Racism and a Honey Bun

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

I believe I have diagnosed a racist trait in myself, based on the following incident.

I was at work at a school I sub at and it was lunch, so I headed out to the lounge vending machine for a.. honey bun. You know, one of those health annihilators that contain more saturated fat than actual dough.. -- anyway, I bumped into a black lady, and this is basically what ensued.

I got the honey bun, and upon noticing the black lady, who happened to be overweight, I immediately made a facial expression. It was a type of expression that I do not give very often. It was one of those funny, almost looney types of expressions I reserve for people who I, in other contexts, am generally much more familiar with. People, in other words, who I am comfortable being silly with, - and they with me. At least, in the past. But this time I gave out this giddy, wide-eyed expression, essentially giving away that I had gotten a prized item from the machine, like some sort of emerald I had picked out by the wayside.

In a nanosecond I got a response: "Honey Bun??!" she rejoined enthusiastically. And I, in my ponderous thoughtfulness, tempered my enthusiasm with replying "I shouldn't be eating this, but I suppose this time, why not...." I trailed off like that, as I was going to the microwave to zap my luxurious pastry.

And that was it. I do not recall anything more after that. Except it dawned on me in less than 30 seconds that I had done something racist. Or did I?

If it was anyone other than a fat black woman, would I have, with such intrepidity, indulged such an impression? It is possible. But then, with her, it seems it was virtually inevitable, or at least, highly more likely. This is based in part on my experiences with other black people, seeing certain of their ways of life and habits and such. I formed a generalization in my mind that many black people at least do have poorer diets, say, and that this is pretty much to be expected in the inner city where good food isn't all that easy to come by. Though I was working in a suburb. Perhaps this lady did not in her heart of hearts appreciate the joke. Though I think, looking on the brighter side, she may have -- as simply a testament to the absurdity of life. Life is absurd, and food is an integral part of that absurdity. We all have I think at some point joked about fast food (McDonalds immediately comes to mind) and there shouldn't be, to my eye, all that much wrong with it. A honey bun is a honey bun is a honey bun, and its deeper meaning may reside in the fact that sometimes, at the end of a stressful laborious day, you just want to indulge in a nice, sweet, cheap treat, and that this is, itself, a type of grace, a type of.. innocent laughter.

What was really inexcusable however, was my last remark. It was a cold remark, shutting down any comedic relief generated by the honey bun. It was essentially saying, "but no.... I am better than this, I am in fact better than YOU.... for I do not really need this honey bun, but am aloof from it, residing on a Mountain Peak in the Caucasus which you have no right to be on. I am endeavoring, after all, to plant my White Flag there. Who are you to intrude?" That may be a very uncharitable reading of it, but I think in some sense that's where the rub is. Somewhere, in that location. That is the callous effect of my end remark, appearing that way at least if not meant so. It was off-putting, and not at all in keeping with the pretended warmth of my exchange.

So was I really racist? Perhaps I myself will never know. What I do know however is that it had all the appearance of racism, with none of the intended malice on my part. It simply looked and, in retrospect, felt bad. Off-putting.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1322
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #11

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:42 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #1]

At some point in our progress since the Civil Rights Movement, the concept of "racism" was transformed from referring to a deliberate (i.e. conscious) prejudice explicitly exhibited by any person or institution against another person or group based on skin color into a post-modern/neo-Marxist ideological and unfalsifiable concept of "unconscious racism" which asserts that any behaviors exhibited by all "White" people can be deconstructed to reveal their complicity with systemic prejudice and discrimination against all people of "Color" whether they are conscious of it or not.
If you kill someone while sleepwalking, they're still dead. I don't see why whether it's conscious or not should upgrade or downgrade responsibility for one's actions. And the truth is, something being unfalsifiable is only a problem if it's not true. People all accepted the basic selfishness principle that organisms act to best benefit themselves and their genes until it was applied to white people, who happen to have power (the ability to preserve their genes at the cost of others' genes by offering unearned success to other whites) and happen to be living in a multiracial society.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:42 pmAccordingly, this updated "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) interpretation effectively burns "due process" to the ground and basically presumes racism exists everywhere in every interaction where "White" people are involved such that anyone who fails to interpret racism into everything "White" people do is just not trying hard enough to find it. Yes, according to CRT, even "White" people who submit to performing the necessary "anti-racism" work are still perceived as being hopelessly racist.
Well, they are, or at least, the large part of them must be. There are two main options you can pick between:

1. Racism is true. Differences in achievement are due to differences in innate ability, which exist between races.
2. There are not racial differences in ability, therefore, differences in achievement are due to the biases of those with power. Since at this time, this seems to favour whites against POCs, CRT is true.

