I could be remembering wrong, but but I thought you have described your experiences in some other threads. Are you just playing a game of "you can't prove it"?
Racist, or just careful?
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
I could be remembering wrong, but but I thought you have described your experiences in some other threads. Are you just playing a game of "you can't prove it"?
Of that group, I think perhaps only GameFace.
Thank you for proving my point.
YOur point that you really don't understand what privilege is? You're welcome.
My point is that you are egotistical enough to assume you are more enlightened than the rest of us while being deluded enough to assume that your view has to be the correct one on racism.
Since "enlightened" would be a spiritual state, and I don't believe in spiritual states, I would not describe myself as enlightened. I have probably read more on the subject than anyone you listed, but from what I recall, GameFace has described his situation to be such that he would at least some opportunity for direct observation.
Racism (systemic, cultural differences in treatment) is the cause of racial privilege (better, systemic, cultural differences in treatment). You can't have the latter without the former.
Enlightened:
1.Having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook.
2.Spiritually aware
Enlightened does not have to be a spiritual state so I reject that entire premise.
Also I already edited my post as I felt it did not reflect what I wanted to say.
So please continue to tell me about my experiences and the conclusions I should reach from those experiences.
OK. Regarding understanding race relations, I try to be modern and well-informed (but I'm not there yet, IMO) and I have difficulty being rational, so I would still say I'm unenlightened.
I don't know that there is "the correct [view] on racism"; if there is, I doubt I would be lucky enough to possess it. I know that there are measured effects of privilege, including experiments designed to test if it existed or not and showing it does, and that any view saying it does not exist, or has little/no measurable impact, is as irrational as saying that there is no global warming or that our planet is less than 11,000 years old. There can be a rational discussion about the effects of privilege, it's consequences, the degree to which it is accountable in any particular event/phenomenon. There can't be a rational debate about it's existence, because it is irrational to say it does not exist.
So... anyone who feels this incident was anything less than full-blown racism is denying that racism exists. Is that what you're getting at?
I'm not sure anyone was arguing whether or not racism exists. <-- I had to edit here... I wrote incorrectly, initially.
It's difficult to figure out what you're trying to accomplish here, Brow. You seem to like to shift the discussion a lot and then tell people what they're saying or what they know.
Last edited:
What's the difference between "full-blown" racism and other types of racism? I mean, I've already said I don't think the guards in question were intentionally using racist logic. So, I'm not sure what your term means.
From the depictions of many people, racism is the KKK and Stormfront, not the vast majority of the country. People seem to think that as long as they don't harbor any ill will, they don't have any racism mixed into their decision-making (Edit to add: I think your use of "full-blown" might be one example of this). I'm arguing against that notion. It's not whether racism exists, but what it's nature is.