Rapper hangs a kid in his video

[Xoxo Adriana 15,040]

Wow thats....upsetting  

[lego 44,165]

38 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

This is a world where police forces won't question suspected Arabs grooming white girls (and tell those close to the victims that they won't do anything) because they don't want to be accused of racism (doesn't actually mention the race angle but I took it from a liberal publication in the hopes you'd perhaps accept the truth of it better): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/15/exposed-rochdale-gangs-grooming-three-girls-catalyst-progress

 

You don't even make difference between Arabs and Pakistanis. They're not the same race. Just shows your biases and prejudice. 

 

Sorry, just have to point that out, because you pulled that case before and sometimes you like to mention their religion, now you wanted to bring up their race and you call them Arabs!

 

Not gonna get involved more, I enjoyed Bebe's writing. 

 

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

A reverse racism experience 

[StrawberryBlond 14,014]

33 minutes ago, lego said:

 

You don't even make difference between Arabs and Pakistanis. They're not the same race. Just shows your biases and prejudice. 

 

Sorry, just have to point that out, because you pulled that case before and sometimes you like to mention their religion, now you wanted to bring up their race and you call them Arabs!

 

Not gonna get involved more, I enjoyed Bebe's writing. 

 

That was an honest mistake. I had a lot to write, got caught up in previous discussions of what the correct term to use is, so I slipped up. Yes, they were Pakistanis. Before, people were calling me out for calling them Muslims and saying they were a gang, so pardon me for panicking about what term to use under very limited time to type out a very long response. Of course I know they're not the same. *points to degree in Religious Studies* But then I supposed, you assume that I can't make a simple error of judgement, like everyone else, right? It in no way dismisses the story I referenced, however. It saddens me how every time I bring it up round here, someone finds some way to dismiss it. Shows how much progress there still is to be made.

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

That was an honest mistake. I had a lot to write, got caught up in previous discussions of what the correct term to use is, so I slipped up. Yes, they were Pakistanis. Before, people were calling me out for calling them Muslims and saying they were a gang, so pardon me for panicking about what term to use under very limited time to type out a very long response. Of course I know they're not the same. *points to degree in Religious Studies* But then I supposed, you assume that I can't make a simple error of judgement, like everyone else, right? It in no way dismisses the story I referenced, however. It saddens me how every time I bring it up round here, someone finds some way to dismiss it. Shows how much progress there still is to be made.

I don't want to get too OT. But we've both been told that we are being ignored by that user. I'm not sure it's worth responding to her in a thread 

[Bebe 16,805]

7 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

They end up picking one because they think they have to. I know I'd be totally stuck for choice if I were a child in the same situation because both look totally equal to me. I had a black Barbie as a child and I never questioned why she was a different colour to my usual white Barbies or a different colour to me, it didn't even strike me as weird. So, I wouldn't understand "which doll is the good doll and the bad doll?" Based on that, I'd choose the one who looked slightly more possessed, as dolls tend to do! Of course the children aren't going to respond in the astute way I just did - they're children. I've already said that children don't have the reasoning to work out ideas of "these dolls are more prevalent in society, hence, why I think they're the best kind." Children respond instinctively, they haven't developed bigger reasoning skills than this. This is why children can say strong phrases like "I hate you" without really understanding the full weight of the phrase or how it could hurt someone. I even once saw a toddler on You've Been Framed being asked: "do you love mommy?" and he said no and he was even smiling as he said it. Such a thing can sound very sinister to an adult's ears because we know the full implications of such phrases but a child doesn't, they're still learning how the world works. They can grow out of this. So saying, I wouldn't take it lightly if a child said that a skin colour was ugly and try to coach them out of it. No, I'm not saying that all these kids have only seen black children misbehave. But maybe there's only one black child in their class and they're the worst behaved, so they associate ultimate bad behaviour with them. And if they've really just seen black children misbehaving, well...how's that their fault? How is witnessing something making you guilty? What I'm inferring is that the reaction the makers of these experiments want in an ideal world is for the white children to choose the black doll in a positive way. There's a sense of applauding the child for making the "right" choice, which is preferring any race that isn't their own. But why should there be a "right" choice? Just let kids play with what they want to play with. Why is it that white children are encouraged to play with every colour of doll but black children are encouraged to only play with dolls that match their race? That's not equal. Why shouldn't all children be encouraged to play with all dolls and the race they pick doesn't matter? If black girls choosing a doll that looks like them equals self love and high self esteem, why is the white girl demonised for picking a white doll? We've got to make a choice - is it ok to prefer a reflection of your own race in your toys or not? Whatever the decision is must be ruled towards all races, in order to make it equal. We tell black people to prefer their own race and tell white people to prefer anyone who isn't their own race. And then we wonder why racial tensions are so high? Pick one belief and teach everyone the same.

My point in explaining what I thought the pictures meant to me was to prove that actually, white people can have multiple different ways of interpreting something. We don't all give cookie cutter "white person" answers. We have a brain, we look at things critically and fairly. We might even see something that no one else can. I don't always give the answer you want me to give. And after seeing so many of these experiments, I know what the intention behind it is before I've even had time to formulate a reaction, meaning that my reaction might well be null and void. And as for showing one group something but not others, my point is that we can never test the same person's reaction to both situations. I really like watching the various reactions to situations presented in What Would You Do? but the downside of suddenly choosing to switch the race of the actors to see if it might produce a different reaction in passersby isn't fair on the ones who have seen the white actors previously, nor is it fair on the ones who have only seen the black actors. Because we don't know if the white people would have had the same reaction if they'd seen white people. Maybe they would have had exactly the same reaction. Sure, the host asks some of them afterwards if race played a part in them getting involved and they always say that it didn't, they were mad at the situation, they didn't even take in the race of the people involved. Of course some may just be saying that...but maybe they do genuinely feel that way. And who are we to judge them? No, I don't have this set idea in my head of what a racist looks like. Racists come in all shapes and sizes because anyone can have hate in them. But you're completely losing me now when you say that all white people are racist and actively work to maintain the status quo. I don't know how someone can say such horrid things about their own people. I judge on a case by case basis, individualism. You are defining people on their skin colour. This is supposed to be what you're against. Why are white people encouraged to be critical of themselves but no other race is? Yes, these studies are designed to show hidden biases and yes, some people don't think they have any but then it turns out they do, they just don't think they're a big deal. But for some of us, we are acutely aware of any fluctuations in our acceptance levels of others because being unfair doesn't come naturally to us. This is coming from the same person who essentially protected the people who bullied me by not having the guts to do the "mean" thing by reporting them.

Well, I'm not aware of every experiment that goes on - I've never seen such ones done in my own country, they're all American from my research, so I can't offer much. I can't say much more on that front until I've researched a bit deeper. But understand that when I say I'm from Britain, I'm specifically from Scotland, where black people have an even more minute population. The white Scottish population stands at 96% white. Blacks make up just 0.7%.

Yes, whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate, but black people are being convicted at higher rates. Yes, this is partly because there's higher rates of stop and search among blacks. But also, maybe they're just unluckier at being caught dealing/taking in public? There's such a big culture of weed smoking in the black community that some of them smoke it out in full view in public or smoke in the car, then are surprised when the cops pull them over. I mean, I've known white people that smoke it but they keep it well hidden away from public view, only smoking it in the privacy of their own house and are very covert about how they get hold of it. I've never taken drugs because I couldn't deal with the secrecy of it all. I'm not denying that there are racist reasons behind why black people end up convicted and I certainly think harsh sentences for weed is going a bit far. But let's not deny that there are ways to keep such an addiction hidden that aren't always being deployed in the black community.

When I say "good ones" and "bad ones," I'm talking about criminals and non-criminals. I say there's "good ones" and "bad ones" in the white community as well. Why is it you see no problem with that? Don't you want me to treat everyone the same? Treat everyone with the same critical eye that I do my own race?

