Y can't disprove X's accusation of racism, therefore racism. wtf.. Claim a teapot circling Jupiter, you can't disprove it, safe to assume teapot circling Jupiter?
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Y can't disprove X's accusation of racism, therefore racism. wtf.. Claim a teapot circling Jupiter, you can't disprove it, safe to assume teapot circling Jupiter?
That kind of thinking is why all kinds of discrimination don't disappear, or extremely slowly.
To take the focus of racism for a moment, let's look at women at the top of the world's largest organizations and their boards. There are extremely few. Is that because of anti-women attitudes? There is little to no direct evidence; you won't find recordings of discussions about filling positions where people outright disqualify someone because they are a woman. People that consciously think these things are clever enough to not say them openly (since they know it's commonly acceptable); and people with unconscious biases (which is extremely common) will only provide implicit examples because of the nature of their bias. Nonetheless, I hope we can all agree that there obviously is discrimination against women; there is no way over 50% of humanity just happens to be less qualified.
It's the same with racism. This can take all kinds of forms. Maybe non-white people relatively often feel that positions of power and influence are not for them in this society, and so they don't consider that they could be a referee. Maybe non-white refs meet with more aggression or less respect from players, and are more often too discouraged to continue. Maybe it' s a leaky pipeline, where a relatively high proportion of non-white refs does not make it into the next level at each transition. And maybe there are other factors. But there is no way that it's a total coincidence that, in a sport where a significant percentage of players is non-white, so few refs (and coaches, for that matter) are non-white.
I need to prove (and fight against) the "discrimination". The racism just explains it and gives a better idea how to go about it. Racism is the pathogen not the disease.
It's not extremely slowly. We've been here for a 200.000+ years. Racism, at least in the west, is near non-existent compared to 60 years ago, let alone 200 or 2000 years. There will always be some form of discrimination. Either obvious or by someones definition.
How many women are willing and able to do what it takes to be at the top? I'm not saying they can't. How many would sacrifice everything to be at the top of business? It's kinda hard to put a number to it. Is it 50%? No probably not. 10, 5, 2, 1, 0,1? What about men?
Coincidence? No. But why racism? Computer scientists. I'm pretty sure there's a disproportionate numeber of whites and asian, at least in the west. Is that racism towards black people? I didn't actually look at any numbers, think I've seen/heard it somewhere though. Pick a different profession if it suits you better. This btw would likely apply to men vs women also
there is enough black players too in the football leagues. It is not the work force that is the issue though there is the problems there too. It is the top positions in football. The coaches, the referees, the Board etc. Anyone who has not experienced racism is never going to understand it. Anyone who is a racist will never accept there is racism.
But most forms of discrimination have long been accepted. Look at the 19th century: a lot of white men openly considered women and non-whites inferior. In that climate, you cannot expect change. So the 200,000-years timeline is a strawman argument, in my view. Only in the last few decades have the tides on those opinions definitely turned. But the actual reversal of discrimination in practice is lagging far behind. People aren't walking the talk. So yes, I do think change is coming far too slowly.
I think that, in your examples, you are looking too much for explicit discrimination. A lot of discrimination, however, plays out on a subtler, societal level.
Consider coding: my pre-teen daughter currently loves to code: there are kids websites to learn coding, and she can spend hours on that. But as she grows older, she will experience a society where coders are nearly exclusively men, and where women are supposed to have different interests. This will shape her opinion on coding, and she might shift into something else. (As much as we might try to not let these things influence her.)
Or top jobs: the social environment at the top of many companies is very male-centric, in the sense that people are expected to have personality characteristics that are more common in men and that social forms often focus on behaviour most common among men. The argument 'do women really want it' does not consider that, and thus enters the discussion one stage too late. As a result, rather than considering whether the work climate is appropriate for all of humanity, the argument implicitly accepts that it's a white-man's world (pretty much saying 'it's just like that, what can you do?'), and takes it from there.
(Obviously, these are not cases of racism, but other types of discrimination; but I think the societal dynamics are the same.)
Do girls lose interest in coding because society pushes them away from it, or do they lose interest in coding because the more seriously you get into it, either as a past time or with a view to it becoming your profession, the more you realise it's a very isolated and insular line of work?
Is this a strategy? Claim strawman, then use strawman. It happens over and over in these discussions
You seem to be saying this is somehow unjust and needs rectifying. Different groups, populations, ethnicities, even genders, can't seek different outcomes.
It's not obviously discrimination. If you're going to claim this discrimination, you have to claim it for every instance the outcome is not equal.
Dude, several western countries are lead by actual racists (The US and the UK to name two). That implies a significant proportion of the population is OK with racism.
When someone tells you that racism is near non existent in the west you stop engaging with them on that topic.
Yep, and they'd have been voted in by a majority of the population (in Trumps case, slightly below majority). They're not all racist, of course, but i'd guess there's a bit of a correlation there.
Agreed - though tbf the poster did state "compared to 200/2000 years ago" - if that makes it better.
