The "lazy black player" stereotype

[chromepaxos]

I think the fact that not actively combating racism can be viewed as racist is a bit hard to accept. Because, by not being racist yourself, you would seem like part of the solution, for if everyone acted like you, racism wouldn't exist. ... I very much understand the resistance people who are not inherently racist feel when being labeled racist for not actively fighting to stop racism in others.

I see where you're coming from but the problem is that "if everyone acted like you" the effects of racism will never be addressed (e.g. the fact that housing policy has historically concentrated black people in inner city areas and defunded the nearby schools). Which then means that many of those black folk have different accents and are less well educated, which maintains the kind of stereotypes such as "lazy blacks" that began this thread.

If you look at my post above, and @villain's, and even that extract from MLK's letter, nobody said that people who aren't racist are racist. The comment is that if you do nothing, or worse if you tut-tut the people who are trying to do something, then you are complicit with the system. That's a different thing.

 

[KirkDuyt]

You might want to read that sentence again. "Not inherently" doesn't mean that they are not racist, it means that it doesn't define them. Now if you meant "not racist" then these people are definitely an issue and I would question their not racist label because if you witness racist acts and does nothing then you are knowingly enabling racism which is a weird thing to do.

I don't mean people actively ignoring racist things happening around them. I mean not proactively taking action against it.

I've never held a picket sign saying stop racism, yet I don't classify myself as racist. Also quite important to my point that I was saying I understand that people find this a difficult concept to grasp, not neccesarily that I disagree.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't mean people actively ignoring racist things happening around them. I mean not proactively taking action against it.

I've never held a picket sign saying stop racism, yet I don't classify myself as racist. Also quite important to my point that I was saying I understand that people find this a difficult concept to grasp, not neccesarily that I disagree.

But isn't that a straw man argument? The only point made is that when you spot injustice or discrimination you should say something, you can't be passive otherwise don't be surprised if you are lumped with the overtly racists because lack of action can reasonably be interpreted as a validation of racism.

 

[RobinLFC]

But isn't that a straw man argument? The only point made is that when you spot injustice or discrimination you should say something, you can't be passive otherwise don't be surprised if you are lumped with the overtly racists because lack of action can reasonably be interpreted as a validation of racism.

What if speaking out would mean you put yourself in danger?

 

[KirkDuyt]

But isn't that a straw man argument? The only point made is that when you spot injustice or discrimination you should say something, you can't be passive otherwise don't be surprised if you are lumped with the overtly racists because lack of action can reasonably be interpreted as a validation of racism.

With that I agree, I thought someone made a point that if you dont pro actively look for wrongs to rightyour complicit.

 

[chromepaxos]

I thought someone made a point that if you don't pro-actively look for wrongs to right your complicit

Yes - if you do nothing then you are complicit in the continuation of the situation in which black people are suffering from the results of 400 years of racist policy. That's what complicit means: you're just going along to get along.

To quote Edmund Burke:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

[The Purley King]

Yes - if you do nothing then you are complicit in the continuation of the situation in which black people are suffering from the results of 400 years of racist policy. That's what complicit means: you're just going along to get along.

To quote Edmund Burke:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

That is not what complicit means at all. Complicity implies involvement or participation.
Pick any abhorrent issue in the world currently and you'll be complicit in most of them by your definition, which is clearly wrong.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Yes - if you do nothing then you are complicit in the continuation of the situation in which black people are suffering from the results of 400 years of racist policy. That's what complicit means: you're just going along to get along.

To quote Edmund Burke:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

I vote for an anti racist party and paytaxes to help pay for social security. In my job, as a recruiter, I make no distinction whatsoever between race. I actively do not go along with racism. That's not doing nothing.

Or, if you do classify that as nothing, what do you propose one should do in order not to be complicit?

Also, what @The Purley King said.

 

[Halftrack]

This would be a great definition of what an SJW viewpoint of racism is

No, it's (or should be) a normal person's view of what racism is. You think we should ignore casual or institutional racism in favour of the more overt kind, and I can only take that as tacit approval on your part of the less obvious kinds of racism and dicrimination in our society.