Yes, I read what I write and yes, I realise that this paragraph was controversial. But some things are just so blatant. If I were black and raising my children in a poor neighbourhood, I'd ensure that I taught my children that crime doesn't pay, that you don't commit crime no matter how poor you are, that you never get involved with gangs, guns, drugs. That you keep your nose clean, stay in school, be respectful. Hell, I'd teach the same thing as a white person to white kids. It's not always the parents fault when their child goes down the wrong path but a solid parenting foundation can work wonders. Why else do some black kids from single mothers in black ghettos still miraculously better themselves and work their way to the top in life? One's individual attitude matters a lot too. I'd say this for all races.

Yes, it's super simplistic because I was just getting down to the root of what race and racism is. That's all. So, you don't think some people believing that different races deserve separation and punishment is not racism? It's just prejudice? Huh?

How the hell does having lighter fluid poured on you while being told this is what you deserve because you're white not constitute a hate crime? You wouldn't say this if the exact same thing happened to a black person! Therefore, you are not holding each race equal in your mind! And I see you omitted the most shocking white hate crime from this quote, but that was to be expected. I guess it was just too much for you to give it a pass. There is no black supremacy in US or UK society, however, there is a culture of dealing with racism very harshly when it happens to minorities. This is a world where a woman can go to the HR department and tell them that she has been subject to sexual harassment and she'll get told (by other women) that she should just sweep it under the rug, yet a black person can go to HR and tell them that they have have been subject to racism by their colleague and that person will get pulled up in front of the boss and maybe even fired. False accusations of racism are strong because most of the time, they are believed, even without proof. Here is one of many cases of false racism accusations destroying a person's career and reputation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5017550/Head-teacher-who-suffered-stress-from-racism-accusations-wins-400000-damages.html

If you just don't like a white person, just untruthfully accuse them of being racist - guaranteed it will gain traction, even if the lawholders are white. If it truly were a white supremacist world, white people would be believed immediately if they claimed they were a victim of racial hate crime. In fact, no one would even be allowed to teach the concepts you are speaking of at universities because it doesn't uphold the white agenda. Sociology courses are being changed to take in the new SJW definition of racism which says it can only happen to minorities. It is stifling the true experiences of white hate crime that simply aren't being believed or dealt with seriously. This is a world where police forces won't question suspected Arabs grooming white girls (and tell those close to the victims that they won't do anything) because they don't want to be accused of racism (doesn't actually mention the race angle but I took it from a liberal publication in the hopes you'd perhaps accept the truth of it better): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/15/exposed-rochdale-gangs-grooming-three-girls-catalyst-progress

Now, this next point really is a laugh. You really have no idea what it's like living in Scotland, do you? You naively assume the standard Americanised version of white people living in nice areas with all the best resources, right? Wrong. I live in one of the most impoverished constituencies in Scotland. Yes, in a mostly white area. Houses falling apart, businesses failing, no shop stays around for long, a parade of discount stores as far as the eye can see. People walking around town, dragging on cigarettes, looking much older than their years. Kids in schools acting up (I went to one of the most infamous state schools in the country) with my aunt who's a primary school teacher regularly telling stories of violent children (including one who hits teachers and threatens people with scissors). So hard to get on the property ladder, rents so high for s****y properties. I live in a "suburb" which is nowhere close to American suburbs like Desperate Housewives (such neighbourhoods are like unicorns in these parts). Although I'm not one of them, the reason so many people want Scottish independence is so we can have better resources and funding, as it's all decided by England how much we get and our politicians just have to delegate with what they have. This is why England is the richest country in Britain and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are suffering - we're sent a pittance to fund our entire countries.

How is none of my experiences connected to white privilege? White privilege would dictate that every white person would be nice to their fellow whites - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that every white child would be looked at as innocent and treated impeccably by teachers - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that white women would be regarded as the most beautiful and the most dateable and desirable - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that a white person gets a job easily, even if they are not fully qualified, especially if interviewed by a white person - not the case for me (I'd also like to add that despite my white name, I can't even get called to an interview as is usually presumed and even when applying for a job where the white interviewer knew one of their employees was my white aunt, it still didn't get me a job). I don't see how all of these things can't be connected to white privilege because it's these points that are claimed as benefits for whites over and over again everywhere I look. And I know you're Australian but you're responding to views of whiteness from an American viewpoint. I can't speak for the Australian view, however.

If I can detect biases towards other people, I think I'd be able to tell that I have racial ones. As I said, hating on people for no real reason is just not in my DNA. I always have very good, researched, justifiable reasons as to why I dislike someone personally and any biases that I do have come from bad experiences with certain types of people. But none of them are minorities, so...

Yes, we are born into a racist society. But that doesn't mean that everyone is racist. And yes, no one's ever sat me down and told me not to be racist but that doesn't mean I absorbed any racist messages I heard. It depends what your frame of mind is and how impressionable you are. I don't know what examples of segregation you're talking about. Inclusion was encouraged throughout my life. I'll bring up this point again later down the line. But you make a good point when you say that we are told to treat people differently, not taught. But I've always been a very obedient person. I just did as I was told.

I was talking in general when I said I could debunk a theory in 30 seconds. Not all the time, but I've seen it many times when SJWs make videos. Perhaps the fact I can debunk it with so many questions that are never answered is proof that the academic hasn't thought through their theory as much as they'd like?

No, you're diluting the term "white supremacy." That word is a leaden weight. You don't throw it around. You don't say a country is white supremacist despite it having human rights laws, anti hate crime laws, anti-racism laws, free speech laws, affirmative action programs, a wealth of Asians at top colleges, a wealth of successful black singers, talkshow hosts and politicians. White supremacy does not approve of minorities rising to the top in any capacity. They don't approve of minorities holding any level of success or power, especially over other whites. Even white nationalism isn't as severe as white supremacy. This is the ultimate term of the worst racism of all. The word racist is flung around too easily either. There's different levels of it but too many people are called that word these days. White supremacist is gradually becoming just as common and it's frightening how diluted these terms have become, how they have been re-shaped to fit a liberal agenda. Real white supremacists wouldn't stand for any of the stuff you insisted can happen in a white supremacist country.

Yes, as a feminist, I believe in the "patriarchy," but I don't use this word. It's so old-fashioned and as soon as you use it, people stop listening. Men in particular, hate it, even ones who are for women's rights. It's a term used to get up people's noses and for that very reason, I don't believe in using it. I'm not the typical feminist you think I am. Yes, I believe that there is plenty of sexism in my country but I don't believe it's inherently sexist or that man in it is sexist. I believe in calling out real sexists, not men who we assume to be sexist until further notice. You'll notice that I apply the same belief systems I have in feminism to race issues. I approach the two as being cut from the same cloth. And whenever I try to say things like: "I'm a feminist and I believe men can be victims of sexism too," "I believe women can carry out hate crime towards men," and "I support women who are all-round good people, but if they'd not, I don't support them"...and then try to point out why can't minorities mirror the same beliefs for whites, they always go silent on me. Because they know I've got a point and have called them out.

No, no, you're totally losing me now by calling me a racist despite me frequently saying that I don't stand for racism. Just because you are taught something doesn't mean you have to absorb it and believe it. I've tried to coach my semi-racist father out of his ways of years and am finally making progress. I've always been outspoken when I've heard something said that I don't believe in, it just flips a switch in my head. I don't blindly follow anything. I know you're not saying I'm evil, but you don't seem to realise that when you say someone is racist despite their protests to the contrary and tell them that they are taught to be racist and can't un-learn it...you're basically saying that no matter how good I try to be, nothing will ever be good enough. That's a terrible life lesson to teach, especially in the current society of perfection. It takes away the basic humanity of a person, it puts white people in the inferior category you think we put minorities in. Some racism combat skills that is. And I did watch the video in full, which I'll go into later.

