"I'm 'HoosierFanNumeroUno' and it's outrageous for people to call me a racist!"

[Thyrsis]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was (theoretically) just a bit murky for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

 

[Thyrsis]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was just a bit murky theoretically for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

(2) Given that our country faced nearly 300 years of slavery, a generation or more of Jim Crow, "separate but equal", virulent opposition to civil rights, and then a couple generations of various combinations of overt and subtle racism, it's hardly a surprise that African-Americans continue to face greater challenges today than many of their Caucasian peers. In recent months, a more virulent strain of alt-right white supremacists emphasize the virtues of those hundreds of years of racial oppression. In response, Republicans here immediately turned to "both sides"-ism and equated those racial supremacists with those in opposition.

Again, the equaters aren't carrying torches and they still probably have African-American friends, but their disinterest in the situation of those they tsk tsk strikes the opposition as problematic.

 

[Thyrsis]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was (theoretically) just a bit murky for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

(3) Continued calls by Republicans for trickle down economics via tax cuts for the wealthy combined with disdain for takers and caricatures of those purported recipients that tend to fall on racial lines seems notable ... even if the tax cutters aren't wearing white sheets and make straight-faced demands for race-neutral policy.

 

[Thyrsis]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was (theoretically) just a bit murky for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

(4) Putting black people in jail for drug 'crimes' like smoking crack when giving more lenient sentences to white people who snort cocaine (and who tend to have more financial means to work the judicial system in their favor) and then refusing to listen or give any merit to the notion that African-Americans face additional challenges is at least curious to some non-Republicans ... even if those Republican-ish decision-makers purport to be charitable Christian and non-racist thinkers.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was (theoretically) just a bit murky for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

I'll wade in. Speaking for myself only, I have a few issues with BLM. Chief among them is that, IMO, they equate any shooting of a black individual as proof of a racist system that is against them. The shooting that seemed to kick off the movement (Brown) appears to be completely justified when the facts were laid out. That did not stop the movement from trying to destroy the life and livelihood of the involved officer. So I think they tend to tie their movement and expend their outrage defending people who should not be defended.

Second, no matter what issues we may have with the police, they are absolutely a necessity. Having some faith that most of those guys are good people and are just trying to do the tough job that we ask of them is necessary to keep some order. When those marches first started there were some that had chants and signs calling for killing cops.

Deal breaker for me.

 

[IUCrazy2]

(2) Given that our country faced nearly 300 years of slavery, a generation or more of Jim Crow, "separate but equal", virulent opposition to civil rights, and then a couple generations of various combinations of overt and subtle racism, it's hardly a surprise that African-Americans continue to face greater challenges today than many of their Caucasian peers. In recent months, a more virulent strain of alt-right white supremacists emphasize the virtues of those hundreds of years of racial oppression. In response, Republicans here immediately turned to "both sides"-ism and equated those racial supremacists with those in opposition.

Again, the equaters aren't carrying torches and they still probably have African-American friends, but their disinterest in the situation of those they tsk tsk strikes the opposition as problematic.

You misstate the position.

You guys talked about the motives behind why those groups were beating each other's brains in and we talked about the fact that they were both beating each other's brains in. Furthermore, when Antifa has made a habit of beating on people who in fact are not fascists, but simply are conservative, that tends to make conservative people feel they are a threat as well. Ben Shapiro, a never Trump, Jewish guy had to have 600,000 dollars in extra security to protect against Antifa types coming in and rioting and busting heads because he says the wrong things. Our entire point at the time was that all of these guys were a holes that should be rejected. You guys want to put them in a hierarchy, I could give a **** if alt right guys are slightly more bad than Antifa guys because their brand of hate is racially based. I just want them all dealt with. The historical Nazis were terrible people and the current bunch are shitty. I still think Antifa are a bunch of pricks. The two opinions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[IUCrazy2]

(3) Continued calls by Republicans for trickle down economics via tax cuts for the wealthy combined with disdain for takers and caricatures of those purported recipients that tend to fall on racial lines seems notable ... even if the tax cutters aren't wearing white sheets and make straight-faced demands for race-neutral policy.

