posted by O-TrapHow racist is racist enough to be labeled "racist?"
If we dig down to a level of minutia, we'll all have some level of racism.
I think we all have some sort of prejudice, ie things we prefer, but I don’t think we all have some sort of racism. For me if you are racist you believe that one person is better than another because of the color of their skin.
posted by O-TrapHow racist is racist enough to be labeled "racist?"
If we dig down to a level of minutia, we'll all have some level of racism.
I'm racist against spiders. I wish they would all die or jump off the planet.
Outside of joking, I do think that people have some natural prejudices and many learned/taught/conditioned. A good example is how a good amount of politicians are now all about class warfare. They might be pandering but I'm pretty sure they've got real issues with billionaires. That has nothing to do with racism, IMO.
Racism does happen, for sure. But I think with every new generation people care less and less. Especially young people. I get the idea that they're much more worried about paying off student loans than they are about the color of somebody's skin or their religion or their sexuality.
The standards in this country have been set for along time. KKK hoods and black face are resignation territory. I guess some think that its time to move the goal posts.
posted by geeblockI think we all have some sort of prejudice, ie things we prefer, but I don’t think we all have some sort of racism. For me if you are racist you believe that one person is better than another because of the color of their skin.
I'd be willing to wager that if we dug deep enough into all our subconsciousness, we'd all have defaults and assumptions that we'd base on skin tone or racial background. I'd argue that those things are racist as well.
An overt example might be that a black person is assumed to like watermelon, a Welsh person is assumed to fuck sheep, or an Asian person is assumed to be good at math. None of these intrinsically make one better than another, but they're still racist.
Now, these are obvious examples of course, but I'd be willing to bet that we react to certain races differently in certain situations, even on a subconscious level, which would effectively make us all guilty of this brand of racism, even if only to a smaller degree.
But that's where my previous question comes in. How much of this is enough to call a person racist? Where's that line?
posted by O-TrapI'd be willing to wager that if we dug deep enough into all our subconsciousness, we'd all have defaults and assumptions that we'd base on skin tone or racial background. I'd argue that those things are racist as well.
An overt example might be that a black person is assumed to like watermelon, a Welsh person is assumed to fuck sheep, or an Asian person is assumed to be good at math. None of these intrinsically make one better than another, but they're still racist.
Now, these are obvious examples of course, but I'd be willing to bet that we react to certain races differently in certain situations, even on a subconscious level, which would effectively make us all guilty of this brand of racism, even if only to a smaller degree.
But that's where my previous question comes in. How much of this is enough to call a person racist? Where's that line?
I disagree. I would call that some sort of preconceived notions, not racism. I don't consider those to be quite the same thing. One is basically an "old wives tale" and the other is based on what you look like or your birth.
posted by geeblockI think we all have some sort of prejudice, ie things we prefer, but I don’t think we all have some sort of racism. For me if you are racist you believe that one person is better than another because of the color of their skin.
Therein lies a significant percentage of the problem. "Racism" is arguably the most misused term as of today...probably 90% of the time it's actually prejudice.
posted by fish82Therein lies a significant percentage of the problem. "Racism" is arguably the most misused term as of today...probably 90% of the time it's actually prejudice.
I'm not sure what the technical definitions are, and I'm not sure many people could tell you anymore. But it seems that words now mean whatever people feel that they mean. It's how people push an agenda, imagining context to imply something that wasn't said. "Dog whistle" is the best - and it's often correct - but it takes that to another level where you should be offended by something innocent sounding, because you don't understand the coded language (thank god for the talking heads to break all that down for us!).
Anyway, there's not a lot of logic or science behind many of the left/liberal positions, and the go-to is to squash debate by labeling counter-arguments as racist.
posted by O-TrapI'd be willing to wager that if we dug deep enough into all our subconsciousness, we'd all have defaults and assumptions that we'd base on skin tone or racial background. I'd argue that those things are racist as well.
