• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Racial Tension in the U.S.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Where should the thread go from here?

  • Racial Tension in the U.S.

    Votes: 16 51.6%
  • Extremist Views on the U.S.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Mending Years of Racial Stereotypes.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Protest Culture.

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Racist Idiots in the News.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Total voters
    31
I went back and reread. I realized that my earlier quote clipped the thought and the context of your post.
That is on me and I'm sorry.

Still, I wonder if you could expand on the bolded.
It just doesn't make sense to me that you believe that racism against whites could only affect the small subset of whites who say racist things and only affect them in a narrow way..."they get called out for it".
For example...Say a white high school girl is shunned, undermined and ultimately cut by her basketball program because the other players and the coach are racist against white people. Wouldn't that negatively affect her life in a way that you claim can't happen?

I think @Cavatt is using the term "White people" in a general sense; whereas you're using it in a specific singular sense (i.e., a White person).

I don't think @Cavatt is saying you can't be racist against a White person; he's saying that racism against Whites is not equivalent in scope or severity, in a general sense, as it is towards other minorities like Blacks or Latinos for example.

I think that's an undeniable statement, right?
 
I went back and reread. I realized that my earlier quote clipped the thought and the context of your post.
That is on me and I'm sorry.

Still, I wonder if you could expand on the bolded.
It just doesn't make sense to me that you believe that racism against whites could only affect the small subset of whites who say racist things and only affect them in a narrow way..."they get called out for it".
For example...Say a white high school girl is shunned, undermined and ultimately cut by her basketball program because the other players and the coach are racist against white people. Wouldn't that negatively affect her life in a way that you claim can't happen?

Yeah i would agree that something like that could happen. Gouri basically answered for me above.
 
I think @Cavatt is using the term "White people" in a general sense; whereas you're using it in a specific singular sense (i.e., a White person).

I don't think @Cavatt is saying you can't be racist against a White person; he's saying that racism against Whites is not equivalent in scope or severity, in a general sense, as it is towards other minorities like Blacks or Latinos for example.

I think that's an undeniable statement, right?

That's not what he said.
If that's what he meant, he can say so himself. I specifically asked him if he meant what he said. He doesn't have to answer but you walking it back doesn't really get us anywhere.
 
The only people whose right to peaceably organize seems to be under concerted attack are Trump supporters. And I'm not even exaggerating. When was the last time someone prevented BLM from holding a peaceful rally?

You're missing the argument. Racists are repulsive. But if they are non-violent racists, as was the condition attached by @David. , then blacks aren't getting killed or shipped back to Africa. You end up with a few fringe wackos who shoot off their mouths, then crawl back under the rocks from which they came. Those people can be dealt with over time peaceably, and eventually their views die out.

In contrast, in what universe are violent people "inclusive"? There is shitloads of evidence out there that racism still exists, but there is also shitloads of evidence out there that some false accusations of racism are made as well. Some people see racism behind every freaking bush. So what happens when your violent "anti-racists" go after people who are not racists? Reginald Denny?

And the really bad part about it is that the violent anti-racists who start going after white people may well create a backlash that makes racism worse.

So I'm with @David. Violence, whether committed by racists or "anti-racists", is the biggest problem.

This is one of those problems that seems like a tough problem on the surface, but really it isn't.

On one hand, yes we should protect the right to free speech and assembly, but...much like yelling fire in a crowded theater, we shouldn't protect all speech, and this would include hate speech. It has no place in America. It's like banning the Nazi party in Germany. Confederates and Nazi sympathizers should be banned here.

If you get rid of the small number of fringe racists, you would get rid of the smaller number of violent anti-racists. Everyone is happy.
 
That's not what he said.
If that's what he meant, he can say so himself. I specifically asked him if he meant what he said. He doesn't have to answer but you walking it back doesn't really get us anywhere.

....

Saw this after I replied to Gouri.
Cool and thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome bro.. ;)
 
This is one of those problems that seems like a tough problem on the surface, but really it isn't.

On one hand, yes we should protect the right to free speech and assembly, but...much like yelling fire in a crowded theater, we shouldn't protect all speech, and this would include hate speech. It has no place in America. It's like banning the Nazi party in Germany. Confederates and Nazi sympathizers should be banned here.

If you get rid of the small number of fringe racists, you would get rid of the smaller number of violent anti-racists. Everyone is happy.

Just want to say I'm against this.