Decrying things you don't agree with as "SJW" says a hell of a lot about you, and none of it good.

 

[Sayros]

I vote for an anti racist party and paytaxes to help pay for social security. In my job, as a recruiter, I make no distinction whatsoever between race. I actively do not go along with racism. That's not doing nothing.

Or, if you do classify that as nothing, what do you propose one should do in order not to be complicit?

You're doing more than enough, it's nonsense to suggest anything else. The best thing you can do as an individual is to not promote racism, if you have kids to raise them with the concept that all people are of equal worth, and to associate yourself with like-minded folks. If you can make more of a difference, by all means, but to act as if you're complicit with racism for not doing more is ridiculous. At the end of the day, people don't change their views because you strongly suggest them to, or by demonizing them (which is why rehab has a less than 5% success rate), all it does is make them feel isolated and so they tend to seek more people with the same racists views as them to feel some kind of comfort and bond, and that's when you get more powerful racists groups. What I'm about to say is possibly the cheesiest thing I've ever written on here, but only love will pull someone out of racism, such as an act of kindness from a stranger that is of the race one is prejudicing against.

People are stubborn, and racists are no different. They're not going to change because you're shunning them or rallying against them. And then they'll have kids, and raise them to be the exact same as they are, and the cycle will continue on and on.

 

[MikeKing]

For anyone who is 'passive' when it comes to racism

Politically passive. On all matters. Not passive "when it comes" to racism. Talking to people on the internet might be one persons way to stop racism, but a lot of people don't know what to do beyond just treating everyone the same. Raging on the internet isn't the answer for everyone. Not everyone is able to win arguments and convince people around them, or able to teach even if they possess certain knowledge. So what can regular people do about structural racism? It may not be aimed at you, as I'm sure you do a lot for the cause in general, but I'm sure a lot of people on the internet talking the shit just do so to get gratification for their views. I doubt that all of them actually does something beyond spending time arguing on the internet.

To me, 'I don't see colour' would be short for; I don't see colour as something that define you. As a default. We are all people at the end of the day. I certainly won't respect a black guy more if he is successful than if the guy is not, based on "class". This stems from a human value, not a political stance on racism as a subject.

I will concede that the term "I don't see colour" may have been used nonsensical before by others, but I didn't know that.

 

[MikeKing]

I think the fact that not actively combating racism can be viewed as racist is a bit hard to accept. Because, by not being racist yourself, you would seem like part of the solution, for if everyone acted like you, racism wouldn't exist. But while not being racist yourself, you still actively benefit from white privilege and are, therefore, allowing racism to continue.

It reminds me of this

Spoiler: everyday i make them die with my car

It is true what you are saying. If everyone wasn't too busy shitting on each other maybe something could be done.

 

[Janson]

Who compared him to a Gorilla?

Someone did on this forum, don't remember who.

 

[Bola]

No, it's (or should be) a normal person's view of what racism is. You think we should ignore casual or institutional racism in favour of the more overt kind, and I can only take that as tacit approval on your part of the less obvious kinds of racism and dicrimination in our society.

Decrying things you don't agree with as "SJW" says a hell of a lot about you, and none of it good.

No. It was just a list of societal problems that are impacting a kid of a certain background in a hypothetical situation. Without any further description of way it is racist, to call it racism or institutionally racist because of the lads skin color is frankly absurd and deserves derision as SJW thinking

Ask yourself a question on whether you would call it racist if the kid was instead from a so-called 'white' background? He comes from a deprived mining community (we can even throw in a back story that his ancestors from 300 years ago were taken as slaves by Barbary Corsairs) that has few prospects, poor education and awful parents who don't take proper responsibility for his upbringing. is all the sociatle problems he faces a consequence of racism?

