SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Wired Magazine has an article that some might find interesting.
I was at what should have been a farmers’ market in Berkeley, California, last year when a throng of black-clad antifascists tried to scrap it out with far-right ralliers in the middle of a park named after Martin Luther King Jr. I watched scrawny college students get pummeled by hulking, be-swastika-ed ex-soldiers and ex-law enforcement officers in motorcycle gear. The antifascists’ one reprisal was setting off a homemade smoke bomb, which promptly blew back into their own faces, drawing raucous jeering from the white supremacists. It was as close to a war zone as I ever hope to be, and it was unequivocally a win for the racists.
But then,
It was easy to imagine the Bay Area becoming an extremist battleground—each weekend an opportunity for the next rally turned riot.
That vision has not come to pass. In the long arc of American racism, 2017 saw a sudden spike in visibility, but it was not the beginning of a new era in which people routinely walk the streets advertising their white supremacy. This year has brought the opposite trend: 2018 has been a year of pushing the alt-right and other white nationalist groups back underground, and punishing them for misdeeds committed during their brief moment in the sun. That’s a testament to the strength of the backlash against 2017’s naked racism, and evidence of how costly being openly racist has become—especially on the internet, where it has doomed entire social media platforms to obscurity. This must be counted as a good thing.
Goebbels said, allegedly, "Even if we lose we will win, because our enemies have adopted our methods." Looks like the alt-right is losing.
Regardless of what scaremonger reporters might espouse, the alt-right, as we have come to know it over the last two years, has failed—as extremism researchers always knew it would. But in its place has come something shadowier and far older: an underground white supremacist movement operating on society’s fringes, and a culture that disavows the racists while quietly mainstreaming their ideas.
So here's the point:
The issue, though, is that while there’s satisfaction and schadenfreude in watching these public flounderings, the alt-right doesn’t have to be visible to succeed. In fact, going underground is a return to the status quo for American white supremacy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 03 2019, @07:33PM (27 children)
First off, you like a lot of people are mixing up your terminology. A quick primer on a bunch of related but different concepts:
- Racism is the idea that says that we can divide the population up based on skin color and hair type and eye shape and sometimes language dialects and from nothing more than that draw useful conclusions about an individual's character and abilities. The concept of "race" as something that exists is part and parcel of this way of thinking. Lots of people who aren't burning crosses or wearing swastikas or saying racial slurs believe in racism. If you've ever put someone's apparent racial background into your description of somebody when their racial identity isn't relevant (e.g. "my black friend"), you're at least somewhat thinking in terms of racism.
- Racial stereotypes are the (often false) conclusions drawn about the contents of individual's character and abilities based on their apparent race. If you find yourself thinking things like "Asians are good at math", you're engaged in racial stereotyping. Or if you look at a person who seems like they're black, and they tell you they're a musician, if you assume they're doing hip-hop or R&B rather than classical or country, you're thinking with racial stereotypes.
- Racial discrimination is the making of decisions based on racial stereotypes. For example, when a cop sees a black person and in the absence of any evidence of criminal behavior assumes that that person is a dangerous felon and acts on that assumption, that's racial discrimination. Or when a company (which I quit shortly after this incident) refused to even consider a candidate for a programming position solely because he was Indian, that's racial discrimination.
- Systemic racism is racial discrimination in an organized way. For instance, banks who had an unspoken policy of giving only subprime mortgages to black people even if they were qualified for prime-rate mortgages. Or Levittown contractually obligating all purchasers of homes agree to only sell their homes to white people. Or the renaming of cannabis to "marijuana" to make it sound more Hispanic and then making it illegal (specifically citing racial stereotypes in the push to make it illegal) while the more dangerous tobacco remains totally legal.
- Racial terrorism is the kind of stuff the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and others under the "alt-right" sometimes do, namely kill and injure and threaten people based either on their race or their opposition to racial discrimination. This can include actions that are not explicitly violent: For instance, calling the cops on someone for totally legal activities because of their race can get the people you're calling about beaten or killed, and those calling the cops are often well aware of this. Racial slurs can also fall into this category: If some Good Old Boy from a small town in Mississippi calls somebody by the n-word, the person he's calling by that name will (probably correctly) interpret that as a threat of violence.
Now to address the thing I think you're trying to insinuate without actually saying so is that you believe that affirmative action is racism against white people. It isn't, or at least isn't intended to be: The idea of affirmative action is that an institution attempts to counteract the effects of racial discrimination by actively choosing to factor in racial discrimination when evaluating people's character and actions. For instance, if racial discrimination in employment forced your parents to do nasty work for lousy pay, and racial discrimination in housing forced them to live in a bad part of town with lousy public schools, then it's no surprise that your SAT/ACT scores will be lower than somebody whose parents were able to get paid much better and live in the nice suburbs and/or send their kids to a nice private school, even if you're smarter and better than the suburbanite, so college admissions officers can and do factor that in when deciding who to admit. Those affirmative action systems could probably stand to be refined so that as racial discrimination gets reduced in other areas of life the degree affirmative action counteracts that also gets adjusted.