Frankly, I prefer Option 2 not because I can prove it, but because Option 1 is evil. There is a third meta-option, which is that (against Blacks, at least) the legacy of slavery is the reason for differences in achievement. If so, the solution to this is a reset, but that will never be fair to Option 1 because if Option 1 is correct, differences in achievement will arise again, and those who believe in Option 2 will simply say that the reset wasn't done fairly. I don't think anyone needs to be fair to Option 1, however, or treat it as a possibility, because it is evil. And if, in a world with differences in achievement, you rule out Option 1, you are left with nothing but to believe Option 2.

You can't prove CRT because it's not falsifiable. On that you're correct. But you can say that unless racism is factually true, CRT must be true.

I would rather be wrong than evil. Perhaps I'm being more honest about this than I ought to be.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:42 pmBefore anyone presumes me to be an extreme right-wing conservative based on my criticism of CRT, please know that I identify as a center-left liberal on the political spectrum.
I'm not the type to accuse someone of being X, Y, or Z to discredit them and win an argument. Frankly I wish everyone who does this would go away, and I wish everyone enforcing on others to do this would just drop dead.

I believe that if you're a racist, or a conservative, or a rat with wings, any points you have should still be debated honestly without discreditation. Believing that has gotten me into a lot of trouble. My former best friend (and only male friend ever, actually) was a skinhead. I didn't treat his logical arguments differently on the basis of his beliefs, but perhaps I should have. No one seems to agree with me doing this unless they're on the potential receiving end, begging not to be dismissed out of hand because that would be unfair. I have not noticed anyone on the potential dominant end ever agreeing with me doing this; it has only ever earned me disdain.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #12

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:25 pm If you kill someone while sleepwalking, they're still dead. I don't see why whether it's conscious or not should upgrade or downgrade responsibility for one's actions. And the truth is, something being unfalsifiable is only a problem if it's not true. People all accepted the basic selfishness principle that organisms act to best benefit themselves and their genes until it was applied to white people, who happen to have power (the ability to preserve their genes at the cost of others' genes by offering unearned success to other whites) and happen to be living in a multiracial society.
bluegreenearth wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:42 pmAccordingly, this updated "Critical Race Theory" (CRT) interpretation effectively burns "due process" to the ground and basically presumes racism exists everywhere in every interaction where "White" people are involved such that anyone who fails to interpret racism into everything "White" people do is just not trying hard enough to find it. Yes, according to CRT, even "White" people who submit to performing the necessary "anti-racism" work are still perceived as being hopelessly racist.
Well, they are, or at least, the large part of them must be. There are two main options you can pick between:

1. Racism is true. Differences in achievement are due to differences in innate ability, which exist between races.
2. There are not racial differences in ability, therefore, differences in achievement are due to the biases of those with power. Since at this time, this seems to favour whites against POCs, CRT is true.

Frankly, I prefer Option 2 not because I can prove it, but because Option 1 is evil. There is a third meta-option, which is that (against Blacks, at least) the legacy of slavery is the reason for differences in achievement. If so, the solution to this is a reset, but that will never be fair to Option 1 because if Option 1 is correct, differences in achievement will arise again, and those who believe in Option 2 will simply say that the reset wasn't done fairly. I don't think anyone needs to be fair to Option 1, however, or treat it as a possibility, because it is evil. And if, in a world with differences in achievement, you rule out Option 1, you are left with nothing but to believe Option 2.

You can't prove CRT because it's not falsifiable. On that you're correct. But you can say that unless racism is factually true, CRT must be true.

I would rather be wrong than evil. Perhaps I'm being more honest about this than I ought to be.
I'm posting the following link because it offers a better explanation than what I could offer:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/do-be ... ce-theory/

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1322
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #13

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:00 pmI'm posting the following link because it offers a better explanation than what I could offer:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/do-be ... ce-theory/
This author, when he says liberalism, means libertarianism, just FYI. I'm not doing that thing I said I don't want anyone to do just two seconds ago; I just want you to know what he's espousing. He thinks the free market can cure racism. And his discourse has the same flaw he accuses CRT of having: It wants us to try more and more of what doesn't work.