I'd implore people not to jump into the trap of making assumptions and acting on those unqualified assumptions, based on something as crude and meaningless like skin color. It should not define behaviour, the same way the size of your feet, eye shade or length of you ears does not

Where there is clear racism and discrimination, I'd jump on it like a rash. Where we get a warped SJW view of trying to claim imaginary racism because an individual isn't succeeding, it deserves derision and criticism. In many instances I've seen these 'SJW' types promote racist stereotyping and even prompte discrimitory policies as a consequence (e.g. offering certain jobs and training schemes to those with a certain skin colour).

It's a toxic way of thinking, while it is far from progressive

 

[JPRouve]

What if speaking out would mean you put yourself in danger?

That's a peculiar situation and everyone will do what they think is best for themselves. Though from the outside it can be interpreted negatively.

 

[Ramshock]

Someone did on this forum, don't remember who.

i hope they were fecking banned the cnuts

 

[Cassidy]

I vote for an anti racist party and paytaxes to help pay for social security. In my job, as a recruiter, I make no distinction whatsoever between race. I actively do not go along with racism. That's not doing nothing.

Or, if you do classify that as nothing, what do you propose one should do in order not to be complicit?

Also, what @The Purley King said.

That is not doing nothing....
If you did nothing you would be part of the problem. Even having this conversation on this forum is not doing nothing.
Going about your everyday life as if racism doesn't exist is doing nothing and would be part of the problem since that create the environment where it can continue.

 

[Janson]

That's a peculiar situation and everyone will do what they think is best for themselves. Though from the outside it can be interpreted negatively.

People usually don't say anything because it's uncomfortable for them.

 

[Janson]

That is not doing nothing....
If you did nothing you would be part of the problem. Even having this conversation on this forum is not doing nothing.
Going about your everyday life as if racism doesn't exist is doing nothing and would be part of the problem since that create the environment where it can continue.

Unfortunately, people don't like to get out of their comfort zone.

 

[Sayros]

That is not doing nothing....
If you did nothing you would be part of the problem. Even having this conversation on this forum is not doing nothing.
Going about your everyday life as if racism doesn't exist is doing nothing and would be part of the problem since that create the environment where it can continue.

That's fair, if someone goes about their lives as if racism didn't exist, not even acknowledging the bias and systematic traps some ethnicities go through, I would agree they are a part of the problem.

 

[Cassidy]

That's fair, if someone goes about their lives as if racism didn't exist, not even acknowledging the bias and systematic traps some ethnicities go through, I would agree they are a part of the problem.

You'd be surprised how many do.

 

[JPRouve]

People usually don't say anything because it's uncomfortable for them.

You are right but it has nothing to do with the question that he asked me, he specifically talked about being in danger(I imagine physical danger).

 

[Janson]

You are right but it has nothing to do with the question that he asked me, he specifically talked about being in danger(I imagine physical danger).

Yeah I know. I should have replied to him. I meant that most of the time people don't speak up because they rather not get out of their comfort zone, not because they would be in danger. But that happens too of course.

 

[chromepaxos]

That is not what complicit means at all. Complicity implies involvement or participation. Pick any abhorrent issue in the world currently and you'll be complicit in most of them by your definition, which is clearly wrong.

Try a thought-experiment: a City fan is walking along the street and a couple of Utd fans come up and steal his wallet. He fights back and when the cops arrive they arrest him for assault. You recognize the Utd fans as the owners of the coffee shop you go to.

If that happens one time and you do nothing, you're a good person and I wouldn't describe you as being complicit. If it happens every day for a year, and you do nothing, and you keep going to the coffee shop because it's convenient, then you're complicit. You're involved because you did nothing and yet benefited.

That's why "complicit" in this context is correct and is what "white privilege" refers to. The British Empire was built on the cotton trade, i.e. slavery, as was American prosperity. If you live in Britain or America, you're involved.

 

[chromepaxos]

No. It was just a list of societal problems that are impacting a kid of a certain background in a hypothetical situation. Without any further description of way it is racist, to call it racism or institutionally racist because of the lads skin color is frankly absurd and deserves derision as SJW thinking
Ask yourself a question on whether you would call it racist if the kid was instead from a so-called 'white' background? He comes from a deprived mining community (we can even throw in a back story that his ancestors from 300 years ago were taken as slaves by Barbary Corsairs) that has few prospects, poor education and awful parents who don't take proper responsibility for his upbringing. is all the sociatle problems he faces a consequence of racism?