If that's the yard stick we are golden
true true. "Hey you should be happy, we've made progress. So be grateful!"Dude, that's actually, really, debatable. Although I'd probably argue you're correct about the US. You can name anyone, anything, if you just stretch definitions enough. You do of course know not only whites voted for these people? You will of course come up with some explanation for this, why that's not relevant. But that's what you'll have to do, rationalize this stuff in your head to exclude everything not agreeing with your opinion.
Are you the gatekeeper? Please tell me the % of populations in the west who are racist, today vs 60 years ago. Really, I want to know. You must know, making a claim like this.
About 26% of the voting age population voted Tory in 2019 .
I didn't though, did I
I'm not the gatekeeper of anything and I'm not the one who makes frankly moronic statements like racism is nearly non existent in the west when most elections in the west have xenophobic rhetoric at their center. In France you can bet that at least 10% of the population is racist or at the very least xenophobic simply because at least 10% of the population vote for RN(former FN) which is a clearly racist, xenophobic, islamophobic and antisemitic political movement. Then you have a substantial part of LR who is made of racists and xenophobic individuals who haven't joined RN yet because they don't want the racist tag on them even though they have the same thoughts and publicly shared opinions, so even if you didn't consider that 100% of RN voters are racists, you can add a fair amount of LR voters.
But it doesn't actually stop there, since the left also has its racist, as does the center and the non voting population, from all ethnicities and origins.
An,d you are the one who made a claim, so don't try to turn things around, you claimed that racism was near non existent in the West, when it's clearly and openly existent.
Thanks for that info CM. Appreciated.
What's debatable? That a significant part of the population in several western countries are OK with racism? I didn't say people voting for, say, the tories, Trump, the Danish social democrats or whoever are necessarily racist themselves. I said that the people voting for them are OK with their racism. I don't see why non-white voters have anything to do with it.
But if you’re ok with it, that makes you racist doesn’t it?
Re the bolded bit, that was my interpretation, and I thought it actually might have made the intention a bit better. But if you meant something different, then apologies if I misrepresented what you said.
I think you can probably argue both ways. I'd leave it at someone at least tolerating racism if they're voting on some of the ones mentioned. Mainly because you'd have proof of at least that, whereas proving outright racism is a bit more difficult from just a vote.
Also this is one of those (paraphrasing Dave here) "you should be grateful we're the least racist, but the least racist is still racist.".
What would you think about someone saying:"I'm okay with racism(racist rhetoric) but I'm not racist."?
Yea, that's great. I usually shy away at this point, running into this type of argumentation in real life. I understand the topic is controversial/contentious (I don't know, am I using that right?), and emotions can get the better of you. But come on..
You're giving me opinion. Is no fact right wing politics, even far-right, is mostly dominated by racists. You're the one making the claim, not me, that racism is so widespread. It's a big claim. You need to give evidence to support it. I don't have to give evidence to a claim without evidence. This is why this is called a religion, more and more. It's not evidence based.
You know what a bell curve is? In a population you expect a distribution of things. Say racism. Most people will fall in between, the majority. Then you have those fighting and demonstrating, on the far right, as an example. On the other side you have..the racists. Point being, you go far enough to either side, everything becomes opposite to you. That make any sense? Easier would just be left/right politics, go far enough to the right and everything becomes on your left. But optics is better with a bell curve.
Are you answering a question with a question
Yes, because I think that answering my question will give you the answer. What would you think about someone saying what I wrote?
Do you think everyone who voted conservative is racist?
So to make it clear, you claimed that racism was nearly non existent in the west which isn't a fact nor supported by current political climates or personal experiences. I give you an example that shows how racism is not non existent because it's an important part of mainstream politics in a large country that is in the west and you think that I haven't brought evidence of the existence of racism?
Where is your evidence that racism is nearly non existent in the west? Which evidence have you brought that outweights the existence and popularity of for example RN?
I admire the posters here doing their best to interact with that elementary particle.
To answer this, I’d say they’re being disingenuous
If those people are "ok" with racism then yes, that's the caveat that was mentioned in your question.
But they must be ok with racism because they voted for a racist leader. That is what my original post tried to question to the op as that is what he stated
This probably passes for liberalism in 2020. Bravely fighting the religion of anti-racism with facts and logic.
This part is the best:
No. I can't tell you 10, 5, 1% of the population is racist. There is no evidence for or against such a claim. There is racism. I don't see racism anywhere in my life. I see dumb, ill informed, ignorant people, sure. But they don't have to be racists. 60 years ago it was normal. Claiming a vote for some far right politics is the same as racism is wrong. It can be correct, but there are also other reasons for voting far right. or right in general..
Also, racism has a definition. If you change it, you have to let those you talk to know about it. Give me an example of racist policy these 10% are voting for. And then, even if you can show this, find some other political opinion in this group you claim to be racist and see if that can explain the same thing insted of racism
Yes, just like all those Germans who voted for the Nazis because of their economic policy. Their reasons didn't matter for the end result.
I'm not sure I understand
I have to excuse myself, there's too many to properly respond to now.
I mean wtf. Really. Nazism! Are we killing Jews again now?
That’s really dishonest and spinelessness. If you can’t stand up for yourself or concede, don’t join in a discussion. You’re just wasting peoples time.