But have you honestly never been called a racist and truly knew that your accuser was wrong? Have you had that little confidence in your convictions? Do you not believe that you know who you are better than anyone else? Sometimes, there isn't more to learn. Some white people are just non-racist! I've not made any strong points at all? I've even admitted some of yours are correct, I fail to see how you can struggle to find one iota of agreement anywhere in my very fair judgements. Of course I'll be defensive when you're incorrectly calling me a racist. Believe it or not, people tend to get defensive when they're accused of something that's untrue. It's our basic human right.

I don't think my conversations with you go anywhere either, so it's all equal. Don't get me wrong, I've questioned, off-thread, before that I could have racial biases. I've sat down and questioned it all. And concluded I didn't. And trust me, I can be my own worst critic. I've already said I approach any argument I make with the view of the opposition, so it can stand up to any rebuttal. I think I'd know if I held racial biases.

I have never treated anyone differently for their race. I treat them all the same, the way I'd wish to be treated. I treat people as people, without stereotyping them. I find out who they are and what interests them to see what kind of person they are, as opposed to judging on external factors. I do see colour, but my response to it is: "They're black...so?" That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the racism they may have gone through, but I don't presume, judge or define them by it. I am more than happy to talk about racism. The only reason that I have trepidation is that it might just turn into a battle to show me up to apparently be racist, to demonise the only white person. I just want to talk about race without judgement from anyone nor do I want to judge anyone. And I do not see everyone as white. I see everyone as people who are waiting to be conversed with and discovered, to uncover who they are past the external, supeficial factors.

About the gender blind thing, the only time I want people to identify me as a woman is when it truly matters. When identifying me by external factors, when talking about feminism/sexism and if you're a man who's romantically interested. Other than that, just see me as a person, for then I can be your equal. The fact that women in politics get seen as women first and politicians second is exactly the reason why they get so much disrespect. Most feminists say they just want to be seen and treated as people first, women second. And coming from a woman, surely you're going to automatically believe my viewpoint has weight, considering you're a man and all? Or does this "believe the oppressed group at all costs" viewpoint only apply to race?

I finally watched the entire video. You might be surprised at how many times I agreed with her. She does seem like a nice person and she obviously has good intentions and insight. But I still see problems. As I mentioned earlier, she gives no examples of what she means by American society living in segregation (she does bring up "white schools" but unless there is a genuine school that has an only white policy, she's just exaggerating just because it has a big white population). We also don't choose what countries and areas we are born. Like I said before, I live in a country that is 96% white - chances are, growing up in such an environment makes you more likely to have a white partner, have white kids, live in a white area. The colour of your country doesn't automatically equal privilege, especially if it's impoverished. She speaks from an American standpoint - she doesn't consider international whites whatsoever. The girl who said that she asked the question of "If we are all supposed to love each other, why do people in white sheets want to kill people like me?" - I'd give her a very simple answer, which is "Not every person listens to messages of love and acceptance." I don't know why she doesn't understand that bad people will exist in the world that we can't control - nothing can exist in this world without an opposite and the ironic thing is that without bad, there can be no good. I have never said the majority of the "white excuses" she listed (especially not "I grew up in a diverse area, happens to be black, I used to live in NY, etc" - I hate those excuses just as much as she does). And as for the "white patterns," - not only have I not experienced most of those things myself, I actually felt that these patterns were very prevelent in minority communities especially the whole "preference of segregation and being around your own kind." I thought it was very funny when she brought up "confusing disagreement with lack of understanding." That is precisely what she has been guilty of doing to white people all this time and what I have accusing people of for years, for all different reasons! How can she not see the irony?! And again, I've seen her say all this stuff in shorter, more condensed videos and I've heard all this before. Now you finish by saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd take anti-white prejudice and bigotry and work out how it's linked. Of course I know what the link is and what drives some minorities to be this way. But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men. So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to.

"They end up picking one because they think they have to. I know I'd be totally stuck for choice if I were a child in the same situation because both look totally equal to me"

This wouldn't work on adults... It's designed for children - adults can figure out what they are supposed to say and not supposed to say.

What you don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that they were forced to choose... It doesn't matter if they were initially stuck... They had to make a choice, they made a choice, the choice they overwhelmingly made means something.

You would expect, that being forced to choose and with them being stuck on what to choose, that the answers would come out fifty fifty. You know they don't use the same doll with every test right? They use barbies, they use different brands of baby dolls. I've even seen this test done with very basic yarn dolls - one with pinkish/whitish wool and the other with brown wool. Like these:

It's not just reflective of two particular dolls...

"And if they've really just seen black children misbehaving, well...how's that their fault? How is witnessing something making you guilty? What I'm inferring is that the reaction the makers of these experiments want in an ideal world is for the white children to choose the black doll in a positive way. There's a sense of applauding the child for making the "right" choice, which is preferring any race that isn't their own. But why should there be a "right" choice? Just let kids play with what they want to play with. Why is it that white children are encouraged to play with every colour of doll but black children are encouraged to only play with dolls that match their race? That's not equal."

Then that's bullshit lol, of course they have seen other kids misbehave. You are projecting what you think the researchers want. White children and Black children both overwhelmingly find the white doll to be "good" and "nice" while the black doll is "bad" and "mean". In a non-racist world you would expect the results to be pretty equal. Kids would choose the dolls randomly, maybe white kids will have some bias towards white dolls and black kids would have some bias towards black dolls because it looks like them and their family. That's not what we see though - we seen the children consistently, time after time, rate the white doll 'good' and 'nice' and the black doll 'bad' and 'evil'.

White kids are free to play with white dolls, or black dolls or whatever dolls. Black kids are free to play with black dolls, white dolls or whatever dolls. This study makes no judgment on any one of those kids personally - the results don't say anything about young Billy - but it does indicate that these kids have already internalised racial prejudice because when their answers are collected in aggregate, the results show a vast majority of children thinking the white doll was good and the black doll was bad. When you look at the bigger picture, you see the problem...

"Well, I'm not aware of every experiment that goes on - I've never seen such ones done in my own country, they're all American from my research, so I can't offer much. I can't say much more on that front until I've researched a bit deeper. But understand that when I say I'm from Britain, I'm specifically from Scotland, where black people have an even more minute population. The white Scottish population stands at 96% white. Blacks make up just 0.7%."

Minorities generally report higher rates of racism, feel unsafe and report having experienced discrimination when they are the 'larger' minority (by which it means - the less black people there are in an area, the more the black people that do live there report racial tension).

Cool, though. So you have grown up pretty segregated from people of colour.

"Yes, whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate, but black people are being convicted at higher rates. Yes, this is partly because there's higher rates of stop and search among blacks. But also, maybe they're just unluckier at being caught dealing/taking in public? There's such a big culture of weed smoking in the black community that some of them smoke it out in full view in public or smoke in the car, then are surprised when the cops pull them over. I mean, I've known white people that smoke it but they keep it well hidden away from public view, only smoking it in the privacy of their own house and are very covert about how they get hold of it."

Yet make sweeping generalisations like that

"Yes, I read what I write and yes, I realise that this paragraph was controversial. But some things are just so blatant. If I were black and raising my children in a poor neighbourhood, I'd ensure that I taught my children that crime doesn't pay, that you don't commit crime no matter how poor you are, that you never get involved with gangs, guns, drugs. That you keep your nose clean, stay in school, be respectful."

No it's not, you don't even live in a country with a high population of black people yet you're making these assumptions about what they are like and what their life is like.

"Yes, it's super simplistic because I was just getting down to the root of what race and racism is. That's all. So, you don't think some people believing that different races deserve separation and punishment is not racism? It's just prejudice? Huh?" 