I note you avoided offering your definition of "racism"?

The reason we can assume racism is involved in the West Indian kid's situation is that we know what the last 400 years of history are. Pretending that history doesn't exist is just that: a pretence.

For your argument to make sense, you would need to believe that slavery had no effect on the relative poverty of black people? That housing policy has never taken white folk's antipathy to living near black people into account? That policing that locks up a much higher percentage of black men than white for equivalent drug offences doesn't affect their prosperity?

Do you really believe those things? Really?

I mean honestly, just put your big-boy pants on and accept that if you're a British white guy like me - and of course I don't know if you are - that we have historically screwed people over and they're still suffering as a result. Why is accepting that so hard?

 

[Bola]

I note you avoided offering your definition of "racism"?

The reason we can assume racism is involved in the West Indian kid's situation is that we know what the last 400 years of history are. Pretending that history doesn't exist is just that: a pretence.

For your argument to make sense, you would need to believe that slavery had no effect on the relative poverty of black people? That housing policy has never taken white folk's antipathy to living near black people into account? That policing that locks up a much higher percentage of black men than white for equivalent drug offences doesn't affect their prosperity?

Do you really believe those things? Really?

I mean honestly, just put your big-boy pants on and accept that if you're a British white guy like me - and of course I don't know if you are - that we have historically screwed people over and they're still suffering as a result. Why is accepting that so hard?

You seriously need to read some history* books and stop trying to find inherent sin in yourself. You are your own man, history does not dictate whether you are better or worse than anybody else.

*a good start (in the context on.how you seem to beating yourself because of your skin color) would be the history of slavery in Africa, including how the slave trade was conducted before the European powers became involved.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah I know. I should have replied to him. I meant that most of the time people don't speak up because they rather not get out of their comfort zone, not because they would be in danger. But that happens too of course.

Reading my post again, it was a bit blunt. Sorry about that.

 

[villain]

Politically passive. On all matters. Not passive "when it comes" to racism. Talking to people on the internet might be one persons way to stop racism, but a lot of people don't know what to do beyond just treating everyone the same. Raging on the internet isn't the answer for everyone. Not everyone is able to win arguments and convince people around them, or able to teach even if they possess certain knowledge. So what can regular people do about structural racism? It may not be aimed at you, as I'm sure you do a lot for the cause in general, but I'm sure a lot of people on the internet talking the shit just do so to get gratification for their views. I doubt that all of them actually does something beyond spending time arguing on the internet.

To me, 'I don't see colour' would be short for; I don't see colour as something that define you. As a default. We are all people at the end of the day. I certainly won't respect a black guy more if he is successful than if the guy is not, based on "class". This stems from a human value, not a political stance on racism as a subject.

I will concede that the term "I don't see colour" may have been used nonsensical before by others, but I didn't know that.