"That the societies that have called themselves liberal and have espoused liberal principles up until now have not done this perfectly or maybe even satisfactorily doesn’t mean that the method itself needs to be destroyed."

I dispute this. If something isn't satisfactory I think this is exactly what it means. I think something else ought to be tried.

Though more infuriating than this is that the article's author both accuses CRT's solutions of being bad (mindless of one of the actual flaws of CRT being that it offers no solutions), while offering no solutions of his own except keep trying to hammer a nail in with another nail even if that isn't working.

CRT has flaws, one of which is that it isn't falsifiable. But you have a choice: You can believe in CRT and the idea that bias accounts for racial differences in achievement, or you can be a racist and say that differences in achievement are due to differences in innate ability. I'm not going to hate the racist, even though I probably should, but I would simply rather be wrong than evil.

If I wanted to just win the argument, I would put this in the spotlight. I would say, where do you think differences in achievement come from? Differences in innate ability, or oppression? I would dare you to tell me that we should even mildly entertain the idea that there are differences in innate ability between races, show that you were entertaining that idea by not assuming its negative, call you an agnostic racist, and tell you good day having destroyed you. That's not how I roll, though. I want an honest discussion. And I actually think you'd do better than that puffed-up article writer who carries on as if he has solutions while he snickers to himself that he's selling Anarcho-Capitalism to leftists. I'm not denouncing him because he's a libertarian. I'm angry because libertarians use the word liberal instead of calling themselves what they are because most people consider libertarians insane. Maybe they're not insane, but changing the name of what they're selling when people start to realise what it is, is a sign that they're selling garbage, while someone who is maligned but genuinely believes in his ideology will own it instead of trying to package and sell it as something else.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #14

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:41 am
bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:00 pmI'm posting the following link because it offers a better explanation than what I could offer:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/do-be ... ce-theory/
This author, when he says liberalism, means libertarianism, just FYI. I'm not doing that thing I said I don't want anyone to do just two seconds ago; I just want you to know what he's espousing. He thinks the free market can cure racism. And his discourse has the same flaw he accuses CRT of having: It wants us to try more and more of what doesn't work.

"That the societies that have called themselves liberal and have espoused liberal principles up until now have not done this perfectly or maybe even satisfactorily doesn’t mean that the method itself needs to be destroyed."

I dispute this. If something isn't satisfactory I think this is exactly what it means. I think something else ought to be tried.

Though more infuriating than this is that the article's author both accuses CRT's solutions of being bad (mindless of one of the actual flaws of CRT being that it offers no solutions), while offering no solutions of his own except keep trying to hammer a nail in with another nail even if that isn't working.

CRT has flaws, one of which is that it isn't falsifiable. But you have a choice: You can believe in CRT and the idea that bias accounts for racial differences in achievement, or you can be a racist and say that differences in achievement are due to differences in innate ability. I'm not going to hate the racist, even though I probably should, but I would simply rather be wrong than evil.

If I wanted to just win the argument, I would put this in the spotlight. I would say, where do you think differences in achievement come from? Differences in innate ability, or oppression? I would dare you to tell me that we should even mildly entertain the idea that there are differences in innate ability between races, show that you were entertaining that idea by not assuming its negative, call you an agnostic racist, and tell you good day having destroyed you. That's not how I roll, though. I want an honest discussion. And I actually think you'd do better than that puffed-up article writer who carries on as if he has solutions while he snickers to himself that he's selling Anarcho-Capitalism to leftists. I'm not denouncing him because he's a libertarian. I'm angry because libertarians use the word liberal instead of calling themselves what they are because most people consider libertarians insane. Maybe they're not insane, but changing the name of what they're selling when people start to realise what it is, is a sign that they're selling garbage, while someone who is maligned but genuinely believes in his ideology will own it instead of trying to package and sell it as something else.
He was referring to the philosophy of "Classical Liberalism" and not Libertarianism. As for a better solution than CRT, what Irshad Manji has to offer in the following video is far more compelling:

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1322
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:25 amHe was referring to the philosophy of "Classical Liberalism" and not Libertarianism.
I know. Increasingly libertarians have been using both terms to describe themselves. Sometimes they hijack constitutionalism as well. Don't throw out any good arguments you find because I'm telling you this, but this author is a madman trying to sell the idea that the free market will magically fix not only racism but pollution and every problem the world has ever had. I'm only saying this because there are no solutions presented, and he does it skillfully enough that people won't tend to realise it. His only solution is trust in a system that has failed to give the desired result even if it's unsatisfactory. He literally says it.