This is nonsense. It speaks just as ill of you that you think minority when you think poor and white when you think wealthy. I am not completely on board with trickle down as a panacea for all economic ills but give me a ****ing break with this one.

 

[IUCrazy2]

(4) Putting black people in jail for drug 'crimes' like smoking crack when giving more lenient sentences to white people who snort cocaine (and who tend to have more financial means to work the judicial system in their favor) and then refusing to listen or give any merit to the notion that African-Americans face additional challenges is at least curious to some non-Republicans ... even if those Republican-ish decision-makers purport to be charitable Christian and non-racist thinkers.

Agree that the sentencing differences were not fair. Not willing to accept the blame on that given Bill flipping Clinton signed that one into law.

Personally I think legalize marijuana and pardon those who have a record because of it. Non violent crack offenders could be put on a path to respectability. The real issue is that a criminal record follows people permanently. Over time if they have paid their debt to society and kept their nose clean, there should be some process to have your record cleaned. I do not think that historically people who committed a crime were intended to forever have their lives ruined even if they had rehabilitated.

Our current system does not allow for second chances.

 

[Thyrsis]

I'll wade in. Speaking for myself only, I have a few issues with BLM. Chief among them is that, IMO, they equate any shooting of a black individual as proof of a racist system that is against them. The shooting that seemed to kick off the movement (Brown) appears to be completely justified when the facts were laid out. That did not stop the movement from trying to destroy the life and livelihood of the involved officer. So I think they tend to tie their movement and expend their outrage defending people who should not be defended.

Second, no matter what issues we may have with the police, they are absolutely a necessity. Having some faith that most of those guys are good people and are just trying to do the tough job that we ask of them is necessary to keep some order. When those marches first started there were some that had chants and signs calling for killing cops.

Deal breaker for me.

While I think they were proven wrong, there were witness reports that prompted the "hands up, don't shoot" meme. Given ongoing outrage (this wasn't the first notion of police overreach), the reaction is hardly surprising. Keep in mind that wasn't the totality of the story, either. The DOJ investigation concluded that even though the evidence supported the officer involved with respect to the shooting, the police department abused its power and created a systematic process of discrimination in that community. Even if Michael Brown's shooting was justified and even though the protesters (then and since) were wrong about "hands up, don't shoot", the protesters had ample reason not to trust the police and to be angry. If I'm a resident, I don't walk away from this thinking "most of these guys are good people". I leave it thinking the system is broken and working against me.

In your second paragraph, you don't really acknowledge any of the concerns I laid out (and that's really the entire point of this exercise). Instead, you object to the signs some of them held.

Taking that one step further, it's worth considering the comparison. On one hand, you have examples of law enforcement officers -- i.e., acting as an arm of the government -- killing unarmed black citizens without necessity and facing in some cases little to no consequence. On the other hand, you've got citizens who are angry about that and carrying signs, some of which clearly cross a line. Finding fault only with the sign-carriers is an example of why folks start throwing the "R" word around here. That doesn't mean the "R word" is apt, but those receiving it should consider why that's being said.

 

[toastedbread]

I pushed Stoll to ask this question a month or so ago, but it never happened as the mood here devolved into something unworkable.

A lot of Republican-ish folks are outraged at accusations of racism. As I said previously, it might be worth some additional conversation and introspection from those on the receiving end.

Yes, you're not burning a cross. You have African-American friends. You just want to make decisions that wholly eliminate race from consideration. How can you be a "racist"?

I can't speak to whatever is said about any given individual, but I think it's fair to point out what people might be saying when they throw out the 'racist' word.

I'd encourage others to weigh in (and this isn't about saying you agree with the 'accusation') because it bears further explanation.

