to 'fix' the root cause.

Compensation is equivalent to putting plasters on the problem and systemic change is the surgery.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Racism exists.
The longer it is allowed to go on unchecked, the more people will suffer injustices  for which they will need reparations.

The issue is that if you simplify things too much, they do not make sense anymore. We know that to be true in natural sciences, where at certain points these simplifications just do not allow an accurate description of nature. Just repeating that racism is the issue, but not the system in which racism creates injustice is simply omitting the very factor that can and needs to be tweaked. Thinking up analogies that similarly omit this issue are not helpful. 

It is like having folks getting sick, but instead of identifying the pathogens involved and prescribing treatments, we talk about how a healthy lifestyle might have prevented it in the first place. Yes not having racism would be great, but not mentioning race anymore is not the same as ending racism (it is like hoping infections go away if we do not focus on bacteria or viruses anymore). 

We can deal with the actual factors leading to disease (or injustice) but it is way harder to envision a system where racism (or diseases) magically disappear.

As I said repeatedly, the issue is context. If we can create a system where racial biases cannot (or at least have a harder time) to result in injustice, that is the first and most realistic step to take. If over time, the idea of racism vanishes, so much the better. But as the joke goes, in order to get to that point we would likely need the population to mix so much so that we all just become a similar shade of brown.

And just to emphasize the same point over and over again over dozens of threads, the issue is the context in which racism could create injustice.

And it can also include unintentional harm that is not based on racist ideology. This can be lawmakers who are inexperienced with specific situations of racial groups, because the folks they are talking to have a very homogenous background. No one in this scenario is necessarily a racist, but this lack of knowledge can create racial injustice. And there are plenty of examples of why certain folks have less access or input into these types of decisions.

Conversely, individuals with no access to power can be as racist as they want, they will have a hard time (even if they wanted to) to create a system that is similarly harmful. 

 

[Jez]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps for you from your pompous privileged perch, but not for others…

I think you will find there are many 'people in the black group' who are arguing precisely what I am arguing here, so your critique and characterisation is unreasonable.

Do you want to see the youtube clips of "black folk" arguing what I am saying? If I am 'so wrong' then there would be none, wouldn't there? I have a right to hold this opinion, especially if many of those in the minority group also hold it.

Are they 'black people from a pompous privileged perch'?

What you are saying, the injustices that discriminated blacks, does apply to some members of that group. I completely agree.

That is not something I have refuted. My thesis here is that there is a group of liberal middle-class white people who seemingly all consider that they have to intervene to help ALL these poor black souls. It's white people patronising blacks, that seems wrong to me and comment-worthy.

I'm not saying that many would not appreciate, or even need, your particular help. What I am saying is that possibly all liberal American "white" people seem to suffer this belief (they are actively rejected from the group if they don't agree), whereas not all "black" people have actually suffered injustice.

You are discussing group identity, but the problem is that there is nothing that uniquely and exclusively distinguishes people who have suffered (for example) the redlining injustice.

Your thesis appears to be

B; set of all people called "black"

R; set of all people suffering social deprivations due to their ethnicity

You want to help a subset of B, but not all B.

To determine who you need to help, you look at whether they are a set of R but, for some reason, 'not necessarily' B.

So the people you say need help are [⊂B]∩R, but ⊂B is undefined until you define [⊂B]∩R. [⊂B] is not independent of R, so by what deterministic process do you tease those apart?

They are not independent because there exists [⊂B]⊄R.

If you just said 'I'm going to help set R', then that would make sense and be logically consistent and deterministic.

The other thing which seems to be well defined is the subset of white liberal Americans who believe all black people need their help, this appears to me to be the entire set, because none of them seem to realise that helping the black subset in R, but not the Hispanic, white, Jewish, or other various possible subsets, is making subordinate the issue of the injustice itself.

They are making 'something else' even more important than the injustice itself!? How is that!?

Have you ever watched 'Megamind', the basis of the plot is that there has to be both superlative good and superlative bad for things to happen, else everything sort of stops, there's no crime left to fight, etc.. This is much as my thesis here is about. For American racism to continue it needs the bigoted extremist white supremacists to manifest the injustices and then it also needs white liberal Americans trained and brought up to see racism in everything.

That is not at all to presuppose that it is wrong for white liberal Americans to fight for justice. I'm all for that, I am in that queue of helpers. So you can continue to do whatever it is you feel compelled to do, but it's your vision of racism that is keeping it alive.

This is the OP (fi you've read the links), and it goes to the heart of that piece that no objective rational argument can touch this way of thinking, it's been made 'not acceptable' to analyse it logically.

When someone commits some sort of injustice or crime, I'm saying deal with the injustice or crime. Don't subordinate the injustice itself beneath another concept. What exactly are you trying to fight for? The injustice? Or your concept of the injustice?