I have experience with these people. Not every libertarian is crazy but a large part of them are, and the crazy ones are so collaborative about how they should fool us idiot statists who don't want anarchy that the patterns become obvious.

I only have one real enemy as far as ideology, and that's the ideology of the One Solution. The One Solution is perfect, so use it over and over, and if your problem isn't solved, you're the problem. Religion isn't always like this, but it can be. The cult of positive thinking is always like this; this is the One Solution's pure form. Libertarianism and the free-market-is-perfect is usually not only an example of this, but one that is trying to confuse and deceive and is most often successful. Some libertarians aren't like this, and you can tell because they will own their libertarianism and present their true thoughts about solutions, even if they're distasteful. The deceptive One Solution Libertarian will talk as if he has all the answers, knows other answers are bad, and never give any answers of his own.
bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:25 amAs for a better solution than CRT, what Irshad Manji has to offer in the following video is far more compelling:
She's right that people object to what she calls the memo, that whites were never consulted about, that you can only say these things, can't do this, can't do that, and can't question it. I'm sorry, but when you commit actual wrongs, you don't get input about whether or not you're punished. That doesn't give the law (or in this case, diversity) a bad name. You don't change peoples' minds by being submissive. You change peoples' minds by being dominant. Yes, shame them. Shame them until they can't show their faces. They'll change because they'll have to. It's already working.

"If you want to be heard, you must first be willing to hear."

No. If you are in the right, you do the talking. Those who are in the wrong will listen. Nice guys finish last. If you want to ignore that in your personal life, fine, but this is about justice in society, and achieving it. You must acknowledge reality.

I don't want whites to have the opportunity to meet anyone halfway and keep some of their racism. I want them to change whether they get input or not. Let them close up further because no one will give an inch. Let them show how racist they are. Then they can be outed, doxxed, lose their jobs, and be cut off from civilised society. You don't need people who are not on your side to buy in at this point.

This is not a discussion. This is literally a battle of good versus evil. The discussion is about how we fight evil, and Manji's answer is to talk to evil and be nice. We both know who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I would very much like for Irshad Manji to be right, and for everything to be achievable by talking to people. But you can't change peoples' minds this way. If you could, then half the time the correct person's opinion would be changed instead.

Discussion doesn't change opinions. There's a thread about it on this very forum. Sincere discussion and being polite is not a valid way to fight murder, rape, or racism. It's a valid way to proceed when we don't know who is righteous, but not when we do.

People also fail to realise that shaming, doxxing, and cancelling not only works amazingly well, but that it is already pacifist. You can't ask for a morally higher, more righteous method than pacifism. You can't point at people on the morally righteous side, who have the righteous goal, and call them wrong for their methods, if their methods meet the highest methodology standard there is, which is pacifism.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #16

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:16 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:25 amHe was referring to the philosophy of "Classical Liberalism" and not Libertarianism.
I know. Increasingly libertarians have been using both terms to describe themselves. Sometimes they hijack constitutionalism as well. Don't throw out any good arguments you find because I'm telling you this, but this author is a madman trying to sell the idea that the free market will magically fix not only racism but pollution and every problem the world has ever had. I'm only saying this because there are no solutions presented, and he does it skillfully enough that people won't tend to realise it. His only solution is trust in a system that has failed to give the desired result even if it's unsatisfactory. He literally says it.

I have experience with these people. Not every libertarian is crazy but a large part of them are, and the crazy ones are so collaborative about how they should fool us idiot statists who don't want anarchy that the patterns become obvious.