(1) Lots and lots of people are concerned that unarmed black people have been gunned down by police when they really didn't deserve it. In the wake of those killings, there was usually no consequence because police were either following procedure, genuinely "scared", or evidence was (theoretically) just a bit murky for purposes of meeting 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standards. As examples mounted, Black Lives Matter formed. I certainly have a hard time saying their concerns are wrong-headed or illegitimate. Yet, in response, lots of Republican-ish voices said BLM was absolutely wrong, they should shut up, and that "All Lives Matter." Nobody ever denied that all lives matter (of course), but BLM was instead saying that black lives were particularly undervalued. Thus, when folks countered BLM, they were saying there's NO basis to say that black lives were undervalued. That wasn't a neutral statement. "All lives matter" was an affirmative statement undermining black lives. That sure seems like a racist sentiment to the recipients even if the speaker isn't burning a cross or has black friends or wants to be 'race-neutral'.

More to come, but that's the first example.

It's much deeper than being simply Anti-BLM. We are talking about a party who is xenophobic against all non-white Christians as a matter of principle.

 

[Thyrsis]

It's much deeper than being simply Anti-BLM. We are talking about a party who is xenophobic against all non-white Christians as a matter of principle.

That's conclusory. That's not exactly what I'm getting at here.

 

[toastedbread]

That's conclusory. That's not exactly what I'm getting at here.

Not in the slightest. The wall, Trump's rhetoric against mexicans and DACA recipients. The Muslim ban. All xenephobic. All policies which hold wide support amongst Republicans. It's not merely a coincedence.

 

[Thyrsis]

Not in the slightest. The wall, Trump's rhetoric against mexicans and DACA recipients. The Muslim ban. All xenephobic. All policies which hold wide support amongst Republicans. It's not merely a coincedence.

No disrespect, but first off, it was conclusory. Your follow up provided examples, albeit brief, to support the conclusion, but that doesn't make your initial post something other than conclusory. That matters because the point of this exercise isn't to call out Trump/Team Republican policies or to argue that they're "bad". It's to explain why opponents of Trump/Team Republican policies tend to believe that racism is a function of those policies and why those opponents have used the word 'racist'. It's the use of that word that has driven a substantial part of the resentment among Republicans here (and beyond). It has seemed that their outright rejection of that harsh condemnation is to deny that (these aren't their words obviously) they're old-timey racists who overtly speak of a "lesser" race or wear white robes, etc. That effectively means people talking past each other because none of the folks throwing around that word have suggested otherwise. I'm looking for the recipients of that condemnation to say something other than "I'm not racist!" I'm looking for them to understand why the word is used and to counter the specific examples, if they can.

Edit for side note: nobody is obligated to respond to my post. I'm sure folks are tired of the subject (sort of). But I should note that I think the conversation hasn't fully happened here (at least not in ways that supports the interests of those on the receiving end). I'm actually looking for the response. If I don't see it, I'm going to start assuming folks don't have one. Folks like me will start reaching conclusions based on that (though I'm sure others reached their own conclusions long ago). So, again, nobody is forced to enter into debate, but I am curious to see if anybody has anything to offer in response. I've made an effort not to use inflammatory rhetoric, but instead to fairly offer up the contrary view. The opportunity to say something useful that knocks any of it down is there.

 

[IUCrazy2]

While I think they were proven wrong, there were witness reports that prompted the "hands up, don't shoot" meme. Given ongoing outrage (this wasn't the first notion of police overreach), the reaction is hardly surprising. Keep in mind that wasn't the totality of the story, either. The DOJ investigation concluded that even though the evidence supported the officer involved with respect to the shooting, the police department abused its power and created a systematic process of discrimination in that community. Even if Michael Brown's shooting was justified and even though the protesters (then and since) were wrong about "hands up, don't shoot", the protesters had ample reason not to trust the police and to be angry. If I'm a resident, I don't walk away from this thinking "most of these guys are good people". I leave it thinking the system is broken and working against me.

In your second paragraph, you don't really acknowledge any of the concerns I laid out (and that's really the entire point of this exercise). Instead, you object to the signs some of them held.