"How the hell does having lighter fluid poured on you while being told this is what you deserve because you're white not constitute a hate crime? You wouldn't say this if the exact same thing happened to a black person! Therefore, you are not holding each race equal in your mind!"

I've explained the difference between prejudice and racism so many times... I just can't....

So a white man had lighter fluid poured on him by black men and was lit on fire (saying he deserved it due to his skin colour), that's horrific, it's tragic, it's cruel, it's disgusting. It's not racist.
If a black man had lighter fluid poured on him by white men and was lit on fire (saying he deserved it due to his skin colour) - it would be equally horrific, tragic, cruel and disgusting. It would also be racist!

Why? Because I can place the incident with the black man within a historical, cultural and societal context. Historically we know African Americans were kept as slaves, beaten and whipped. We know about the rise of the KKK after the civil war and the lynching of African Americans - this is something that only really stopped 50 years ago, although the last recorded lynching was in 1981 and even recently there was a black child that was nearly lynched. We still know that police are still more violent in their encounters with people of colour, that there is still institutional violence against people of colour, we know white people (including children) are less moved by the pain of people of colour, we know African Americans have a history and are still dehumanized. This incident can be placed within a historical, cultural, political framework under which people of colour are systematically discriminated against. Racism requires power and systems to operate under.

I don't know how you can place the incident with the white man in any historical, cultural, political framework  The incident is extreme, it's horrific, it's a hate-crime (which I already stated  - and then you claimed I said it wasn't...) but it's an example of extreme anti-white prejudice and bigotry... It's not racism....

That isn't even a claim of "What happened to the black guy is worse!!!" It's just to say that that incident can be placed within a certain system.

"And I see you omitted the most shocking white hate crime from this quote, but that was to be expected. I guess it was just too much for you to give it a pass."

No... I just thought the quote gave enough context to what I was responding to. It doesn't matter how shocking or brutal the crime is  It can't be linked to black supremacy in the U.S or U.K - you say so yourself  It's not racism. It's extreme bigotry and prejudice.

"Now, this next point really is a laugh. You really have no idea what it's like living in Scotland, do you? You naively assume the standard Americanised version of white people living in nice areas with all the best resources, right? Wrong."

No I didn't do that, I don't know anything about your specific area - I was just making examples of how your white privilege could affect you without you knowing... It wasn't a specific claim I was making that I knew applied to you - I can't make such specific claims  

"How is none of my experiences connected to white privilege? White privilege would dictate that every white person would be nice to their fellow whites - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that every white child would be looked at as innocent and treated impeccably by teachers - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that white women would be regarded as the most beautiful and the most dateable and desirable - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that a white person gets a job easily, even if they are not fully qualified, especially if interviewed by a white person - not the case for me"

Not it wouldn't, what on earth? White privilege doesn't everyone is constantly treating you like royalty because of your skin colour...

I'm sorry to say that white people can hate you, you can be unfairly punished by teachers, you can be seen as unattractive and you can be unemployed... You would still have white privilege... Like... What on earth do you think 'White Privilege' is? 

"If I can detect biases towards other people, I think I'd be able to tell that I have racial ones. As I said, hating on people for no real reason is just not in my DNA. I always have very good, researched, justifiable reasons as to why I dislike someone personally and any biases that I do have come from bad experiences with certain types of people. But none of them are minorities, so..."

I can't help but sigh, so you can detect biases when it's easy to recall specific bad experiences with people - congratulations. It's impossibly difficult to detect more hidden biases that have been learned over time from birth.

"Yes, we are born into a racist society. But that doesn't mean that everyone is racist. And yes, no one's ever sat me down and told me not to be racist but that doesn't mean I absorbed any racist messages I heard. It depends what your frame of mind is and how impressionable you are."

Children are impressionable, it's messaging you have heard throughout your life, it's messaging people don't confront in everyday life. White people live in a society built on white supremacy and work to uphold those societal structures, we are actively taught to uphold those structures, whether we are conscious of this or not. This is something that's been observed and tested  

"No, you're diluting the term "white supremacy." That word is a leaden weight. You don't throw it around. You don't say a country is white supremacist despite it having human rights laws, anti hate crime laws, anti-racism laws, free speech laws, affirmative action programs, a wealth of Asians at top colleges, a wealth of successful black singers, talkshow hosts and politicians. White supremacy does not approve of minorities rising to the top in any capacity."

No I'm using white supremacy in it's academic context - something even wikipedia acknowledges:

"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races...  The term is also typically used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical or institutional domination by white people .... In academic usage, particularly in usage which draws on the critical race theory, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage (privilege) over other ethnic groups, both at a collective and an individual level."

This is, again, an example of you not understanding the terminology being used in these discussions...


"You'll notice that I apply the same belief systems I have in feminism to race issues. I approach the two as being cut from the same cloth. And whenever I try to say things like: "I'm a feminist and I believe men can be victims of sexism too," "I believe women can carry out hate crime towards men," and "I support women who are all-round good people, but if they'd not, I don't support them"...and then try to point out why can't minorities mirror the same beliefs for whites, they always go silent on me. Because they know I've got a point and have called them out."

Or it's because people realise you don't have a basic grasp on the terminology being used, understand that further conversation is pointless because of this and so give up. Men can't be victims of sexism, but they can be victims of gender-based bigotry and prejudice. Women could carry out hate crimes against men, but it couldn't be linked to any historical, cultural or societal context. Minorities can be extremely prejudice and bigoted... They just can't be racist because they don't hold the power on an institutional level... You are thinking so micro and personal. That's what prejudice and bigotry is. Racism and Sexism is on the macro, it's group, it's societal. 

"I have never treated anyone differently for their race. I treat them all the same, the way I'd wish to be treated. I treat people as people, without stereotyping them. I find out who they are and what interests them to see what kind of person they are, as opposed to judging on external factors. I do see colour, but my response to it is: "They're black...so?""

Then you're not human  Sorry it's just we notice differences and we treat people differently. There is a wealth of academic work that's been done on the subject, numerous studies, some of which I have already posted.... Everyone is prejudice. Even minorities. White people, because (as a group) we have power and advantage on the societal level are racist because those prejudices can be linked to clear systems of oppression...

" I know you're not saying I'm evil, but you don't seem to realise that when you say someone is racist despite their protests to the contrary and tell them that they are taught to be racist and can't un-learn it...you're basically saying that no matter how good I try to be, nothing will ever be good enough"

No, that's only true if you have a very basic understanding of racism... 

"About the gender blind thing, the only time I want people to identify me as a woman is when it truly matters. When identifying me by external factors, when talking about feminism/sexism and if you're a man who's romantically interested. Other than that, just see me as a person, for then I can be your equal. The fact that women in politics get seen as women first and politicians second is exactly the reason why they get so much disrespect. Most feminists say they just want to be seen and treated as people first, women second. And coming from a woman, surely you're going to automatically believe my viewpoint has weight, considering you're a man and all? Or does this "believe the oppressed group at all costs" viewpoint only apply to race?"

It's not about what we 'want'. Of course you want to be seen as a human before a woman, of course you want female politicians to be seen as politicians before women... 'Gender blindness' doesn't solve that though. If I saw you IRL I would notice you are a woman straight away. I would know you are a woman. 'Gender blindness' is just me pretending that I haven't noticed you are a woman. Gender blindness just isn't possible, neither is colour blindness. We see gender, we see colour. We can't pretend we don't.

"As I mentioned earlier, she gives no examples of what she means by American society living in segregation (she does bring up "white schools" but unless there is a genuine school that has an only white policy, she's just exaggerating just because it has a big white population)."

She isn't generalising, she is talking about the studies that show America is becoming more segregated than ever: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/19/america-schools-segregation-race-class-education-policy-bobby-scott

"We also don't choose what countries and areas we are born. Like I said before, I live in a country that is 96% white - chances are, growing up in such an environment makes you more likely to have a white partner, have white kids, live in a white area. The colour of your country doesn't automatically equal privilege, especially if it's impoverished. She speaks from an American standpoint - she doesn't consider international whites whatsoever."