I only have one real enemy as far as ideology, and that's the ideology of the One Solution. The One Solution is perfect, so use it over and over, and if your problem isn't solved, you're the problem. Religion isn't always like this, but it can be. The cult of positive thinking is always like this; this is the One Solution's pure form. Libertarianism and the free-market-is-perfect is usually not only an example of this, but one that is trying to confuse and deceive and is most often successful. Some libertarians aren't like this, and you can tell because they will own their libertarianism and present their true thoughts about solutions, even if they're distasteful. The deceptive One Solution Libertarian will talk as if he has all the answers, knows other answers are bad, and never give any answers of his own.
bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:25 amAs for a better solution than CRT, what Irshad Manji has to offer in the following video is far more compelling:
She's right that people object to what she calls the memo, that whites were never consulted about, that you can only say these things, can't do this, can't do that, and can't question it. I'm sorry, but when you commit actual wrongs, you don't get input about whether or not you're punished. That doesn't give the law (or in this case, diversity) a bad name. You don't change peoples' minds by being submissive. You change peoples' minds by being dominant. Yes, shame them. Shame them until they can't show their faces. They'll change because they'll have to. It's already working.

"If you want to be heard, you must first be willing to hear."

No. If you are in the right, you do the talking. Those who are in the wrong will listen. Nice guys finish last. If you want to ignore that in your personal life, fine, but this is about justice in society, and achieving it. You must acknowledge reality.

I don't want whites to have the opportunity to meet anyone halfway and keep some of their racism. I want them to change whether they get input or not. Let them close up further because no one will give an inch. Let them show how racist they are. Then they can be outed, doxxed, lose their jobs, and be cut off from civilised society. You don't need people who are not on your side to buy in at this point.

This is not a discussion. This is literally a battle of good versus evil. The discussion is about how we fight evil, and Manji's answer is to talk to evil and be nice. We both know who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I would very much like for Irshad Manji to be right, and for everything to be achievable by talking to people. But you can't change peoples' minds this way. If you could, then half the time the correct person's opinion would be changed instead.

Discussion doesn't change opinions. There's a thread about it on this very forum. Sincere discussion and being polite is not a valid way to fight murder, rape, or racism. It's a valid way to proceed when we don't know who is righteous, but not when we do.

People also fail to realise that shaming, doxxing, and cancelling not only works amazingly well, but that it is already pacifist. You can't ask for a morally higher, more righteous method than pacifism. You can't point at people on the morally righteous side, who have the righteous goal, and call them wrong for their methods, if their methods meet the highest methodology standard there is, which is pacifism.
Did you watch the entire video through the question & answer session? I'm not accusing you of not having done that but just asking because I thought she addressed some of the same or similar objections as you have mentioned in your previous post during the Q&A.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1322
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #17

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:32 pmDid you watch the entire video through the question & answer session? I'm not accusing you of not having done that but just asking because I thought she addressed some of the same or similar objections as you have mentioned in your previous post during the Q&A.
I did. She continues with her narrative that discussion is better than suppression. I also noticed she avoided a direct question from her interviewer about when you can actually call someone racist and just told a story that supported her narrative of changing peoples' minds without manipulating them. She talks about people who might be assumed to be racist but might not be. She talks about there being something to learn on both sides.

One of the quotes from the Q&A section that very much proves I heard it was when she said, (51:50) "Whatever your vision of progress, you're going to have to get people who are not already on-side to buy in." and I disagreed because I see cancel culture (which is really just people interesting in enforcing social consequences on people for their rotten ideologies) as working perfectly and going in the absolute right direction.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:16 pmI don't want whites to have the opportunity to meet anyone halfway and keep some of their racism. I want them to change whether they get input or not. Let them close up further because no one will give an inch. Let them show how racist they are. Then they can be outed, doxxed, lose their jobs, and be cut off from civilised society. You don't need people who are not on your side to buy in at this point.
I'll tell you the honest truth: Sometimes I just break down and cry because she's wrong and I dearly wish her way could be right. Her way is something I refer to as the Star Trek way, the morality of the older Star Trek up through Voyager, which is that nobody is wrong, except the people saying other people are wrong. It's the morality of not bullying people because they have a right to believe what they want, too. I wish I lived in that universe but I don't. I live in a universe where "nobody is wrong except the people saying others are wrong" is a contradiction and there actually is evil, and you don't fight murder, rape, or racism with debate or kindness or being willing to learn.