Taking that one step further, it's worth considering the comparison. On one hand, you have examples of law enforcement officers -- i.e., acting as an arm of the government -- killing unarmed black citizens without necessity and facing in some cases little to no consequence. On the other hand, you've got citizens who are angry about that and carrying signs, some of which clearly cross a line. Finding fault only with the sign-carriers is an example of why folks start throwing the "R" word around here. That doesn't mean the "R word" is apt, but those receiving it should consider why that's being said.

Couple of things that cloud the water though. In police shootings, more whites are shot by police than minorities. That would hold with the statistical make up of the country. Blacks are shot at a higher rate then their percentage of the society as a whole but they also commit (or are convicted of) crimes at a higher percentage than the whole. I do not accept the premise that all of this is happening because of racism. Some part of it, probably. But I do not think the majority of it is because of overt racism, I think it comes from dealings that people have with each other.

For example, white cop A lives in a mostly white area. The minorities he comes in contact with tend to culturally be consistent with their white neighbors. Similar dress, similar speech patterns, etc. However, his job is in an area that is predominantly lower class minorities. They culturally tend to have similarities as well. The people committing crimes that he is coming in contact with tend to fit that particular profile so he becomes more guarded around anyone matching those characteristics whether they are good or not. And this is not something that just impacts white officers, black officers are prone to this as well. I do not know if simply approaching this on the racial lines of the argument is going to solve things. Rather, I think you are more likely to get results by programs like the Ten Point Coalition in Indianapolis that partner with the police to give them more positive interactions with the communities being policed and also look at things like tour rotations. Having your main exposure to a community be the criminal element within that community is going to impact how you view that community as a whole. I think consciously you can tell yourself that, "hey, these people are not all bad" but I think the subconscious takes over more in the high stress situations (like those surrounding shootings).

Finally, I think there needs to be some soul searching within the black community itself. If any of you says that you would rather be in a poor black area of town around midnight as opposed to a poor white area is probably lying. That is the part of the racial "discussion" that no one ever want a to have because it gets you labeled with the "r" word, but it is a reality. There are problems that cannot all be laid at the feet of oppression because they did not exist in as great a number as when oppression was truly higher.

The problem you have in these race discussions is that no side ever wants to put the whole enchilada on the table. We only want to talk about the part that tastes best to us. I think there is zero path forward unless all parts are addressed. You can say that is unfair given the disparate treatment that blacks have received and I can agree with you and also say, "so what?" This is not moving forward in the manner the left seems to want it to go forward. I am not going to have a blood libel slapped on me because of the color of my skin. When you come at anyone in an accusatory manner it shuts the convo down. And we end up where we are. People with real grievances still pissed off and the other side unwilling to talk to you because they feel they are catching blame for things that they had nothing to do with.

Anyways, my 2 cents. Maybe someone else will weigh in. I tried to answer you as best as possible given this imperfect medium of communication (this is a huge discussion and I do not have enough time to do it justice on any forum like this.)

 

[IUCrazy2]

No disrespect, but first off, it was conclusory. Your follow up provided examples, albeit brief, to support the conclusion, but that doesn't make your initial post something other than conclusory. That matters because the point of this exercise isn't to call out Trump/Team Republican policies or to argue that they're "bad". It's to explain why opponents of Trump/Team Republican policies tend to believe that racism is a function of those policies and why those opponents have used the word 'racist'. It's the use of that word that has driven a substantial part of the resentment among Republicans here (and beyond). It has seemed that their outright rejection of that harsh condemnation is to deny that (these aren't their words obviously) they're old-timey racists who overtly speak of a "lesser" race or wear white robes, etc. That effectively means people talking past each other because none of the folks throwing around that word have suggested otherwise. I'm looking for the recipients of that condemnation to say something other than "I'm not racist!" I'm looking for them to understand why the word is used and to counter the specific examples, if they can.

Edit for side note: nobody is obligated to respond to my post. I'm sure folks are tired of the subject (sort of). But I should note that I think the conversation hasn't fully happened here (at least not in ways that supports the interests of those on the receiving end). I'm actually looking for the response. If I don't see it, I'm going to start assuming folks don't have one. Folks like me will start reaching conclusions based on that (though I'm sure others reached their own conclusions long ago). So, again, nobody is forced to enter into debate, but I am curious to see if anybody has anything to offer in response. I've made an effort not to use inflammatory rhetoric, but instead to fairly offer up the contrary view. The opportunity to say something useful that knocks any of it down is there.

