Protests following the killing of George Floyd

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
7,089
Racism is a bias, and apart from people admitting to it (which is unlikely) there will be no solid proof. It can still be detected though through patterns of action on an individual level and statistics on a larger level.

It's common enough that you can attribute to it anomalous patterns and statistics that cannot otherwise be explained.

I don't think the innocent until proven guilty bit applies because racism is not the crime, it's the motive. The crime is unfair treatment. Once it's established that X has been treated unfairly, and Y cannot come up with a plausible justification then it's safe to assume that the motive is racism.
I agree with you When have no black referees or any in the board of a football club then if it's not racism then what?
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,194
What's (not) plausible?
What if race is not in the picture, is it then safe to assume whatever you want?
There is no need to assume hypotheticals when you have racism, a real issue, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.

To answer the absurd hypothetical, you can assume whatever bias the numbers suggest. All the refs are tall? Heightism. All are Lords? Classism. All young? Ageism, etc. As long as the numbers show a bias you should assume the most logical and proceed to prove or exclude from there.

Edit: implausible would be to attribute significant anomalies to coincidence, or in the case of refs and coaches there not being enough interested candidates, for example.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
There is no need to assume hypotheticals when you have racism, a real issue, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.

To answer the absurd hypothetical, you can assume whatever bias the numbers suggest. All the refs are tall? Heightism. All are Lords? Classism. All young? Ageism, etc. As long as the numbers show a bias you should assume the most logical and proceed to prove or exclude from there.

Edit: implausible would be to attribute significant anomalies to coincidence, or in the case of refs and coaches there not being enough interested candidates, for example.
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?
 

Cheimoon

Up-and-comer
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,722
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
What's (not) plausible?
What if race is not in the picture, is it then safe to assume whatever you want?
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.
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,194
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?
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.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
That kind of thinking is why all kinds of discrimination don't disappear, or extremely slowly.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
7,089
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.
 

Cheimoon

Up-and-comer
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,722
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
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.
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.

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
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.)
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
9,823
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.)
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?
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
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.
Is this a strategy? Claim strawman, then use strawman. It happens over and over in these discussions

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.)
You seem to be saying this is somehow unjust and needs rectifying. Different groups, populations, ethnicities, even genders, can't seek different outcomes.

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.)
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.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
9,849
Location
Addis Ababa
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.
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.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
When someone tells you that racism is near non existent in the west you stop engaging with them on that topic.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
25,866
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
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.
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.
When someone tells you that racism is near non existent in the west you stop engaging with them on that topic.
Agreed - though tbf the poster did state "compared to 200/2000 years ago" - if that makes it better.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
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.
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.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
When someone tells you that racism is near non existent in the west you stop engaging with them on that topic.
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.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
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.
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.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
9,849
Location
Addis Ababa
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.
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.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
5,691
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?
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
25,866
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
I didn't though, did I
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.
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.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
9,849
Location
Addis Ababa
But if you’re ok with it, that makes you racist doesn’t it?
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.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
9,849
Location
Addis Ababa
Racism, at least in the west, is near non-existent compared to 60 years ago, let alone 200 or 2000 years.
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.".
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
But if you’re ok with it, that makes you racist doesn’t it?
What would you think about someone saying:"I'm okay with racism(racist rhetoric) but I'm not racist."?
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
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.
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.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
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?
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,724
Location
France
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.
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?
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
5,691
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
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,854
Location
sign up, they said. it's a fun draft, they said.
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.
This probably passes for liberalism in 2020. Bravely fighting the religion of anti-racism with facts and logic.

This part is the best:
Is no fact right wing politics, even far-right, is mostly dominated by racists.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,169
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?
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
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
20,470
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
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..
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.