No you don't choose what countries and areas that you are born in... Of course you are likely to live in an environment where you will have a white partner, white kids and live in a white area... It doesn't really make a difference to what she is saying though? Of course this is largely U.S based focused though, as the majority of this discussion has been...

"Now you finish by saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd take anti-white prejudice and bigotry and work out how it's linked. Of course I know what the link is and what drives some minorities to be this way. But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men. So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to. But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men. So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to."

This doesn't address what I wrote to you at all.

"Now you finish by saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd take anti-white prejudice and bigotry and work out how it's linked. Of course I know what the link is and what drives some minorities to be this way."

Like... What? You think the link is something like "Oh white people have been shitty to me so I hate white people"... That still makes it prejudice and bigoted... What I'm asking for is a link to historical, cultural, societal power structures... Something that would transform these instances of anti-white prejudice and bigotry into instances of racism...

"But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men."

This doesn't argue against any point I've made... It's nonsensical... Women shouldn't be treated as flowers, they should be held responsible for any crimes they commit and should be treated as harshly as men. Brilliant. We know this. What's your point? How is it related to my point? I haven't said anything differently.

"So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to."

What are you talking about? The excuse isn't "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." nobody is making that excuse, I'm not making that excuse. Also nobody is excusing that behaviour..... Nobody is saying such behaviour is okay, healthy, good, amoral. But is the behaviour linked directly to historical, cultural, political, societal power structures that uphold black supremacy and oppress white people at a group level? No... So it's not racist... It's prejudice/bigotry.

That's what I'm asking you to do, this is what I mean when I say you clearly don't understand the terminology being used.... If you can't link instances of bigotry and prejudice to historical, cultural, political, societal systems of power then it's not an 'ism'. It's just a personal instance of extreme bigotry and prejudice.

I think the main problem I have with what you write is that you only look at the small scale. You look at the micro when everyone else is talking about the macro. You end up missing the bigger picture, you miss the larger context.

When you talk about racism, you equate it with the personal. You equate it with individual acts, you equate it with racial prejudice and bigotry. If a white person attacks and murders a black person due to their skin colour it's racist.... So if a black person attacks and murders a white person due to their skin colour it's racist. You use a simple, colloquial definition. 

When I talk about racism, or any other ism, I'm talking about the macro. I'm talking about how one particular instance is systemic - how it directly links with the historical, cultural, societal power structures. How on a group level, there is a system of privilege. A political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage over other ethnic groups. If a white person attacks and murders a black person due to skin colour, when I call it 'racist' what I am doing is saying that it fits into a category - that it's a symptom of a larger epidemic, of a society and culture that values black lives less and actively dehumanises them. I can do that by referring to certain historical, cultural, political, economical power structures and seeing how that individual instance fits in. I can't do the same when a black person attacks and kills a white person due to the colour of their skin - I can denounce it as disgusting, as prejudice, as bigoted, as evil - but I can't possible connect it to larger, institutional power structures.

When you talk about privilege, you talk about it as if it's personal. You talk about your difficulty finding employment, you talk about some men not finding you attractive, you talk about how teachers sometimes didn't treat you nicely. Privilege isn't personal, it doesn't try to claim that no white person has struggles or that their life is easy - it's to say that on a macro level, on a group level, on a structural level, white people as a group have certain advantages due to their whiteness. It's something all white people benefit from on certain levels, but it's often invisible. You're less likely to be shot by the police while unarmed. You're more likely to score a job after a face to face job interview than a person of colour with your exact qualifications. Your less likely to get fined for some small offence than a person of colour. This is something demonstrable with data.

You spend your time critiquing studies like "Oh well, this one particular child may have had a 50/50 chance of choosing either doll - because they were forced to choose but just happened to choose the white doll as the good one" or "Well, maybe some of the people in the other study looking at mug shots just felt more strongly about drug laws (even though the study showed it didn't matter how strongly people felt about drug laws, if the mug shots where whiter they signed - if the mug shots showed more POC they didn't despite how they felt on drug laws)". You try to find excuses for why a particular person might behave in a certain way - while ignoring the larger picture and the large discrepancies when each answer is taken into a whole.

I think we have kind of reached the end of this discussion anyway... I think we are looking at this issue from such different perspectives and have such deep, core disagreements that I don't think we can see eye to eye... If you still want to continue is probably best to take it to private messages cause we have gone pretty far off topic really.

[StrawberryBlond 14,014]

18 hours ago, Bebe said:

"They end up picking one because they think they have to. I know I'd be totally stuck for choice if I were a child in the same situation because both look totally equal to me"

This wouldn't work on adults... It's designed for children - adults can figure out what they are supposed to say and not supposed to say.

What you don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that they were forced to choose... It doesn't matter if they were initially stuck... They had to make a choice, they made a choice, the choice they overwhelmingly made means something.

You would expect, that being forced to choose and with them being stuck on what to choose, that the answers would come out fifty fifty. You know they don't use the same doll with every test right? They use barbies, they use different brands of baby dolls. I've even seen this test done with very basic yarn dolls - one with pinkish/whitish wool and the other with brown wool. Like these:

It's not just reflective of two particular dolls...

"And if they've really just seen black children misbehaving, well...how's that their fault? How is witnessing something making you guilty? What I'm inferring is that the reaction the makers of these experiments want in an ideal world is for the white children to choose the black doll in a positive way. There's a sense of applauding the child for making the "right" choice, which is preferring any race that isn't their own. But why should there be a "right" choice? Just let kids play with what they want to play with. Why is it that white children are encouraged to play with every colour of doll but black children are encouraged to only play with dolls that match their race? That's not equal."

Then that's bullshit lol, of course they have seen other kids misbehave. You are projecting what you think the researchers want. White children and Black children both overwhelmingly find the white doll to be "good" and "nice" while the black doll is "bad" and "mean". In a non-racist world you would expect the results to be pretty equal. Kids would choose the dolls randomly, maybe white kids will have some bias towards white dolls and black kids would have some bias towards black dolls because it looks like them and their family. That's not what we see though - we seen the children consistently, time after time, rate the white doll 'good' and 'nice' and the black doll 'bad' and 'evil'.

White kids are free to play with white dolls, or black dolls or whatever dolls. Black kids are free to play with black dolls, white dolls or whatever dolls. This study makes no judgment on any one of those kids personally - the results don't say anything about young Billy - but it does indicate that these kids have already internalised racial prejudice because when their answers are collected in aggregate, the results show a vast majority of children thinking the white doll was good and the black doll was bad. When you look at the bigger picture, you see the problem...

"Well, I'm not aware of every experiment that goes on - I've never seen such ones done in my own country, they're all American from my research, so I can't offer much. I can't say much more on that front until I've researched a bit deeper. But understand that when I say I'm from Britain, I'm specifically from Scotland, where black people have an even more minute population. The white Scottish population stands at 96% white. Blacks make up just 0.7%."

Minorities generally report higher rates of racism, feel unsafe and report having experienced discrimination when they are the 'larger' minority (by which it means - the less black people there are in an area, the more the black people that do live there report racial tension).

Cool, though. So you have grown up pretty segregated from people of colour.

"Yes, whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate, but black people are being convicted at higher rates. Yes, this is partly because there's higher rates of stop and search among blacks. But also, maybe they're just unluckier at being caught dealing/taking in public? There's such a big culture of weed smoking in the black community that some of them smoke it out in full view in public or smoke in the car, then are surprised when the cops pull them over. I mean, I've known white people that smoke it but they keep it well hidden away from public view, only smoking it in the privacy of their own house and are very covert about how they get hold of it."