An overt example might be that a black person is assumed to like watermelon, a Welsh person is assumed to fuck sheep, or an Asian person is assumed to be good at math. None of these intrinsically make one better than another, but they're still racist.
Now, these are obvious examples of course, but I'd be willing to bet that we react to certain races differently in certain situations, even on a subconscious level, which would effectively make us all guilty of this brand of racism, even if only to a smaller degree.
But that's where my previous question comes in. How much of this is enough to call a person racist? Where's that line?
You mean stereotypes. Yes they are rooted in reality. Is some of that reality racist or bigoted or ignorant in its conception......maybr so. But in the end they are mostly just a way to highlight the reality of people.
The Washington post spent millions for a dumbass super bowl commercial. Fuckin firefighters
posted by iclfan2The Washington post spent millions for a dumbass super bowl commercial. Fuckin firefighters
Thought it was pretty solid. As it went the whole group we watched it with got quieter and quieter. Liked how they also included those that most people dont think of who are sacrificing themselves like the foreign news media.
posted by CenterBHSFanI disagree. I would call that some sort of preconceived notions, not racism. I don't consider those to be quite the same thing. One is basically an "old wives tale" and the other is based on what you look like or your birth.
Well, they're both based on what a person looks like. One is just a subset of another.
The assumption that a black teen in a hoodie is probably dangerous, but a white teen in a hoodie is not worth noticing is logically the same as the assumption that a black kid is more likely to like fried chicken than a white kid. One is just perceived to be benign, while the other is perceived to be negative. The logic, though, is congruent. The same thing would be true of the assumption that a comfortable white adult is the result of growing up with well-to-do parents and having opportunities handed to them.
If it's based exclusively on skin color, then it's really no different. You can change the description from "the result of privilege" to "inferior," but the logic is the same.
If one is racist, then the other is also.
posted by SpockYou mean stereotypes. Yes they are rooted in reality. Is some of that reality racist or bigoted or ignorant in its conception......maybr so. But in the end they are mostly just a way to highlight the reality of people.
Interesting. Does that include stereotypes about white people?
Well then now we're just getting into the conversation on the distinctions between implicit biases, perceived biases, racial hierarchy and the high variance between everything else included under that big conversation. I would think that claiming to know the thoughts of everybody and claiming racism in all people would be akin to having some sort of X-Men ability. The trend is coming around where more and more psychologists and sociologists are claiming that things like "implicit bias tests/training" are junk practices. And to me, this dovetails in quite nicely with the idea of the progressive stack that's involved in identity politics.
My guess is that there will be no definitive proof of racism in everybody nor will there be definitive proof that racism is not in everybody. It's just a reliance on hunches, perception, etc. But look, you have your opinion about it and I have mine; highly doubtful that one will ever be able to prove the other wrong. But I do think it's an interesting theory to ponder on.
*Edit to add*
Also, if there is some sort of homebrew hooch that gives you the ability to determine that everybody is racist to some degree or other - that shit would own Bitcoin.
posted by geeblockDoom and gloom nothing is going to change. People that want abortions are going to get them way before 40 weeks and people who have extreme medical conditions will be able to consult with the doctor to make the best choice. Talk about fake outrage news.
You are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill).
posted by CenterBHSFanWell then now we're just getting into the conversation on the distinctions between implicit biases, perceived biases, racial hierarchy and the high variance between everything else included under that big conversation. I would think that claiming to know the thoughts of everybody and claiming racism in all people would be akin to having some sort of X-Men ability. The trend is coming around where more and more psychologists and sociologists are claiming that things like "implicit bias tests/training" are junk practices. And to me, this dovetails in quite nicely with the idea of the progressive stack that's involved in identity politics.
My guess is that there will be no definitive proof of racism in everybody nor will there be definitive proof that racism is not in everybody. It's just a reliance on hunches, perception, etc. But look, you have your opinion about it and I have mine; highly doubtful that one will ever be able to prove the other wrong. But I do think it's an interesting theory to ponder on.*Edit to add*
Also, if there is some sort of homebrew hooch that gives you the ability to determine that everybody is racist to some degree or other - that shit would own Bitcoin.