If you want me to link to youtube videos of black people saying what I am saying, just ask. I'll go see what I can find. It's not difficult to find for yourself, if you are prepared to have your world view challenged.

 

 

[dimreepr]

The Parabol of the bad Samaritan.

Jez'us was driving down the road, without a care in the world convinced of his goodness, in his brand new Prius, with "my sweet lord - george harrison" playing loud.

When he spies an alien in trouble, he pulls over and gets out,

Jez'us - are you ok, my friend?

Alien - I'm a victim of a hit and run, I think my legs broken, can you help?

Jez'us - you're in luck my friend, my village (culture) has built a hospital (which I helped pay for) that treats everyone, for free. It's about 100 miles that way, so glad I could help good luck, my friend.

Alien - can you give me a lift, please?

Jez'us - I'd love to, but I've got a thing. But don't worry just call an ambulance.

Alien - I don't have a phone, can I borrow yours?

Jez'us - Well, I'd love to but It's low on charge and I left the charger at home and... I might need it.

Alien - OK, thanks for stopping (dripping in sarcasm).

Jez'us - Well at least I stopped, I don't know, apathetic bloody alien's, the hospital's only an hour or two away.

 

 

Do you reckon that shit will stick @MigL?

[Jez]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The Parabol of the bad Samaritan.

Jez'us was driving down the road, without a care in the world convinced of his goodness, in his brand new Prius, with "my sweet lord - george harrison" playing loud.

When he spies an alien in trouble, he pulls over and gets out,

Jez'us - are you ok, my friend?

Alien - I'm a victim of a hit and run, I think my legs broken, can you help?

Jez'us - you're in luck my friend, my village (culture) has built a hospital (which I helped pay for) that treats everyone, for free. It's about 100 miles that way, so glad I could help good luck, my friend.

Alien - can you give me a lift, please?

Jez'us - I'd love to, but I've got a thing. But don't worry just call an ambulance.

Alien - I don't have a phone, can I borrow yours?

Jez'us - Well, I'd love to but It's low on charge and I left the charger at home and... I might need it.

Alien - OK, thanks for stopping (dripping in sarcasm).

Jez'us - Well at least I stopped, I don't know, apathetic bloody alien's, the hospital's only an hour or two away.

 

 

Do you reckon that shit will stick @MigL?

I'm struggling to see any connection whatsoever to the tread discussion.

Could you please explain what are the key concepts in this post that are analogous in some way with the topic?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Jez said:

When someone commits some sort of injustice or crime, I'm saying deal with the injustice or crime. Don't subordinate the injustice itself beneath another concept. What exactly are you trying to fight for? The injustice? Or your concept of the injustice?

Absolutely, an eye for an eye is the simplicistic method of justice, but that just leads to the blind leading the blind; if you want a path to justice, someone has to see.

3 minutes ago, Jez said:

I'm struggling to see any connection whatsoever to the tread discussion.

Could you please explain what are the key concepts in this post that are analogous in some way with the topic?

Parabol, it's a type of lesson...🙄

[Jez]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Absolutely, an eye for an eye is the simplicistic method of justice, but that just leads to the blind leading the blind; if you want a path to justice, someone has to see.

Parabol, it's a type of lesson...🙄

I've still no idea what relevance either of those observations have on the discussion.

Do you think either gets us closer to some sort of position? Even if it is one where we agree on the features of what we might disagree on?

 

I'd say it is more parabolic to the discussion than a parable (if that is the word you mean?).

Edited June 10, 2023 by Jez

[dimreepr]

Just now, Jez said:

I've still no idea what relevance either of those observations have on the discussion.

Do you think either gets us closer to some sort of position? Even if it is one where we agree on the features of what we might disagree on?

Some lessons get some people closer to the answer; like the second, third etc. year of a degree in philosophy is intended to do. 

[Jez]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Some lessons get some people closer to the answer; like the second, third etc. year of a degree in philosophy is intended to do. 

I am sure people in disadvantaged black groups will welcome your 3rd year degree-level philosophy lessons, and find them a very valuable assistance to their existential struggles.

Meanwhile, may I suggest legal aid might be more useful?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Jez said:

Meanwhile, may I suggest legal aid might be more useful?

Who do I call? And with what?

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Jez said:

 My thesis here is that there is a group of liberal middle-class white people who seemingly all consider that they have to intervene to help ALL these poor black souls. 

 

4 hours ago, Jez said:

I'm not saying that many would not appreciate, or even need, your particular help. What I am saying is that possibly all liberal American "white" people seem to suffer this belief (they are actively rejected from the group if they don't agree),

Yeah, all those liberal white folks think alike, and in simplistic terms!

So many straw men here, my gardening needs are covered for the next 30 years.

 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Jez said:

I'd say it is more parabolic to the discussion than a parable (if that is the word you mean?).

Philosophy 101, lesson 1, if you know I mean a 'Parable', then why discuss it?