As for "callout culture", it can combat racial stereotyping and non-systemic racial discrimination by shaming people who commit those acts. It does approximately nothing about racial terrorists (the racial terrorists know that's exactly what they are and don't apologize for it), systemic racism (which is more the product of organizational decisions than individual decisions and often can't be fixed by one person no matter how well-intentioned), or racism (because that's an ingrained pattern of thought).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 03 2019, @07:52PM (3 children)
Let's simplify that a bit.
Racism is an institutional system by the more physically powerful "race". Note the "-ism" in there. Individually, one is a bigot. Anybody can be a bigot.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:02PM (1 child)
That is incorrect. Racism, like all "-isms", is a belief system. What you're talking about is "systemic racism" or "institutional racism".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:37PM
is a belief system
Exactly! It is systemic, institutionalized. Racism is an institution. A victim of racism can still be a bigot, but he is not racist. That term applies the aggressive institution and the people who support it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:03PM
That's not the definition of racism, it's a left wing definition of racism that is used to justify their blatant racism. [npr.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by exaeta on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:33PM (14 children)
Affirmative action is a form of racial discrimination and thus support of it makes you a racist. It is entirely possible to combat racial disparity without using racial discrimination as a tool, but you (like other racists) fail to escape the black and white fallacy. It's the sort of "us vs them" mentality that doesn't allow you to see there are a significant number of people who want to end racial discrimination who your party (the democrats) have alienated by supporting racist policies like affirmative action. You also fail to recognize the existence of poor white people and rich black people. My neighbor was a black lawyer, who drove fancy cars and everything. Do you think HIS kids deserve bonus points against a white trailer park kid? Do you think they had a harder time being educated? No, they don't. Why fall on racism when merit based selection would provide more benefits?
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2, Troll) by Thexalon on Thursday January 03 2019, @10:07PM (8 children)
The use of a racial slur on its own isn't the problem. The problem is using the word in context that suggests a threat of imminent violence. It's why Jim's name in Huckleberry Finn isn't something that should be censored: Mark Twain isn't likely to attack anybody. It's why Paul Mooney can say the same word without consequences: Everyone listening to him knows he's not likely to attack someone for being black. But if someone who's acting like a wannabe Ted Nugent says it, it's rational to be worried about it, and thus that use of the very same word is a threat. Especially if it's being used in a place where lynching used to be commonplace.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 04 2019, @11:23AM (7 children)
The hell it does. Racial slurs imply no violence unless preceeded by something like "Get the". You're just buying into the whole mean words are violence line of bullshit. At least I hope you're buying into it. If you're not you're deliberately being a disingenuous asshole.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday January 04 2019, @04:06PM (6 children)
So let's say you're in a neighborhood where almost everybody is black. You're walking down the street minding your own business, when a black guy you don't know who is hanging out on a street corner with a bunch of other guys gestures to you and says "Hey, cracka!" Do you:
A. Walk right up to him and say "Hey, bro, what's up?"
B. Cross the street to avoid him and his buddies?
C. Turn around and hope to leave the area the way you came?
D. Check to see if your gun is ready to use, if you're carrying?
If your reaction isn't A or something similar, you responded to the word "cracka" as a threat. Not a high-level threat like pulling out a gun or something, but as a reason to be on your guard because something dangerous might happen.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:05PM
I'd pick A, but I don't live in your country and I have a friendly smiling attitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:18PM
in the situation you describe there's a whole lot of context you leave out
the body language of the guy going 'hey cracka' and his group of friends is gonna determine if I consider the situation as a threat or not (do they act like gangbangers or not, are they surrounding me, are they invading my personal space, do they look like they're grabbing a knife/gun in their pocket, ...)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @06:42PM
You seldom say anything outright STUPID but this time you've done it.
If this were a black guy that I know pretty well, then A. would be the correct response. If this were a black guy whom I've seen around, but don't know well, then maybe A. is the correct response. But, this is some black guy I've never seen? I have no idea who he is, where he's from, or what he's about? D. is the appropriate response.
Now, before you yell "DAS RACISSSSS!!!!" - let's put myself in the same position, but all the actors are white, or Hispanic, or Chinese, or (gasp) Native American/Indian. The guy on the corner calls me "asshole" or "sumbitch" or "Yankee" or any number of other insults. Guy I know, I walk up and insult him right back. Guy I've seen but don't know well, I walk up and insult him, or his grandmother, or something like. Guy I have never seen, I'm checking my weapon, and then it's "Yeah shithead, what do you want?"