LOL on the edit.
The rest of this isn't wrong at all, but I suppose that was kind of the point I was hoping to draw out. We all have a different view on how knowable racism even is within an individual. As such, what is the point of trying to ask who is and isn't? I think it's more productive to ask if ideas, beliefs, or actions are racist as opposed to whether or not people are. People are comprised of all these things, but to label a person racist, we'd need to come up with a certain amount of that makeup that is racist, and as we just demonstrated, we probably can't do that with any level of consensus.
Perhaps that's okay. Perhaps human beings are too complicated to try to accomplish that anyway, even without consensus.
posted by jmogYou are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill).
Based on the comments circulating around yes he said what is being alluded to, however looking at the actual bill it does not say the stupid things he said when asked about it from what i read, but i will admit i didnt get real deep into it.
posted by jmogYou are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill).
What he said didn't actually speak to the bill itself, as far as I could tell. I mean, the idea that someone with significant medical risk and complications can potentially do something that might save their lives without risking criminal charges is not exactly problematic, I wouldn't think. The abstract of choosing one's own life over another's is almost uniformly understood as reasonable. It's why we have castle doctrine. It's why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.
As for whether or not people are going to wait to have late-term abortions if they know all along that they don't want to have a child, I'd be willing to wager that geeblock is probably right. They'll more than likely opt to get an abortion earlier rather than later, as was permitted before this most recent law was passed.
I honestly don't see much actually changing. I don't necessarily like the law or what it might permit, but I doubt that we see a palpable uptick in late-term abortions chosen for any reason other than health risks. MAYBE sudden, unforeseen financial crises, but even with that, I doubt it will be a significant uptick, statistically.
posted by jmogYou are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill).
There was nothing wrong with his post
But there is almost no reason for a late term abortion. They are hiding behind the whole idea of the mothers health. 3rd trimester babies dont need aborted and killed. Have the baby c sectioned and adopted.
posted by SpockBut there is almost no reason for a late term abortion. They are hiding behind the whole idea of the mothers health. 3rd trimester babies dont need aborted and killed. Have the baby c sectioned and adopted.
It wouldn't have been an option for my wife to have a C-section because of an unacceptable risk for infection (in connection with other factors). C-section isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, unfortunately.
In theory, a significant level of risk arising that late in a pregnancy is small, so I wouldn't count on this law resulting in a sudden explosion of late-term abortions. In fact, I doubt the needle moves notably at all. What woman wants to go through all the effects of pregnancy if they don't have to? I obviously can't relate, but as an observer, pregnancy didn't exactly look fun, particularly in the third trimester. I can't imagine someone with the intention to have an abortion would wait that long by choice. It's counter-intuitive for someone having an abortion for personal preference reasons not trying to avoid unnecessary personal discomfort.
posted by O-TrapIt wouldn't have been an option for my wife to have a C-section because of an unacceptable risk for infection (in connection with other factors). C-section isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, unfortunately.
In theory, a significant level of risk arising that late in a pregnancy is small, so I wouldn't count on this law resulting in a sudden explosion of late-term abortions. In fact, I doubt the needle moves notably at all. What woman wants to go through all the effects of pregnancy if they don't have to? I obviously can't relate, but as an observer, pregnancy didn't exactly look fun, particularly in the third trimester. I can't imagine someone with the intention to have an abortion would wait that long by choice. It's counter-intuitive for someone having an abortion for personal preference reasons not trying to avoid unnecessary personal discomfort.
Yeah, basically this law creates a lot of fake outrage by people who are against abortions in general. They’re yelling and screaming that a bunch of pregnant women in their 8th month of pregnancy are going to abort their babies because they don’t want a baby anymore. And that simply won’t happen. But alas, here we are talking about it.