After reading this I am not sure I am having the conversation you want.

This comes across to me as you saying, "This is why I think you are a racist, prove to me you are not."

If I am mistaken, we can carry on. If that is basically what you are getting at then count me out.

 

[Thyrsis]

After reading this I am not sure I am having the conversation you want.

This comes across to me as you saying, "This is why I think you are a racist, prove to me you are not."

If I am mistaken, we can carry on. If that is basically what you are getting at then count me out.

I think everyone should be able to back up their point, so no, I'm not just singling a couple people out. But yes, I have noticed that some folks are less willing to engage in the meat of the conversation. If you're not willing to explain yourself, specifically counter the reasonable points from the other side (whichever side that might be), then I think it's fair for people to reach conclusions from that unwillingness/failure.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Couple of things that cloud the water though. In police shootings, more whites are shot by police than minorities. That would hold with the statistical make up of the country. Blacks are shot at a higher rate then their percentage of the society as a whole but they also commit (or are convicted of) crimes at a higher percentage than the whole. I do not accept the premise that all of this is happening because of racism. Some part of it, probably. But I do not think the majority of it is because of overt racism, I think it comes from dealings that people have with each other.

For example, white cop A lives in a mostly white area. The minorities he comes in contact with tend to culturally be consistent with their white neighbors. Similar dress, similar speech patterns, etc. However, his job is in an area that is predominantly lower class minorities. They culturally tend to have similarities as well. The people committing crimes that he is coming in contact with tend to fit that particular profile so he becomes more guarded around anyone matching those characteristics whether they are good or not. And this is not something that just impacts white officers, black officers are prone to this as well. I do not know if simply approaching this on the racial lines of the argument is going to solve things. Rather, I think you are more likely to get results by programs like the Ten Point Coalition in Indianapolis that partner with the police to give them more positive interactions with the communities being policed and also look at things like tour rotations. Having your main exposure to a community be the criminal element within that community is going to impact how you view that community as a whole. I think consciously you can tell yourself that, "hey, these people are not all bad" but I think the subconscious takes over more in the high stress situations (like those surrounding shootings).

Finally, I think there needs to be some soul searching within the black community itself. If any of you says that you would rather be in a poor black area of town around midnight as opposed to a poor white area is probably lying. That is the part of the racial "discussion" that no one ever want a to have because it gets you labeled with the "r" word, but it is a reality. There are problems that cannot all be laid at the feet of oppression because they did not exist in as great a number as when oppression was truly higher.

The problem you have in these race discussions is that no side ever wants to put the whole enchilada on the table. We only want to talk about the part that tastes best to us. I think there is zero path forward unless all parts are addressed. You can say that is unfair given the disparate treatment that blacks have received and I can agree with you and also say, "so what?" This is not moving forward in the manner the left seems to want it to go forward. I am not going to have a blood libel slapped on me because of the color of my skin. When you come at anyone in an accusatory manner it shuts the convo down. And we end up where we are. People with real grievances still pissed off and the other side unwilling to talk to you because they feel they are catching blame for things that they had nothing to do with.

Anyways, my 2 cents. Maybe someone else will weigh in. I tried to answer you as best as possible given this imperfect medium of communication (this is a huge discussion and I do not have enough time to do it justice on any forum like this.)

Just time to hop into a little of this. According to mappingpoliceviolence.org, black people are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. I just read an article on this, which is why it was fresh in my mind. But I'm not sure if that's a valid statistic. Where are you getting yours?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think everyone should be able to back up their point, so no, I'm not just singling a couple people out. But yes, I have noticed that some folks are less willing to engage in the meat of the conversation. If you're not willing to explain yourself, specifically counter the reasonable points from the other side (whichever side that might be), then I think it's fair for people to reach conclusions from that unwillingness/failure.