Yet make sweeping generalisations like that

"Yes, I read what I write and yes, I realise that this paragraph was controversial. But some things are just so blatant. If I were black and raising my children in a poor neighbourhood, I'd ensure that I taught my children that crime doesn't pay, that you don't commit crime no matter how poor you are, that you never get involved with gangs, guns, drugs. That you keep your nose clean, stay in school, be respectful."

No it's not, you don't even live in a country with a high population of black people yet you're making these assumptions about what they are like and what their life is like.

"Yes, it's super simplistic because I was just getting down to the root of what race and racism is. That's all. So, you don't think some people believing that different races deserve separation and punishment is not racism? It's just prejudice? Huh?" 

"How the hell does having lighter fluid poured on you while being told this is what you deserve because you're white not constitute a hate crime? You wouldn't say this if the exact same thing happened to a black person! Therefore, you are not holding each race equal in your mind!"

I've explained the difference between prejudice and racism so many times... I just can't....

So a white man had lighter fluid poured on him by black men and was lit on fire (saying he deserved it due to his skin colour), that's horrific, it's tragic, it's cruel, it's disgusting. It's not racist.
If a black man had lighter fluid poured on him by white men and was lit on fire (saying he deserved it due to his skin colour) - it would be equally horrific, tragic, cruel and disgusting. It would also be racist!

Why? Because I can place the incident with the black man within a historical, cultural and societal context. Historically we know African Americans were kept as slaves, beaten and whipped. We know about the rise of the KKK after the civil war and the lynching of African Americans - this is something that only really stopped 50 years ago, although the last recorded lynching was in 1981 and even recently there was a black child that was nearly lynched. We still know that police are still more violent in their encounters with people of colour, that there is still institutional violence against people of colour, we know white people (including children) are less moved by the pain of people of colour, we know African Americans have a history and are still dehumanized. This incident can be placed within a historical, cultural, political framework under which people of colour are systematically discriminated against. Racism requires power and systems to operate under.

I don't know how you can place the incident with the white man in any historical, cultural, political framework  The incident is extreme, it's horrific, it's a hate-crime (which I already stated  - and then you claimed I said it wasn't...) but it's an example of extreme anti-white prejudice and bigotry... It's not racism....

That isn't even a claim of "What happened to the black guy is worse!!!" It's just to say that that incident can be placed within a certain system.

"And I see you omitted the most shocking white hate crime from this quote, but that was to be expected. I guess it was just too much for you to give it a pass."

No... I just thought the quote gave enough context to what I was responding to. It doesn't matter how shocking or brutal the crime is  It can't be linked to black supremacy in the U.S or U.K - you say so yourself  It's not racism. It's extreme bigotry and prejudice.

"Now, this next point really is a laugh. You really have no idea what it's like living in Scotland, do you? You naively assume the standard Americanised version of white people living in nice areas with all the best resources, right? Wrong."

No I didn't do that, I don't know anything about your specific area - I was just making examples of how your white privilege could affect you without you knowing... It wasn't a specific claim I was making that I knew applied to you - I can't make such specific claims  

"How is none of my experiences connected to white privilege? White privilege would dictate that every white person would be nice to their fellow whites - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that every white child would be looked at as innocent and treated impeccably by teachers - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that white women would be regarded as the most beautiful and the most dateable and desirable - not the case for me. White privilege would dictate that a white person gets a job easily, even if they are not fully qualified, especially if interviewed by a white person - not the case for me"

Not it wouldn't, what on earth? White privilege doesn't everyone is constantly treating you like royalty because of your skin colour...

I'm sorry to say that white people can hate you, you can be unfairly punished by teachers, you can be seen as unattractive and you can be unemployed... You would still have white privilege... Like... What on earth do you think 'White Privilege' is? 

"If I can detect biases towards other people, I think I'd be able to tell that I have racial ones. As I said, hating on people for no real reason is just not in my DNA. I always have very good, researched, justifiable reasons as to why I dislike someone personally and any biases that I do have come from bad experiences with certain types of people. But none of them are minorities, so..."

I can't help but sigh, so you can detect biases when it's easy to recall specific bad experiences with people - congratulations. It's impossibly difficult to detect more hidden biases that have been learned over time from birth.

"Yes, we are born into a racist society. But that doesn't mean that everyone is racist. And yes, no one's ever sat me down and told me not to be racist but that doesn't mean I absorbed any racist messages I heard. It depends what your frame of mind is and how impressionable you are."

Children are impressionable, it's messaging you have heard throughout your life, it's messaging people don't confront in everyday life. White people live in a society built on white supremacy and work to uphold those societal structures, we are actively taught to uphold those structures, whether we are conscious of this or not. This is something that's been observed and tested  

"No, you're diluting the term "white supremacy." That word is a leaden weight. You don't throw it around. You don't say a country is white supremacist despite it having human rights laws, anti hate crime laws, anti-racism laws, free speech laws, affirmative action programs, a wealth of Asians at top colleges, a wealth of successful black singers, talkshow hosts and politicians. White supremacy does not approve of minorities rising to the top in any capacity."

No I'm using white supremacy in it's academic context - something even wikipedia acknowledges:

"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races...  The term is also typically used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical or institutional domination by white people .... In academic usage, particularly in usage which draws on the critical race theory, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage (privilege) over other ethnic groups, both at a collective and an individual level."

This is, again, an example of you not understanding the terminology being used in these discussions...


"You'll notice that I apply the same belief systems I have in feminism to race issues. I approach the two as being cut from the same cloth. And whenever I try to say things like: "I'm a feminist and I believe men can be victims of sexism too," "I believe women can carry out hate crime towards men," and "I support women who are all-round good people, but if they'd not, I don't support them"...and then try to point out why can't minorities mirror the same beliefs for whites, they always go silent on me. Because they know I've got a point and have called them out."

Or it's because people realise you don't have a basic grasp on the terminology being used, understand that further conversation is pointless because of this and so give up. Men can't be victims of sexism, but they can be victims of gender-based bigotry and prejudice. Women could carry out hate crimes against men, but it couldn't be linked to any historical, cultural or societal context. Minorities can be extremely prejudice and bigoted... They just can't be racist because they don't hold the power on an institutional level... You are thinking so micro and personal. That's what prejudice and bigotry is. Racism and Sexism is on the macro, it's group, it's societal. 

"I have never treated anyone differently for their race. I treat them all the same, the way I'd wish to be treated. I treat people as people, without stereotyping them. I find out who they are and what interests them to see what kind of person they are, as opposed to judging on external factors. I do see colour, but my response to it is: "They're black...so?""

Then you're not human  Sorry it's just we notice differences and we treat people differently. There is a wealth of academic work that's been done on the subject, numerous studies, some of which I have already posted.... Everyone is prejudice. Even minorities. White people, because (as a group) we have power and advantage on the societal level are racist because those prejudices can be linked to clear systems of oppression...

" I know you're not saying I'm evil, but you don't seem to realise that when you say someone is racist despite their protests to the contrary and tell them that they are taught to be racist and can't un-learn it...you're basically saying that no matter how good I try to be, nothing will ever be good enough"

No, that's only true if you have a very basic understanding of racism... 

"About the gender blind thing, the only time I want people to identify me as a woman is when it truly matters. When identifying me by external factors, when talking about feminism/sexism and if you're a man who's romantically interested. Other than that, just see me as a person, for then I can be your equal. The fact that women in politics get seen as women first and politicians second is exactly the reason why they get so much disrespect. Most feminists say they just want to be seen and treated as people first, women second. And coming from a woman, surely you're going to automatically believe my viewpoint has weight, considering you're a man and all? Or does this "believe the oppressed group at all costs" viewpoint only apply to race?"

