201–210 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Say you're a nice, white mother in the 1950s, and the subject of desegregation comes up. You have no problem with black people, but you don't think the disruption would be good for your daughter's educational experience, so you favor maintaining segregation. You can say, 'I'm not racist. I'm just thinking of my daughter,' but guess what? The Poc negatively impacted by your stance don't give two shits, and they should…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absence of other people outside your community was not an accident. Members of the government, of financial institutions and urban planning departments made deliberate choices to exclude certain types of people: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas... https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history...
Once again, you just don't have the context to be making that argument. One article is about the south and the other one is about racist policies in the 30's. In the 30's there were essentially no people to be racist against in my community. You're talking about urban planning departments, the concept is ludicrous in my home town which you could walk across in an hour surrounded by towns which you could walk across b…
It wasn't accidental in many smaller towns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town
I do expect that the Great Depression also contributed with small minority communities moving to cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The SPLC is not a credible organization for mapping 'hate groups'
While I think their definition of "hate group" is sometimes too expansive (e.g. religious groups that are mostly about something else but disagree with gay marriage), SPLC is still credible.
An interactive 'hate map' seems to encourage this form of stereotyping. It's all about the branding. It works because there's always a kernel of truth in stereotypes (I'm sure there are true hate groups in Indiana), but that raises larger questions about stereotyping regions or races or religions or anything for that matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern left-wing view of racism is as a systematic, structural power relationship between races. Individual decisions branching on skin color is neither necessary nor sufficient to get there, although it can and historically has contributed. For example, divesting from your neighborhood out of concern for your property value when PoC start to move in does not necessarily reflect an individual racial bias. It coul…
The problem with that view is that, in such a definition of racism, it quite simply is not an -ism.
Flatness is mentioned five times. Not where I grew up and there are certainly days in the warm months when I struggle to ride my bicycle up hills that I wish all of the midwest was flat.
I'm from Kansas, I get so sick of hearing how flat it is here. Florida and Illinois are both much flatter, and oddly enough I hear how flat Kansas is from residents of both. Nobody carries on about Texas being flat and boring, yet it's only marginally less flat than Kansas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
confederate flags are another example.
So stupid considering they were Union. I just don't understand it.
The author here implicitly assumes the truth of the descriptions of the Midwest and Midwesterners that he discusses. Further, also assumes that nothing changes, nothing happens in the Midwest. (I particularly liked the intro; now try describing the Midwest to someone who doesn't actually love there .) Everyone is from the Midwest or describing the Midwest, no one seems to be living there. Here's a hint: there is no M…
Lumping the west plains and midwest together into one region seems weird. In my mind, midwest is purely the great lakes states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you promulgate the belief that cultures should not mix, you cannot disavow blame for violence committed against those of another culture just because you personally didn't raise a hand against them. This is a slippery slope fallacy, saying any sort of action in one direction will lead to or promote violence. A lot can be accomplished without violence. > You are conflating laws with culture to make a strawman. No…
> Where did I mention a violent-religious-fundamentalism-nudist culture? By mentioning "stoning", "shunning", and "nudism" as "examples" of different cultures. That's absurd, as absurd as my joke combining the three. Let me reword your hypotheticals. If someone walked down the street in a hijab, would you think they're "crazy"? If someone celebrated different holidays than you, prayed to different gods, or spoke a mi…
You're twisting my words in an attempt to delegitimize my statements. Those are real facets of different cultures, and acting like each doesn't happen somewhere in the world is disingenuous.
> if someone walked down the street in a hijab, would you think they're "crazy"? If someone celebrated different holidays than you, prayed to different gods, or spoke a minority dialect of English, would you look at that person with disdain?
There is a spectrum of responses. I personally wouldn't look at them with disdain, but I would also have no desire to interact with them. I don't understand why they would go to an area of the world with a fundamentally different worldview from themselves.
> You are living in a hole if you think that belief in anti-miscegenation (which, let's be honest, is really what "not liking multiculturalism" is) and violence have no history of correlation in this country.
First, you're conflating race and culture, which are very different things. Race is determined by genetics and ancestry and can't be changed, while culture is a way of life, and determines their view of right and wrong and how to interact socially.
Second, just because there is a history of extremism doesn't mean any opinion in that direction is ridiculous. Nazis killed millions and nearly took over the world. Does that mean Republicans, who are also right-wing, should be banned? There have been black extremists who have done terrorist acts in the name of equality. Does that mean racial inequality should just stop being considered? No!
I'm not saying that nonconformists should be rounded up and murdered, but I also don't think that having social standards or social pressures to conform are bad either. Like everything, it needs to be done in moderation.
I grew up in the Midwest and moved to Silicon Valley. I think that people here don't understand what this author describes as "Midwestern history is a study in racial quarantine." I would go as far as to say that racial is the wrong word to describe what happens in the Midwest. I think that communities in the Midwest have tighter cultural restrictions on what it means to be "one of us." This can be affected by where…
The modern left-wing view of racism is as a systematic, structural power relationship between races. Individual decisions branching on skin color is neither necessary nor sufficient to get there, although it can and historically has contributed. For example, divesting from your neighborhood out of concern for your property value when PoC start to move in does not necessarily reflect an individual racial bias. It coul…
Besides this, the left-wing view is easily confused with the popular notion of racism, which is widely considered to be immoral, and I think often the proponents of this viewpoint abuse the confusion, deliberately accusing skeptics and dissenters of "racism" without being clear that they mean the probably-benign "systemic racism" instead of the clearly immoral "racism". Further, many of these proponents also tend to consider "questioning systemic racism theory" to be an act of (systemic) "racism" because it inhibits the consensus required to combat (systemic) "racism".
TL;DR I think the marketing was deliberately obfuscatory, and this has had a huge detrimental impact on our national racial.
I grew up in the Midwest and moved to Silicon Valley. I think that people here don't understand what this author describes as "Midwestern history is a study in racial quarantine." I would go as far as to say that racial is the wrong word to describe what happens in the Midwest. I think that communities in the Midwest have tighter cultural restrictions on what it means to be "one of us." This can be affected by where…
What I've seen in SF is a lot of tribes with very tight restrictions on being "one of us." What's more, is that this tribalism seems to be mostly pattern matching as opposed to being based on principles. Back in the day, musicians would at least pay lip service to judging fellow musicians on their music, as opposed to how they dressed. It's only after I came to SF, that I encountered musicians talking about how doing so was some kind of good idea.
Even the tech community has pockets of people who think like this. So now my key question, when it comes to evaluating people at the most fundamental level, is to ask, "Do they put principles before tribe or tribe before principles?" The former group tends to be a slim minority in SF, where the rarity is proportional to the trendiness. I guess that's just how it's always been, everywhere money and power are concentrated.