Ways in which regular people can help structural racism?
- Listen, listen, listen, and listen some more - don't jump in and immediately say something isn't racist just because you don't understand why it's being called racist, listen and try to understand a different perspective.
- Educate yourself - "why i'm no longer talking to white people about race" is a great book, James Baldwin's books are amazing, there's also great videos on Youtube & scholarly texts available for free on google.
- Ask PoC questions about topics you don't know or understand (but don't depend on them to be your source of information - it gets draining)
- Be uncomfortable, way more frequently. Don't stay quiet when the people you know, who hold questionable views, express those views around you - you need to have uncomfortable conversations and put yourself in uncomfortable situations. For example, I don't enjoy coming on this forum - which i'd guess is at least 90% white males - and talking about racism or sexism, but I do because if those views will go unchallenged it creates an environment where the people affected by whatever issue is being discussed, don't feel comfortable expressing themselves openly and honestly. So you may feel uncomfortable talking about race, but imagine how uncomfortable it feels living with racism? With that in mind, if you actively avoid having uncomfortable conversations, then how can you say you are anything other than the white moderate that MLK addressed in his letter?
- Be honest with yourself about your own implicit biases, admit them.
- Stop saying you're not racist - your actions speak 10x louder, and you won't get a reward for not being racist.
- Don't conflate other oppressions with racism e.g. "i'm white but I grew up poor, what benefits do I have?" (this goes back to listening)
- Start acknowledging race - for some, they live their whole live being told/shown that their race isn't important (for different reasons than the "I don't see colour" argument, argues) as a result, they take pride in their heritage because if they don't, they'll have nothing of which to pride themselves on. So stop saying you don't see colour - there is nothing wrong with seeing colour. For white people, you have the benefit of not having to think about your race in any given situation, therefore it makes sense for you to not see colour - it doesn't negatively affect you so you don't have to think about race. For PoC we don't get that benefit, as a result race is important to us either subconsciously because 1 - almost every situation we enter, we have to be cognisant of how our race will be perceived (for example; job interviews) or 2 - we've had to love ourselves in order to overcome discrimination. Race exists, you don't have to make a big deal about it - but don't pretend as though you don't see it, it's very dismissive and not a good phrase to use at all.
There's more things that could be done, which is where the educating yourself part comes in.

I'm speaking generally of course, not aimed at you specifically, except the not seeing race part - I really do hope you stop saying that.

 

[chromepaxos]

You seriously need to read some history* books and stop trying to find inherent sin in yourself. You are your own man, history does not dictate whether you are better or worse than anybody else. *a good start (in the context on.how you seem to beating yourself because of your skin color) would be the history of slavery in Africa, including how the slave trade was conducted before the European powers became involved.

Again I note that you refuse to offer your own definition of racism. And also now you won't say if the examples I offered have had an effect on current black prosperity or not? it's almost like you can't articulate what you actually believe.

As to the rest of the nonsense about me beating myself up, or your seeming obsession with the excuse that "other people did slavery too!", I have no idea what the relevance to the discussion is.

I mean, you do realize that we are on a forum devoted to a football team that only came into existence because of Manchester's involvement in the cotton trade, and therefore slavery? And the Manchester Ship Canal and therefore Old Trafford only exists for the same reason? Slavery and racism are not exactly irrelevant to Man Utd's history - the least we can do is be brave enough to accept it.

Well, apparently only some of us.

 

[Bola]

Again I note that you refuse to offer your own definition of racism. And also now you won't say if the examples I offered have had an effect on current black prosperity or not? it's almost like you can't articulate what you actually believe.

As to the rest of the nonsense about me beating myself up, or your seeming obsession with the excuse that "other people did slavery too!", I have no idea what the relevance to the discussion is.

I mean, you do realize that we on a forum devoted to a football team that only came into existence because of Manchester's involvement in the cotton trade, and therefore slavery? And the Manchester Ship Canal only exists for the same reason? Slavery and racism is not exactly irrelevant to Man Utd's history - the least we do is be brave enough to accept it. Well, apparently only some of us.

And you tell me to read history.

You are too far gone to even start discussing.

 

[Garethw]

If a player is lazy then they are just lazy. It has fook all to do with the colour of their skin.

Where the hell has this all come from? For every lazy black player I can tell you ten other black players that work their socks off. The same for whites and every other colour.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Again I note that you refuse to offer your own definition of racism. And also now you won't say if the examples I offered have had an effect on current black prosperity or not? it's almost like you can't articulate what you actually believe.

As to the rest of the nonsense about me beating myself up, or your seeming obsession with the excuse that "other people did slavery too!", I have no idea what the relevance to the discussion is.

I mean, you do realize that we are on a forum devoted to a football team that only came into existence because of Manchester's involvement in the cotton trade, and therefore slavery? And the Manchester Ship Canal and therefore Old Trafford only exists for the same reason? Slavery and racism are not exactly irrelevant to Man Utd's history - the least we can do is be brave enough to accept it.

Well, apparently only some of us.