It's not about what we 'want'. Of course you want to be seen as a human before a woman, of course you want female politicians to be seen as politicians before women... 'Gender blindness' doesn't solve that though. If I saw you IRL I would notice you are a woman straight away. I would know you are a woman. 'Gender blindness' is just me pretending that I haven't noticed you are a woman. Gender blindness just isn't possible, neither is colour blindness. We see gender, we see colour. We can't pretend we don't.

"As I mentioned earlier, she gives no examples of what she means by American society living in segregation (she does bring up "white schools" but unless there is a genuine school that has an only white policy, she's just exaggerating just because it has a big white population)."

She isn't generalising, she is talking about the studies that show America is becoming more segregated than ever: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/19/america-schools-segregation-race-class-education-policy-bobby-scott

"We also don't choose what countries and areas we are born. Like I said before, I live in a country that is 96% white - chances are, growing up in such an environment makes you more likely to have a white partner, have white kids, live in a white area. The colour of your country doesn't automatically equal privilege, especially if it's impoverished. She speaks from an American standpoint - she doesn't consider international whites whatsoever."

No you don't choose what countries and areas that you are born in... Of course you are likely to live in an environment where you will have a white partner, white kids and live in a white area... It doesn't really make a difference to what she is saying though? Of course this is largely U.S based focused though, as the majority of this discussion has been...

"Now you finish by saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd take anti-white prejudice and bigotry and work out how it's linked. Of course I know what the link is and what drives some minorities to be this way. But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men. So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to. But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men. So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to."

This doesn't address what I wrote to you at all.

"Now you finish by saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd take anti-white prejudice and bigotry and work out how it's linked. Of course I know what the link is and what drives some minorities to be this way."

Like... What? You think the link is something like "Oh white people have been shitty to me so I hate white people"... That still makes it prejudice and bigoted... What I'm asking for is a link to historical, cultural, societal power structures... Something that would transform these instances of anti-white prejudice and bigotry into instances of racism...

"But, going back to what I said a while back - I believe women can carry out gender hate crime toward men. Being a woman doesn't mean you should be treated as a precious little flower. Women have wanted to be responsible for themselves for centuries and they must hold themselves responsible for any crimes they commit and they should be tried as harshly as men."

This doesn't argue against any point I've made... It's nonsensical... Women shouldn't be treated as flowers, they should be held responsible for any crimes they commit and should be treated as harshly as men. Brilliant. We know this. What's your point? How is it related to my point? I haven't said anything differently.

"So, no, I equally have no tolerance for the excuse of "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." No, take responsibility for your crimes and hatred and act like a decent human being. The rest of society is sure expected to."

What are you talking about? The excuse isn't "minorities were/are treated badly by whites, so any hatred towards them is just natural." nobody is making that excuse, I'm not making that excuse. Also nobody is excusing that behaviour..... Nobody is saying such behaviour is okay, healthy, good, amoral. But is the behaviour linked directly to historical, cultural, political, societal power structures that uphold black supremacy and oppress white people at a group level? No... So it's not racist... It's prejudice/bigotry.

That's what I'm asking you to do, this is what I mean when I say you clearly don't understand the terminology being used.... If you can't link instances of bigotry and prejudice to historical, cultural, political, societal systems of power then it's not an 'ism'. It's just a personal instance of extreme bigotry and prejudice.

I think the main problem I have with what you write is that you only look at the small scale. You look at the micro when everyone else is talking about the macro. You end up missing the bigger picture, you miss the larger context.

When you talk about racism, you equate it with the personal. You equate it with individual acts, you equate it with racial prejudice and bigotry. If a white person attacks and murders a black person due to their skin colour it's racist.... So if a black person attacks and murders a white person due to their skin colour it's racist. You use a simple, colloquial definition. 

When I talk about racism, or any other ism, I'm talking about the macro. I'm talking about how one particular instance is systemic - how it directly links with the historical, cultural, societal power structures. How on a group level, there is a system of privilege. A political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage over other ethnic groups. If a white person attacks and murders a black person due to skin colour, when I call it 'racist' what I am doing is saying that it fits into a category - that it's a symptom of a larger epidemic, of a society and culture that values black lives less and actively dehumanises them. I can do that by referring to certain historical, cultural, political, economical power structures and seeing how that individual instance fits in. I can't do the same when a black person attacks and kills a white person due to the colour of their skin - I can denounce it as disgusting, as prejudice, as bigoted, as evil - but I can't possible connect it to larger, institutional power structures.

When you talk about privilege, you talk about it as if it's personal. You talk about your difficulty finding employment, you talk about some men not finding you attractive, you talk about how teachers sometimes didn't treat you nicely. Privilege isn't personal, it doesn't try to claim that no white person has struggles or that their life is easy - it's to say that on a macro level, on a group level, on a structural level, white people as a group have certain advantages due to their whiteness. It's something all white people benefit from on certain levels, but it's often invisible. You're less likely to be shot by the police while unarmed. You're more likely to score a job after a face to face job interview than a person of colour with your exact qualifications. Your less likely to get fined for some small offence than a person of colour. This is something demonstrable with data.

You spend your time critiquing studies like "Oh well, this one particular child may have had a 50/50 chance of choosing either doll - because they were forced to choose but just happened to choose the white doll as the good one" or "Well, maybe some of the people in the other study looking at mug shots just felt more strongly about drug laws (even though the study showed it didn't matter how strongly people felt about drug laws, if the mug shots where whiter they signed - if the mug shots showed more POC they didn't despite how they felt on drug laws)". You try to find excuses for why a particular person might behave in a certain way - while ignoring the larger picture and the large discrepancies when each answer is taken into a whole.

I think we have kind of reached the end of this discussion anyway... I think we are looking at this issue from such different perspectives and have such deep, core disagreements that I don't think we can see eye to eye... If you still want to continue is probably best to take it to private messages cause we have gone pretty far off topic really.

Of course it wouldn't work on adults but I'm trying to remember what I was like as a kid. And I remember not caring what colour a doll was, so I wouldn't be able to answer questions like the ones they're asking because I saw dolls equally. But I'd assume I had to make a choice because an adult was telling me to. A choice doesn't matter if it was forced. They maybe just picked the one that most closely resembled the dolls they actually play with when it came to positive choices if they couldn't make up their minds. There's nothing sinister about a child choosing the thing that most reminds them of normalcy. And as most dolls kids play with are white, this was likely going to be the result. Those wool dolls you posted are terrifying, even as an adult, especially the white ones with their black beady eyes. I'd actually go for the brown one at the end of the day as it's not looking at me funny but both would have creeped me out as a kid, I can't imagine wanting either of them. Weird choice to make in an experiment. When you see one "different" child misbehave, especially if they're the only one in the vicinity, you might unfairly put that perception on all other children that look like them. Children tend to have one bad experience and let one bad apple sour the whole batch. Most grow out of it. Don't get me wrong, I can get a vibe of a bit of internalised racism on the black kid's parts in particular. It is kinda sad to see them cite the black doll as bad and then choose it as the doll that looks most like them. But they don't look particularly sad when they do it. It's like kids who laugh when they're called bad. It's just children figuring out appropriate emotions and they smile through everything. It's not something to take overly seriously. We don't see these same kids when they've grown up, to see if they've changed, right? So how do we know this wasn't basic childhood development?

I'm not denying that minorities fears are valid. They are. I wouldn't try to deny someone's personal experiences. Just like I don't want you to invalidate mine. And you need to be careful when you say that I've grown up segregated from people of colour. I did encounter them, just not all the time. Segregation is a choice. Scotland didn't choose to be a country who racially produced people with white skin, nor did Scotland choose to deny minorities the right to live in our country. We have an open door immigration policy. If people don't want to come to our country to make it more racially diverse, that's not our fault. If only white people want to immigrate to our country, that's not our fault either. Segregation is a decision that's enforced. Natural population demographics of a country and freedom of movement in a country is not segregation.