Well I think I have been fairly willing to explain myself...so no issue there. I am just not interested in engaging in an "are you a racist" test. You want to talk about issues, we'll talk. More than willing to talk.

 

[Thyrsis]

Well I think I have been fairly willing to explain myself...so no issue there. I am just not interested in engaging in an "are you a racist" test. You want to talk about issues, we'll talk. More than willing to talk.

Agree.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Just time to hop into a little of this. According to mappingpoliceviolence.org, black people are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. I just read an article on this, which is why it was fresh in my mind. But I'm not sure if that's a valid statistic. Where are you getting yours?

That agrees with what I was saying. White people are shot in larger numbers overall but black people are shot in greater numbers given their percentage of the overall population.

I am saying that there are 100 people in a population. Of that 100, 12 are black and 60 are white. Overall, 5 white people were shot and 4 black people were shot. More whites were shot numerically but blacks were shot at a higher percentage (in my example 33% to 8%) than whites.

So we are on the same page there.

 

[Rockfish1]

No disrespect, but first off, it was conclusory. Your follow up provided examples, albeit brief, to support the conclusion, but that doesn't make your initial post something other than conclusory. That matters because the point of this exercise isn't to call out Trump/Team Republican policies or to argue that they're "bad". It's to explain why opponents of Trump/Team Republican policies tend to believe that racism is a function of those policies and why those opponents have used the word 'racist'. It's the use of that word that has driven a substantial part of the resentment among Republicans here (and beyond). It has seemed that their outright rejection of that harsh condemnation is to deny that (these aren't their words obviously) they're old-timey racists who overtly speak of a "lesser" race or wear white robes, etc. That effectively means people talking past each other because none of the folks throwing around that word have suggested otherwise. I'm looking for the recipients of that condemnation to say something other than "I'm not racist!" I'm looking for them to understand why the word is used and to counter the specific examples, if they can.

Edit for side note: nobody is obligated to respond to my post. I'm sure folks are tired of the subject (sort of). But I should note that I think the conversation hasn't fully happened here (at least not in ways that supports the interests of those on the receiving end). I'm actually looking for the response. If I don't see it, I'm going to start assuming folks don't have one. Folks like me will start reaching conclusions based on that (though I'm sure others reached their own conclusions long ago). So, again, nobody is forced to enter into debate, but I am curious to see if anybody has anything to offer in response. I've made an effort not to use inflammatory rhetoric, but instead to fairly offer up the contrary view. The opportunity to say something useful that knocks any of it down is there.

In another thread CO. Hoosier linked this Bret Stephens op-ed piece on "The Dying Art of Disagreement". Among other things, Stephens wrote this:

In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.
​

In this thread, it seems to me, you're suggesting that whites who resent accusations of racism need to understand what those accusations mean and where that sentiment is coming from. I think that will be a hard thing for them to do, because racial resentments are a hard thing to feel and an even harder thing to acknowledge.

Most on this board who resent accusations of racism haven't (at least on this board) actually been called racists. They don't think they're racists -- and maybe they're not -- but they feel like the shoe fits when they hear others talking about racism. How can "all lives matter" be racist, they want to know. What does race have to do with their outrage at black athletes kneeling during the national anthem? Why do people think they're racist merely because they want to keep brown people from entering the country illegally? How is racism against minorities a problem when it's the minorities who are getting all the breaks?

I want to ask: "How can you fail to see the common theme in all your grievances and resentments?"

White racial resentment isn't the same as old-timey racism, but it still looks ugly to me. It's one thing to say that we Democrats need to quit playing "identity politics" or we'll keep losing elections.* It's quite another to acknowledge and defend white racial resentments. I don't think that's going to happen.
________________________________

*I agree, by the way, with those who say that whites who feel butthurt will act out in stupid, childish, and destructive ways -- like electing a cartoon character President of the United States. I don't get, though, how those making this point fail to see that it's an indictment of those acting out in stupid, childish, and destructive ways. It isn't my fault that you act out. That's your fault. And don't you see that, when you do it, you validate the mean things people say about you?