[Jez]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

Yeah, all those liberal white folks think alike, and in simplistic terms!

So many straw men here, my gardening needs are covered for the next 30 years.

 

Well, you have left me no choice. I have to refute arguments that haven't been made because you haven't made any arguments!!!! 🤣

 

I've just suggested legal aid and the reply was "Who do I call? And with what?".

Well, obviously, that would be for your Government to set up after you ask them for it.

It's no straw man, I have made absolutely clear that my solution would be to ensure the routes of remedy are made available, and the means to access them should be guaranteed.

You've offered no credible alternatives or explanations why that is wrong, you just seem to want to negate it without any specifics as to what you want done.

What do you want to see done, and why do you think it would help?

 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophy 101, lesson 1, if you know I mean a 'Parable', then why discuss it?

Because it is still meaningless in the subject material of the thread, you still are not making clear the outcome of this, and what happens next.

What do you want to see happen, to achieve (what I think are agreed) the aims of restitution?

I've made a concrete proposition, and your only objection is 'oh, yeah, right, and how are you going to make THAT happen', or something of that nature.

You haven't proposed any concrete actions.

All the people who have suffered injustices are going to love you for worrying and talking about them, I am sure. But then what?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Jez said:

Because it is still meaningless in the subject material of the thread, you still are not making clear the outcome of this, and what happens next.

Nothing happens next, you've washed your hands of it.

"Ask not for whom this bell tolls, it tolls for thee..."

[Jez]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nothing happens next, you've washed your hands of it.

"Ask not for whom this bell tolls, it tolls for thee..."

Like I said, you're not putting forward any argument to actually dispute.

Very much like the link in the OP; you create the scenario where nothing that you say can be put to a logical test, and then criticise people for a 'straw man' argument who seek to construct a cogent discussion, in good faith, regarding what your thinking 'might be' because you've left them nothing about your thinking to actually discuss.

Given the OP story, that's heavy with irony!

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Jez said:

Like I said, you're not putting forward any argument to actually dispute.

When, specifically, did you say that? 

Like I said, your current excuse is not a reason...

[iNow]

I reckon the best approach is to ignore Jez, accept that he’s not now nor ever will be an ally in this effort, and for the rest of us to just move along.

He’s simply demonstrated himself to not be worth the effort or time.

Yes, I know I’m not a perfect being. I don’t care. Arguing with fools takes our eye off of improving lives, which is how we get eventually more perfect in our union. 

[Jez]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I reckon the best approach is to ignore Jez, accept that he’s not now nor ever will be an ally in this effort, and for the rest of us to just move along.

I'm trying to ask what effort that is. Am I allowed to know what you plan to do?

'Effort' means action, not thought.

What action do you plan? I am likely to agree with you if there's something positive and active you propose. I just prefer to have my own thoughts and not told to think a certain way about something, but actions are something I am sure we can find agreement on.

Just hasn't been clear so far.

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Compensation is equivalent to putting plasters on the problem and systemic change is the surgery.

I disagree. Compensation is the surgery AND the physical therapy to help heal the patient to hospital standards. Just changing the laws is the plaster, but both are necessary.

[MigL]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Do you reckon that shit will stick @MigL?

No.
As usual, your posts make little sense.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I reckon the best approach is to ignore Jez

Makes for a great discussion when you ignore, and won't even consider, alternate viewpoints. Just put me, and Intoscience in ( Stringy too ? ) the ignore list also, and racism in America will be no more.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. Compensation is the surgery

You've never done root cause analysis, have you ?

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Makes for a great discussion when you ignore, and won't even consider, alternate viewpoints.

Ignoring one individual poster contributing in bad faith should NOT be conflated with “ignoring and not even considering alternative viewpoints.” This should also go without saying, but here I am saying it. 

[Jez]

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ignoring one individual poster contributing in bad faith ...

You state it as a fact, and not even as your opinion?

Is that the definition of 'bad faith' discussion; when a person probes the logic of your position and presents questions you're unable to answer?

What you have said there is not fair and incorrect. You would be at liberty to hold and even express that as an opinion, but stating it as a fact? Please show me why you think that is evidenced?

Could you possibly answer any of my previous questions, like, what are you proposing to be done about the injustices you have mentioned.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Jez

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just put me, and Intoscience in ( Stringy too ? ) the ignore list

I don’t use the ignore list. Exposure to different viewpoints is important to me. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I don’t use the ignore list. Exposure to different viewpoints is important to me. 

As annoying as we are, we believe what we think with the full clarity and openess to personal limits as you do. Some peoples thoughts seem to emanate from a pure theatre of uncluttered thoughts, where things are things related according to the natural laws. The other viewpoint is taken from standing in the mess and taking it from there. One is idealistic and one is pragmatic.

 

 

[iNow]

I have never had any problem with you, MigL, nor Intoscience. I just push against you hard when you’re wrong.