The cotton mill workers of Manchester voted to refuse to process any slave picked cotton in 1860. Even though they lived in abject poverty and some faced starvation from the action they then again voted to continue the embargo in 1862. Lincoln personally thanked the Manchester cotton workers for helping him advance his political agenda that led to the abolishment of slavery in America.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguar...b/04/lincoln-oscars-manchester-cotton-abraham

United wasn’t founded until 1878.

 

[Halftrack]

No. It was just a list of societal problems that are impacting a kid of a certain background in a hypothetical situation. Without any further description of way it is racist, to call it racism or institutionally racist because of the lads skin color is frankly absurd and deserves derision as SJW thinking

Ask yourself a question on whether you would call it racist if the kid was instead from a so-called 'white' background? He comes from a deprived mining community (we can even throw in a back story that his ancestors from 300 years ago were taken as slaves by Barbary Corsairs) that has few prospects, poor education and awful parents who don't take proper responsibility for his upbringing. is all the sociatle problems he faces a consequence of racism?

I'd implore people not to jump into the trap of making assumptions and acting on those unqualified assumptions, based on something as crude and meaningless like skin color. It should not define behaviour, the same way the size of your feet, eye shade or length of you ears does not

Where there is clear racism and discrimination, I'd jump on it like a rash. Where we get a warped SJW view of trying to claim imaginary racism because an individual isn't succeeding, it deserves derision and criticism. In many instances I've seen these 'SJW' types promote racist stereotyping and even prompte discrimitory policies as a consequence (e.g. offering certain jobs and training schemes to those with a certain skin colour).

It's a toxic way of thinking, while it is far from progressive

Yes, white people are also affected by a lot of these problems. That doesn't mean that there isn't a whole host of issues that affect people from minority backgrounds specifically because of that background, and there's nothing SJW about recognising that as racism.

That areas where the majority of people are PoC are often neglected and the schools underfunded, specifically because the people living there are minorities, is also an indisputable fact, and pointing this out as institutional racism is not SJW either.

Seems like your major issue is that PoC and "SJWs" are actually bringing attention to it. All you've offered to counter it is pointing out that white people can face some of these obstacles as well (no shit?!), or you just simply dismiss the other party by telling them they've got nothing to teach you, or labeling them an SJW and moving on.

 

[chromepaxos]

The cotton mill workers of Manchester voted to refuse to process any slave picked cotton in 1860. Even though they lived in abject poverty and some faced starvation from the action they then again voted to continue the embargo in 1862. Lincoln personally thanked the Manchester cotton workers for helping him advance his political agenda that led to the abolishment of slavery in America.
United wasn’t founded until 1878.

Right. So...? None of that negates what I said that Manchester and the Ship Canal largely exist as a result of money made off the cotton trade. The reason there were so many mill workers in Manchester that Abraham Lincoln personally thanked them, is that Manchester was a centre for cotton production for virtually the whole of the slave trade period. I mean, thank you for proving my point for me. Don't take my word for it though - there's plenty of information around.

And yes, Manchester United were founded in 1878 as Newton Heath LYR Football Club. LYR stand for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, which became one of the biggest railways in the country by amalgamating dozens of rail lines that had made most of their money off of shipping cotton and textiles around.

Like I said, Man Utd's history is entwined with that of slavery. It doesn't make us all bad people, but it's chicken-sh!t to try and deny it. It's history, innit?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Right. So...? None of that negates what I said that Manchester and the Ship Canal largely exist as a result of money made off the cotton trade. The reason there were so many mill workers in Manchester that Abraham Lincoln personally thanked them, is that Manchester was a centre for cotton production for virtually the whole of the slave trade period. I mean, thank you for proving my point for me. Don't take my word for it though - there's plenty of information around.

And yes, Manchester United were founded in 1878 as Newton Heath LYR Football Club. LYR stand for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, which became one of the biggest railways in the country by amalgamating dozens of rail lines that had made most of their money off of shipping cotton and textiles around.