It's also striking that this is the same group of people who tend to lash out against collegiate "snowflakes" who need trigger warnings and safe spaces. It's going to be tough to understand what others think if you can't acknowledge your own contradictions. (See, e.g., Jeff Sessions condemning those who undermine free speech on college campuses, while he condemns free speech by black athletes on football fields.)

 

[IUCrazy2]

*I agree, by the way, with those who say that whites who feel butthurt will act out in stupid, childish, and destructive ways -- like electing a cartoon character President of the United States. I don't get, though, how those making this point fail to see that it's an indictment of those acting out in stupid, childish, and destructive ways. It isn't my fault that you act out. That's your fault. And don't you see that, when you do it, you validate the mean things people say about you?

Say that I agree with that, does that not also apply in the other direction though?

The reality is that we really are not all that different. We all tend to act similarly to similar stimuli. When you get angry the rational part of your brain shuts down. Why would we expect white people to act any differently than black people when they feel they are being unjustly attacked? And if the acting out is an indictment on them, then what about those who riot or what have you?

And what all of this is really to say is that whenever this issue does get addressed, it is going to have to be resolved in a way that everyone thinks is equitable. You do not have that feeling right now on either side.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Not in the slightest. The wall, Trump's rhetoric against mexicans and DACA recipients. The Muslim ban. All xenephobic. All policies which hold wide support amongst Republicans. It's not merely a coincedence.

I see you've moved beyond your theory that all Trump supporters are racists to include all Republicans.

 

[iuwclurker1]

It's one thing to say that we Democrats need to quit playing "identity politics" or we'll keep losing elections.*
________________________________

*I agree, by the way, with those who say that whites who feel butthurt will act out in stupid, childish, and destructive ways -- l

"Playing identity politics" is just one example of a more general weakness in Democratic political thinking -- operating on ideology rather than pragmatics. The entire GOP playbook is based on luring Democrats into tangoing on "ideological issues" conjured up to obscure sensible solutions to societal issues favored by all liberals and most independents.

Abortion, gun rights, religion, jobs, taxation, criminal justice, health care, welfare, social security, you name it, there really is no societal issue of import where pragmatic solutions favor the GOP.

 

[Rockfish1]

Why would we expect white people to act any differently than black people when they feel they are being unjustly attacked?

Black people are unjustly attacked, including by the police. White people have no rational basis to believe that they are under attack -- at least that they're under attack as white people.

People riot because they are both aggrieved and powerless to protect themselves through normal channels. This is often true for black people. It is never true for white people. (Well, it's true for the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville, but screw them.)

When butthurt white people feel aggrieved, they don't riot, because they don't have to. Instead, they (for example) elect a cartoon character President of the United States. This makes racially resentful white people much more dangerous than aggrieved minorities could possible be. It's white people, after all, who still hold political power in this country -- notwithstanding the concerns of Trump supporters that it's being taken away from them. This is part of what Ta-Nehisi Coates was getting at in his controversial piece about white supremacy. That's a loaded phrase, but it gets at the idea that many white people feel that they're losing their privileged status, and they want Trump to re-empower them as the real Americans. That's what I hear with all the MAGA nonsense, and if I'm wrong about that I'd love to have someone explain it to me.

For me this goes back to the fundamental nature of Trump's appeal -- whether it's mostly a function of economic anxiety or mostly a function of white racial resentment. I think it's pretty obviously the latter. Multiple studies show that Trump supporters aren't economically distressed, but do hold racially resentful attitudes. It's this sense of racial grievance that unifies Trump's core themes.

And to return to the theme here, black people have good and abundant reasons to feel racially aggrieved in this country. White people do not.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Black people are unjustly attacked, including by the police. White people have no rational basis to believe that they are under attack -- at least that they're under attack as white people.

People riot because they are both aggrieved and powerless to protect themselves through normal channels. This is often true for black people. It is never true for white people. (Well, it's true for the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville, but screw them.)