On yet another hand - if the guys on the corner are waving ANTIFA signs, there's no need to trade insults. Pull out the weapon, and start blazing away, when the mag runs dry, reload and continue blazing. Likewise, if they are waving NAZI signs - shoot first, leave the insults for their mothers at their funerals.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 05 2019, @04:04PM
Depends on my mood. Some days I'd respond with "prairie nigger not cracka" and show them my tribal citizenship card. Other days I'd go with some variation on option one. I don't do "bro" though. They'd probably get something more along the lines of "mornin/afternoon/evenin". I ain't askeert of black folks just because they're black (Really difficult to be when half your town is black. That level of paranoia would be exhausting.) and I paid attention when my mom told me the old "sticks and stones" line.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:12AM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:46AM
And definitely not murder, unless you accelerate, and drag the person from many yards, and flee the scene, because, "cracka". What the ferk is this more or less exaeta smoking?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hawkwind on Friday January 04 2019, @05:23AM (4 children)
Affirmative Action does not require preference to be given. In fact when done well (granted, which is rarely) it can lift all workers. But more importantly, it does not require preference. A good place to start is DOL regs 41-CFR 60-2.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 04 2019, @11:25AM (3 children)
You're thinking equal opportunity. Affirmative action, as stated directly in the name, requires affirmative actions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hawkwind on Friday January 04 2019, @08:51PM (2 children)
The affirmative action part under the DOL game is to come up with a plan to diversify. Heck, protected class status can't even be used as a tie-breaker. And it definitely doesn't allow preference.
For labor practice in CA it's a big deal as CA is not allowed to take any action except where it's needed to comply with contractual terms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209 [wikipedia.org], the actual measure is a short read if interested). Meaning the most populous state only has affirmative action to the extent in the DOL regs. So yes, affirmative action does not necessarily mean preference.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by qzm on Friday January 04 2019, @10:43PM (1 child)
Wow, so much attempt to use complexity to avoid the issue.
Affirmative action is by definition putting a thumb on the scale to the benefit of the targeted class.
This is by definition to the detriment of all other classes, and by definition to the detriment of the general population, as it means a LESS qualified applicant is selected, BY DEFINITION.
Otherwise it would not be needed, you would simply need 'best applicant' protection, which is not affirmative action.
But no, keep trying to avoid reality to push your racist agenda.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday January 05 2019, @03:30AM
Life can be complex. It means in CA we can't give preference but we can create non-economic incentives. Also means we're chasing a limited good, and our wins subtract from the quality available to other states. Prop 209 has had some mighty interesting impacts.
But yes, it's not all beautiful. It's amazing how humans with agendas will fight and look for loopholes. Not trying to be legalistic, just pointing out the assumption that AA equals preference isn't like death and taxes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mobydisk on Thursday January 03 2019, @10:19PM (4 children)
WOW, that's not where I was going!
I see racism against non-blacks all the time, and it's treated like it's socially acceptable. Here's some examples of racism I've seen recently:
It's not okay to talk about Mexicans as though they are all illegal immigrants who sneak into American to mow lawns without paying taxes. My neighbor, who maybe is Greek(?), was mistaken for a Mexican and told to get out of his own neighborhood. He should not have to tolerate that.
It's not okay to call black cops "oreos" because they are "white on the inside and black on the outside."
It's not okay to say that white people are the source of all evil and they want to enslave everyone else in the world. A guy at a gas pump was doing that and as a white guy I hastily finished pumping gas and drove off because he was saying some scary stuff.
It's not okay to yell "Allāhu akbar!!!" and pretend to throw a grenade.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 04 2019, @02:50AM (3 children)
Sorry, your rhetoric sounded an awful lot like the alt-right guys in this discussion, so I was expecting something more along the lines of "woe is me, poor whitey".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:24AM
If only he could be deplatformed before explaining his position, everything would be right in the world! ikanreed and azuma will get to fancy murder and all bad people will be Nazis.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Friday January 04 2019, @02:35PM (1 child)
Yeah, I was a bit vague in my posting for fear that I would get flamed, and as a result my ambiguity was taken for veiled racism by a few posters, none as balanced or eloquent as yours though. I'm glad there was real discussion though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:45PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and ambiguity.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday January 03 2019, @11:00PM (1 child)
So, you had me... I might add religion to language as race components or analogs, but fundamentally ok. Until here:
I challenge you to try again and define Racial Terrorism in terms of the broad types of behaviors that are Racial Terrorism rather than 'Racial Terrorism is bad stuff that these bad people sometimes do'. Speak to the tactics of the KKK and their identity elsewhere. You managed this in your other definitions.
To be clear: KKK members sometimes breathe. Neo-Nazis sometimes attend marches and rallies. Members of the "alt-right" sometimes "flip the bird" at bad drivers. And everybody sometimes poops [amazon.com]. If you poop, you MIGHT be a racial terrorist.
You are better than this effort.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 04 2019, @02:40AM
You either didn't read the entire sentence, or you're intentionally pretending that it didn't exist:
That is the main activity of these people. Preparing for it, engaging in it, cleaning up the mess afterwords. It's why they exist.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:42PM
"is that you believe that affirmative action is racism against white people. It isn't, or at least isn't intended to be: The idea of affirmative action is that an institution attempts to counteract the effects of racial discrimination by actively choosing to factor in racial discrimination when evaluating people's character and actions."
are you 5 yrs old? no, it's retaliatory discrimination to pander to blacks for votes and it's working great b/c most blacks are racists just like most everyone is racist, even dumb asses who think they aren't.