Like I said, Man Utd's history is entwined with that of slavery. It doesn't make us all bad people, but it's chicken-sh!t to try and deny it. It's history, innit?

I agree that the legacy of slavery still affects black people in society today and yes slavery in America did provide a lot of cotton that helped to grow the City.

 

[Bola]

Yes, white people are also affected by a lot of these problems. That doesn't mean that there isn't a whole host of issues that affect people from minority backgrounds specifically because of that background, and there's nothing SJW about recognising that as racism.

That areas where the majority of people are PoC are often neglected and the schools underfunded, specifically because the people living there are minorities, is also an indisputable fact, and pointing this out as institutional racism is not SJW either.

Seems like your major issue is that PoC and "SJWs" are actually bringing attention to it. All you've offered to counter it is pointing out that white people can face some of these obstacles as well (no shit?!), or you just simply dismiss the other party by telling them they've got nothing to teach you, or labeling them an SJW and moving on.

It is defintely bad SJW behaviour if you point at a problem and scream racism, which was what that hypotheical scenario was doing.
Now if it had been qualified by specific examples of discrimination against race, then that is a different situation. Where there is instances of racism, I'd enourage that to be highlighted and addressed. I do however discourage fantasy created by warped and unhealthy viewpoints based on racial based stereotyping

Re your point on dismissing viewpoints from people or media, I do that when a 'source' demonstrates it's lack of credibility. For example I'd take economic views from a socialist/ communist newspaper or certain 'free market' sponsored think tanks with a pinch of salt, as I do Paul Merson's views on the Jose sacking, or most political/ law and order related articles in the Daily Mail.

 

[Halftrack]

It is defintely bad SJW behaviour if you point at a problem and scream racism, which was what that hypotheical scenario was doing.
Now if it had been qualified by specific examples of discrimination against race, then that is a different situation. Where there is instances of racism, I'd enourage that to be highlighted and addressed. I do however discourage fantasy created by warped and unhealthy viewpoints based on racial based stereotyping

He described a hypothetical but highly realistic example of what kind of challenges a West Indian kid in America (I presume) might face, many of them a direct result of structural racism. Using hypotheticals to help illustrate a point is very common, and he did nothing out of the ordinary. He wasn't "screaming" racism, he was illustrating how structural racism might affect the life of this hypothetical kid. Everything he used are problems that black people in America are known to face as a result of this structural racism. Some of these things are direct results of it (underfunded schools, drug policy, policing), while others are indirect (poor diet, lead in the environment (though I suppose that could also be direct, given that the lack of effort to do anything about the polluted water in Flint, Michigan most certainly stems from the fact that the people affected are mostly poor and black)). I don't think his point was that people who do not vote to address the issues are racist, but that by not voting to address these issues, they're allowing the racist structures to stay in place and continue to affect others.

Re your point on dismissing viewpoints from people or media, I do that when a 'source' demonstrates it's lack of credibility. For example I'd take economic views from a socialist/ communist newspaper or certain 'free market' sponsored think tanks with a pinch of salt, as I do Paul Merson's views on the Jose sacking, or most political/ law and order related articles in the Daily Mail.

I struggle to see how they (@villain and @chromepaxos that is) lack credibility. They're presenting their opinions, opinions that a lot of people actually agree with, even smart people with degrees in sociology and anthropology and such. You disagreeing with their viewpoints does not make them less credible.

Speaking of lacking credibility: You seem very fond of accusing us "SJWs" of trying to force people into categories and use those to divide people. That's got to be the simplest, most dishonest way of presenting the general leftist view on the subject I have ever seen. Acknowledging and celebrating differences (because diversity is a good thing that makes society richer), and encouraging people to be proud of who or what they are and where they came from is not the same as trying to force anyone into anything.