It's not so much a sweeping generalisation as a logical reason as to why so many more black people get caught. There can be multiple reasons for something happening. And I'm not making assumptions about what every black person's life is like and what they're like, I did say if I was black and raising black children in a poor black neighbourhood. In these areas, these unfortunate things are the reality of life. As is the case in every poor neighbourhood (but in my personal case, minus the guns, since we don't allow them).

It was a kid who was doused in lighter fluid by other kids. The fact they were children makes it even more shocking. It doesn't matter what time we're living in or what pains anyone has suffered in the past, nothing validates inhumane behaviour such as this. Saying it has historical, cultural and societal context is a form of justification and excuse making, even if you say it isn't. White people don't get a pass for making the same kind of excuses for themselves, we're just called out on it. There's lots of ways to have power and one of the ways is to be armed when your victim is not, to be taller and stronger than your victim, to have a team of people helping you oppose your victim...power takes many forms and definitions. You don't have to place the incident in these frameworks you speak of for it to be racist. And you said it wasn't a racial hate crime. And you are saying it's worse when it happens to blacks because you said it is has all the same negative traits that the white victim suffered...but also has the added element of racism. Therefore, a bigger list, therefore, the black situation was worse. It's so crass to rank suffering.

But you were making assumptions about my living situation purely because of my race. Double standard. I am well aware of the many ways my white privilege could be affecting me without me knowing. Do you know how many of these white privilege videos I've watched? And I didn't say I would be treated like royalty based on being white. I said that these elements of privilege is routinely what I have heard repeated over and over when forms of white privilege are listed. It's black people who are defining these things I stated as white privilege. These are the most prominent ones that have the most attention. And I just proved that they don't apply to every white person. Yet, society's telling me I should have all these things.

But as I said, I don't have "hidden biases." I don't assume every black person likes hip hop, is from a poor neighbourhood, has children with multiple people, has a low-paying job, is badly spoken, etc. I absorb black culture and am a big fan of rap especially. I also don't automatically tighten my grip on my bag if a black person approaches me (I actually feel safer around black people more than any other race). I will happily be friends with or date any black person who I get along with. And it's not just black people, I can engage with anyone of any race or culture in the same way. I tense up whenever I hear any racial slur or negative stereotype and feel offended on their behalf. I'm struggling to find any hidden racial biases here. Remember that, as I've mentioned before that black people in particular are a rarity where I live, I have never been properly "taught" what to think about them as they're not prevalent enough in my society to know what the consensus is about them. So, I've just reacted based purely on the same instinct I have for everyone else.

Some children are more impressionable than others. I didn't do what every other kid was doing, I went my own way. I was never one for following fashions or adopting their slang or illicitly drinking at the weekend. I always did what I felt was right and right for me. Now more than ever, people like you are confronting the messages we're told and ways to combat them. But that doesn't mean all of us believed these messages unquestionably. Not everyone is that stupid.

That additional definition has totally been inserted in there by white guilt types. Anyone can alter Wikipedia, that's why we were taught never to cite it in university essays. The dictionary disagrees with the Wikipedia definition. Wikipedia may have its place but it's not the dictionary, it doesn't have ultimate authority on word definitions. And before you use the "we shouldn't trust the dictionary, its definitions are simplistic and outdated," response may I just remind you that I've seen this hypocrisy before. SJWs are happy to praise the dictionary when it suits them. Recently, they were talking about how a whole bunch of new social justice terms have been added to the dictionary and how great this is. So, when the dictionary supports your agenda, it's suddenly the book of truth. But when it doesn't support your agenda, it's "just" the dictionary, what would it know? I truly understand the terminologies used, instead of twisting them and unnecessarily expanding on them to fit my agenda.

For the last time, I do understand the terminologies, I just don't agree with them. And excuse me, suddenly, you, a man, are telling me the ins and outs of sexism? Judging by your claims of how the oppressed group should always be listened to, you should be accepting my analysis of sexism as ultimate truth. Yet, you, a man, tell a woman what is and isn't true in issues affecting her own gender, which you do not go through. Do you not see the irony? If a feminist is telling you that men can be victims of sexism and women can carry out gender based hate crimes on men, trust me, it must be true. If you believe the words of oppressed black people, why won't you listen to the words of an oppressed woman? Work out whether you take the oppressed group's word for it or not and actually stick to it and be consistent. As I'm of the belief that sexism and feminism should be allowed to be critiqued by anyone and am open to having men challenge my beliefs, I also hold the same beliefs as regards any other oppressed group. I may not be perfect, but at least I'm consistent.

I'm not human? You're the one that sounds like they're reciting from a textbook with your repeated use of terms ending in "ical" that you repeat over and over again, in the exact same order each time! It's like a robotic response, not a human one. The problem is that all these studies don't treat its subjects like individuals or look for multiple, non racist ways that they feel the way they do. It's all so black and white, pardon the pun.

Well, maybe gender blindness solves it in my eyes, but not yours. There are different ways to react to a problem with different levels of success. I'm not asking you to pretend I have no gender, just don't assume stereotypical things about me or treat me stereotypically for that fact. That's all.

As I thought, there are no "white schools," it just so happens that most of the students at the school are white. The schools can't control the fact that there are white families living in the area. They can't stop these white families sending their children to these schools (schools need students, there's no reason to turn them down). A school cannot help the demographics around it. Now, the idea of federal funding being better distributed to white majority schools, that's a genuine issue. But the part about most of the students being white is not. People tend to send their kids to the nearest school and if there's mostly white people in said area, well, that's what's going to happen. What do you think schools look like in Africa and Asia? Pretty much homogenous. But you're not calling for them to be diverse. We don't choose our race, we don't choose the area we were born and raised in, we don't choose our schools as children (and sometimes, the adults have no choice either, if the next school is miles away). It's all a matter of circumstance, demographics of a school are nobody's fault.

It doesn't address what you wrote to me at all? You were saying that if I understood what racism was, I'd work out its link to higher powers. And I responded by saying that you could do the same for sexism and come out with a very different point of view. And I treat most "isms" the same way. I keep saying that someone does not need to have a role in "historical, cultural, societal power structures" to exert power over another. You are stuck on this phrase and you repeat it continuously and it means less and less each time. It's just white noise, empty validation, excuses. Again, I used the example of how women can commit gender hate crime against men to prove that the idea that black people can't be racist is nonsense. Feminism doesn't want to take any a man's basic human right to say a gender hate crime has happened to him (at least, us sane ones don't). People should have the human right to believe that a hate crime has happened against them for any reason.

You may not realise you're making excuses but you are. You've yet to say what your point is as to why the crime somehow isn't on the same level as a white crime. There's something innately wrong with saying: "What they did was wrong, but..." The word "but" should never come after such sentence in response to something was morally reprehensible. You are validating hate, there is no other conclusion.

It's funny, because I think you're the one missing the bigger picture. You refuse to think outside the box, listen to more people than just academics. I've even heard academics say that they don't view academics as more intelligent than everyone else. I equate racism in personal terms because I believe in individualism. People are not hive minds. They are not mindless robots taught to follow strict mantras like the army. They are individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, views, insights. And we should respect those many differences and not generalise. I think we both agree that the beauty in humanity is in its diversity. Yet we dismiss this notion when we talk about social issues. It becomes a contest to see who is the most oppressed, encourages special treatment instead of equal treatment, assumes the worst of everyone who isn't a down and out. It tells us that if you are part of any majority group, you have biases towards the less fortunate. It's like the fundamental Christian idea of original sin - by the simple process of coming into this world, you're automatically guilty, and have to spend your entire life making up for it. And seeing as most people are against this concept, why do we allow it to manifest itself in other, non-religious forms?

Yes, if you want to take it to PMs, fine. I think this thread has run its course anyway. I have the feeling we might get along better if we're not in full view of the rest of the board.