If you don't like the new way, which is shaming and doxxing and cancel culture, the truth might be that you just don't like pacifism and you want an actual war where the evil side has a chance to fight for what it believes, too. I won't deny that there's something comforting about bringing the sacrifices people are willing to make, in actual lifesblood, onto the table, simply because people who are willing to give more for what they believe being more likely to be right intuitively seems to be true. In a situation like this one, where the evil side is plainly and simply checkmated, something seems unfair about that to be sure, and I'm open to the idea that if you're at war with someone you ought to say so and let them fight. However, the pacifist checkmate is (I have been taught) the morally least objectionable method, squashing evil without a drop of blood spilled.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #18

Post by bluegreenearth »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:01 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:32 pmDid you watch the entire video through the question & answer session? I'm not accusing you of not having done that but just asking because I thought she addressed some of the same or similar objections as you have mentioned in your previous post during the Q&A.
I did. She continues with her narrative that discussion is better than suppression. I also noticed she avoided a direct question from her interviewer about when you can actually call someone racist and just told a story that supported her narrative of changing peoples' minds without manipulating them. She talks about people who might be assumed to be racist but might not be. She talks about there being something to learn on both sides.

One of the quotes from the Q&A section that very much proves I heard it was when she said, (51:50) "Whatever your vision of progress, you're going to have to get people who are not already on-side to buy in." and I disagreed because I see cancel culture (which is really just people interesting in enforcing social consequences on people for their rotten ideologies) as working perfectly and going in the absolute right direction.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:16 pmI don't want whites to have the opportunity to meet anyone halfway and keep some of their racism. I want them to change whether they get input or not. Let them close up further because no one will give an inch. Let them show how racist they are. Then they can be outed, doxxed, lose their jobs, and be cut off from civilised society. You don't need people who are not on your side to buy in at this point.
I'll tell you the honest truth: Sometimes I just break down and cry because she's wrong and I dearly wish her way could be right. Her way is something I refer to as the Star Trek way, the morality of the older Star Trek up through Voyager, which is that nobody is wrong, except the people saying other people are wrong. It's the morality of not bullying people because they have a right to believe what they want, too. I wish I lived in that universe but I don't. I live in a universe where "nobody is wrong except the people saying others are wrong" is a contradiction and there actually is evil, and you don't fight murder, rape, or racism with debate or kindness or being willing to learn.

If you don't like the new way, which is shaming and doxxing and cancel culture, the truth might be that you just don't like pacifism and you want an actual war where the evil side has a chance to fight for what it believes, too. I won't deny that there's something comforting about bringing the sacrifices people are willing to make, in actual lifesblood, onto the table, simply because people who are willing to give more for what they believe being more likely to be right intuitively seems to be true. In a situation like this one, where the evil side is plainly and simply checkmated, something seems unfair about that to be sure, and I'm open to the idea that if you're at war with someone you ought to say so and let them fight. However, the pacifist checkmate is (I have been taught) the morally least objectionable method, squashing evil without a drop of blood spilled.
So, what outcome or experience would CRT have to facilitate for you to conclude the movement is doing more harm than good or has exceeded your moral threshold?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1322
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Racism and a Honey Bun

Post #19

Post by Purple Knight »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:56 pmSo, what outcome or experience would CRT have to facilitate for you to conclude the movement is doing more harm than good or has exceeded your moral threshold?
That's a good question. The honest answer is that as far as my moral threshold, it probably already has exceeded it. If we're talking about my own heart, as in, what I want without regard to what anyone else wants or what is moral, I want a world where people are allowed to be racist or flat-earther or believe Star Trek is real without being cancelled or bullied or locked in a mental institution until they act upon those beliefs in a way that harms somebody. But what I want is not correct. The reason I trust that it is not correct is that I know my moral compass is busted; I'm a confirmed psychopath. So I rely on a combination of two factors to simulate morality: 1) Moral Truths which are premises about morality that everyone or nearly everyone would agree with, such as, racism is wrong, or murder is wrong and 2) logic.

With my superior moral threshold that is derived from morality rather than my own heart, the answer is that I would have to have very, very good evidence that CRT is immoral. And since CRT is the only alternative to believing in racism, I would have to have good evidence that I am actually incorrect and that racism is actually moral. I don't give a fig what harm something is doing, or who it helps. The question is whether it's moral or not. Right now CRT doesn't help anyone do anything because it's not providing any solutions to any of the problems it points out. Tear down racist systems? And what? Build more systems that end up racist too? No; CRT provides no solutions, so any harm it does is more harm than good since it does no good. It is, however, morally correct, because the only alternative when there are racial differences in achievement is to believe racism is true, which is immoral.

Post Reply