I have no problem with hate speech being legal; it should be legal. And I do believe in an absolute right to speech that does not incite immediate violence or riots (like screaming fire in a crowded theater).

I really don't think we should conflate the concept of freedom of speech with the defense of racists, though; and it seems racists try to make this argument that we should defend them because they have the right to do something vile. And I find that disingenuous, to say the least.
 
This is one of those problems that seems like a tough problem on the surface, but really it isn't.

On one hand, yes we should protect the right to free speech and assembly, but...much like yelling fire in a crowded theater, we shouldn't protect all speech, and this would include hate speech. It has no place in America. It's like banning the Nazi party in Germany. Confederates and Nazi sympathizers should be banned here.

If you get rid of the small number of fringe racists, you would get rid of the smaller number of violent anti-racists. Everyone is happy.

Its easy to define yelling fire in a crowned theater.
Not so easy to define hate speech.
Whoever gets to define it would get to control the parameters of political debate.
Even on here, the simple term 'illegal immigrant' has been censored.
But we can freely talk about f****** the first lady in the ***. :)
 
Its easy to define yelling fire in a crowned theater.
Not so easy to define hate speech.
Whoever gets to define it would get to control the parameters of political debate.
Even on here, the simple term 'illegal immigrant' has been censored.
But we can freely talk about f****** the first lady in the ***. :)

And I disagree with this because many countries outlaw hate speech and it does work; it's just not in accordance with our values as Americans.
 
And I disagree with this because many countries outlaw hate speech and it does work; it's just not in accordance with our values as Americans.

It reduced hate speech but it is yet to be determined if the overall effect over time is positive.
Prohibition lowered the drinking rate for a few years but the unintended consequences made it a consensus failure.
 
It reduced hate speech but it is yet to be determined if the overall effect over time is positive.

The laws aren't exactly new, we can make determinations up to this point. They do work in Europe. It really shouldn't be a question as to whether or not they do or don't do what is intended; but are the laws ethical. I would argue they are not.

Prohibition lowered the drinking rate for a few years but the unintended consequences made it a consensus failure.

Right, but we're not seeing unintended consequences in Europe with respect to hate speech laws; not that I've seen at least.
 
Just want to say I'm against this.

I have no problem with hate speech being legal; it should be legal. And I do believe in an absolute right to speech that does not incite immediate violence or riots (like screaming fire in a crowded theater).

I really don't think we should conflate the concept of freedom of speech with the defense of racists, though; and it seems racists try to make this argument that we should defend them because they have the right to do something vile. And I find that disingenuous, to say the least.

Totally agree that we shouldn't infringe on freedom of speech, even if it enables a lot of assholes.

The obvious solution is for people to stop being fucking racist, but apparently that's too much to ask for.
 
I think @Cavatt is using the term "White people" in a general sense; whereas you're using it in a specific singular sense (i.e., a White person).

I don't think @Cavatt is saying you can't be racist against a White person; he's saying that racism against Whites is not equivalent in scope or severity, in a general sense, as it is towards other minorities like Blacks or Latinos for example.

I think that's an undeniable statement, right?

Correct. If that's what he's saying. We're on a board where word mincing is a regular practice, though.
 
And I disagree with this because many countries outlaw hate speech and it does work; it's just not in accordance with our values as Americans.

Personally, I think legally suppressing hate speech has a longer negative effect than flushing it out. I mean, if it were illegal, we'd have a lot more tension than is already there. It allows stereotyping & subtle, but purposeful, discrimination to go-on unscathed, not discussed, and untouched. As much as this band-aid hurts to tear off at once for some and some high tension insues, I think the fact that this is an issue on a macro level now bodes well for working through it moving forward.
 
Just want to say I'm against this.

I have no problem with hate speech being legal; it should be legal. And I do believe in an absolute right to speech that does not incite immediate violence or riots (like screaming fire in a crowded theater).

I really don't think we should conflate the concept of freedom of speech with the defense of racists, though; and it seems racists try to make this argument that we should defend them because they have the right to do something vile. And I find that disingenuous, to say the least.

I am with you on this too. I think free speech is important even the horrible stuff.

I also agree with you on the fact that we have no need to defend these racists. The ACLU can take care of it like they always do. If people want to protest these guys cool.

If I have to come up with an example of someone whose free speech rights were violated and we should rush to their aid. These guys are very last on the list.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top