 

[Bola]

He described a hypothetical but highly realistic example of what kind of challenges a West Indian kid in America (I presume) might face, many of them a direct result of structural racism. Using hypotheticals to help illustrate a point is very common, and he did nothing out of the ordinary. He wasn't "screaming" racism, he was illustrating how structural racism might affect the life of this hypothetical kid. Everything he used are problems that black people in America are known to face as a result of this structural racism. Some of these things are direct results of it (underfunded schools, drug policy, policing), while others are indirect (poor diet, lead in the environment (though I suppose that could also be direct, given that the lack of effort to do anything about the polluted water in Flint, Michigan most certainly stems from the fact that the people affected are mostly poor and black)). I don't think his point was that people who do not vote to address the issues are racist, but that by not voting to address these issues, they're allowing the racist structures to stay in place and continue to affect others.


I struggle to see how they (@villain and @chromepaxos that is) lack credibility. They're presenting their opinions, opinions that a lot of people actually agree with, even smart people with degrees in sociology and anthropology and such. You disagreeing with their viewpoints does not make them less credible.

Speaking of lacking credibility: You seem very fond of accusing us "SJWs" of trying to force people into categories and use those to divide people. That's got to be the simplest, most dishonest way of presenting the general leftist view on the subject I have ever seen. Acknowledging and celebrating differences (because diversity is a good thing that makes society richer), and encouraging people to be proud of who or what they are and where they came from is not the same as trying to force anyone into anything.

I celebrate the diversity of unique individuals and view humans in how they behave, not pre-judge based on broad based racial assumptions and burdening with an assigned history

 

[Halftrack]

I celebrate the diversity of unique individuals and view humans in how they behave, not pre-judge based on broad based racial assumptions and burdening with an assigned history

No one here prejudges anyone based on broad racial assumptions. What we are doing, is saying that a lot of people do, and that something must be done about it. Some on here, and everywhere else for that matter, are acting as if the structural racism, that is very much real and very much racism, either isn't a big deal, or isn't racism because white people can have it hard too. We're arguing against these notions as well (not against the idea that white people can have it hard, mind, just the idea that white people facing adversity means structural racism isn't a thing.)

So what about that is it that you take issue with?

 

[The Purley King]

Try a thought-experiment: a City fan is walking along the street and a couple of Utd fans come up and steal his wallet. He fights back and when the cops arrive they arrest him for assault. You recognize the Utd fans as the owners of the coffee shop you go to.

If that happens one time and you do nothing, you're a good person and I wouldn't describe you as being complicit. If it happens every day for a year, and you do nothing, and you keep going to the coffee shop because it's convenient, then you're complicit. You're involved because you did nothing and yet benefited.

That's why "complicit" in this context is correct and is what "white privilege" refers to. The British Empire was built on the cotton trade, i.e. slavery, as was American prosperity. If you live in Britain or America, you're involved.

If you are going to play the analogy game, you'll have to come up with a better one than that, but OK I'll play along.
"If that happens one time and you do nothing, you're a good person and I wouldn't describe you as being complicit" - this is completely morally wrong, you are literally advocating walking on by. If I witnessed the incident then I'd speak to the police to tell them what I saw. If I didn't then I would not describe myself as a good person at all. Anyway its a poor analogy and not relevant.

The point I'm trying to make is that whilst my belief is that racism is bad and should be eradicated wherever it is found, its not so important to me that I will proactively go out and spend my time and energy trying to alter things. I'm a white bloke btw, so obviously this doesn't have a big impact in my life (you may argue its had a positive effect due to white privilege) and I fully appreciate that the situation may well be different if I was black. If a situation arises where I feel obliged to do something (I see someone being abused in the street or I become aware of something at work etc) then I will step in, because its right there in my face and its the right thing to do.

I head the charity committee in my office and spend lots of my own time organising charitable activities and events for 250 colleagues. We do plenty of good things for various local charities and that is where I do my "proactively trying to make the world a better place" stuff. For me personally that is enough.

Am guessing obviously, but I'd say quite a large percentage of people fall into a similar category to me. As I said originally, there are way too many issues for everyone to be personally involved in all of them, you pick the ones that are most important to you. What are you doing to help eradicate homelessness for example? By your definition, you are complicit in perpetuating the situation because it is within your power to do something (let a homeless person share your house/flat) but you don't.