When butthurt white people feel aggrieved, they don't riot, because they don't have to. Instead, they (for example) elect a cartoon character President of the United States. This makes racially resentful white people much more dangerous than aggrieved minorities could possible be. It's white people, after all, who still hold political power in this country -- notwithstanding the concerns of Trump supporters that it's being taken away from them. This is part of what Ta-Nehisi Coates was getting at in his controversial piece about white supremacy. That's a loaded phrase, but it gets at the idea that many white people feel that they're losing their privileged status, and they want Trump to re-empower them as the real Americans. That's what I hear with all the MAGA nonsense, and if I'm wrong about that I'd love to have someone explain it to me.

For me this goes back to the fundamental nature of Trump's appeal -- whether it's mostly a function of economic anxiety or mostly a function of white racial resentment. I think it's pretty obviously the latter. Multiple studies show that Trump supporters aren't economically distressed, but do hold racially resentful attitudes. It's this sense of racial grievance that unifies Trump's core themes.

And to return to the theme here, black people have good and abundant reasons to feel racially aggrieved in this country. White people do not.

It isn't my fault that you act out. That's your fault. And don't you see that, when you do it, you validate the mean things people say about you?

Poor white people do have reason to feel racially aggrieved because we couch things in terms of race. Poor black person is more likely to get assistance in getting into school for example then poor white person. And we can talk about "White privelege" all we want but at the end of the day that privelege (if you agree it exists) only helps poor white people in so much as "Well at least those suckers got it worse"...but in some things it is better to be poor and black than poor and white.

But forget all that. The second quote is where I really want to drill in. Black crime? Legacy of racism. Collapse of black families? Legacy of racism. Black underperformance in school? Legacy of racism. Take your second quote and apply it right back to these questions. (And usually this is where the race discussion breaks down because the "discussion" is really meant to be a lecture on bad white people while ignoring the other factors that can and do hold minorities back)

 

[Rockfish1]

The shooting that seemed to kick off the movement (Brown) appears to be completely justified when the facts were laid out. That did not stop the movement from trying to destroy the life and livelihood of the involved officer.

I want to emphasize a point Thyrsis made. Everyone focused on the aspect of the DOJ report that exonerated the cop, but few paid any attention to the portion that documented pervasive systemic racism in the Ferguson municipal government and police force.

I'll have to go back and find the articles that discuss it, but there's a long history of racial governance in the St. Louis area. As black people gradually moved from the city center into the suburbs, white people moved out and created tiny new municipalities (like Ferguson) with zoning codes designed to keep black people out. As those schemes failed over time, white people kept moving west, leaving a host of tiny "towns" (some no larger than neighborhood subdivisions) in their wake.

Those tiny towns came to depend for their municipal revenue on fines levied through the police. So the overwhelmingly white police force routinely dinged the mostly black residents for all manner of infractions to generate a revenue stream. Since many couldn't afford the fines, they'd no-show at court, then arrest warrants would issue. At their next meeting with police they'd be thrown in jail. The ensuing criminal records made them unemployable. This is not the lived experience that white people have with the police anywhere in this country. Thus it was incomprehensible to many white people that the residents of Ferguson would riot over the police shooting of an apparent low-life.

[Edit: typo.]

 

[Rockfish1]

Poor white people do have reason to feel racially aggrieved because we couch things in terms of race. Poor black person is more likely to get assistance in getting into school for example then poor white person. And we can talk about "White privelege" all we want but at the end of the day that privelege (if you agree it exists) only helps poor white people in so much as "Well at least those suckers got it worse"...but in some things it is better to be poor and black than poor and white.

But forget all that. The second quote is where I really want to drill in. Black crime? Legacy of racism. Collapse of black families? Legacy of racism. Black underperformance in school? Legacy of racism. Take your second quote and apply it right back to these questions. (And usually this is where the race discussion breaks down because the "discussion" is really meant to be a lecture on bad white people while ignoring the other factors that can and do hold minorities back)

I'm hearing a lot of resentment, but no empathy.

 

[Rockfish1]

I'm hearing a lot of resentment, but no empathy.

Also, Trump supporters aren't disproportionately poor. The people who are disproportionately poor are the minority groups that Trump supporters resent.