F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

[Marlow]

For what it's worth, I do think artists and especially comedians are always going to have the most issues with Cancel Culture, since a lot of what comedy and art is about is pushing the envelope, challenging cultural norms, and at times purposely being offensive. It's a thin line, and it's tough sometimes to figure out when someone has or hasn't crossed that line.

 

[kabelfritz]

How far does that go, though? If I'm someone with a very public platform, be it on a stage, streaming, media talk show, social network, whatever, and I use my platform to espouse racist or hateful ideas, why shouldn't I face some type of consequence for sharing and promoting that belief?

I'm all for positive debate and talking through issues, but at the same time aren't there certain points of view that shouldn't even be considered for debate? Like, why should someone who is black need to debate whether their life matters?

racism attacks other peoples freedom of speech (and more) and therefore cant be covered by freedom of speech.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Cancel culture is and isn't what Dave says it is. It isn't in the sense that people need to be held accountable and is in the sense that some people will use it to REEEE at something they disagree with.

Like anything else people will use it for their own means. Like BLM protests are peaceful and spread a necessary and important message. Except when they dont...

Most cops are here to protect and serve. Except when they aren't....

No organization or ideal that is comprised of human beings will ever be clear cut black and white.

Do people still seriously use 'REEEE'? Come on man, thought we were past that shit.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Could you elaborate on the "hate"?

See: how JK Rowling is heavily behind it/pushing it when the vast majority of her Twitter existence is peddling hate against trans people.

Remember guys, hate isn't always going "FUCK YOU YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT", purposely misidentifying people or pushing harmful stereotypes and narratives is STILL hate.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Do people still seriously use 'REEEE'? Come on man, thought we were past that shit.

Just an expression, you no what I mean

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Just an expression, you no what I mean

I know man but having an autistic family member, it pisses me off.

I know it wasn't your intention though, just grinds me how it's become so ingrained on the internet.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

... which is exactly what is happening sometimes. People have been fired for tweeting "All Lives Matter" and criticizing Black Lives Matter. The fact that 150 scholars, the vast majority of whom are liberals, have signed Harper's Letter proves that cancel culture is a radical and ochlocratic movement. It is contemporary McCarthyism.

Oh for the love of all that's good in this world. And I'M the one with the radical viewpoints.
Dave, how many people do you think were fired, ostracized, or overall had their lives made a living hell in the early 2000's over Iraq? How many people NOW do you think are having to hold their tounge to keep their livelihood over being supportive of BLM or, I don't know, wearing masks? Does it count as McCarthyism then as well? Because I can promise that if I were more vocal at work about my belief in the protests or the masks, I would be making life vastly more difficult for myself. Also, as far as the All Lives Matter tweets specifically: when they only exist to belittle an enormous movement for racial equality that millions of people around the country support, it's really hard for me to feel bad if you're seen in the public light posting about it and running the risk of pissing off your employer and putting your own livelihood at risk. Same as it would be hard for me to feel bad for someone who catches Covid at a Trump rally while shouting about masks being a hoax. It's not McCarthyism: it's people being genuinely stupid and crying victim when they have to face the consequences. If I went on a rant online about all the stuff I believe in that I know my employer might not look kindly on, and I get fired or knocked down the ladder for it, that's not a conspiracy: that's my own fault.
You can't just cherry-pick the one perspective you want it to apply to and throw in a comparison to the biggest political witch hunt in modern history when it's nowhere near the same situation.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I know man but having an autistic family member, it pisses me off.

I know it wasn't your intention though, just grinds me how it's become so ingrained on the internet.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here.

Absolutely wasn't a shot at autism man, I apologize for that, I have an autistic family member as well. I'm in school hoping to eventually specialize on working with kids on the spectrum, I get the stigma. Definitly no harm intended.

 

[Marinjuana]

Plenty of people have wanted their signature removed from the first letter - as soon as it was revealed to be a vehicle for people like JK Rowling to peddle hate without being called out for it - as I posted about wayyyyyy back ITT. Some of them also didn't properly read the letter, they saw the signatures of esteemed colleagues and assumed it was for a good cause (as I said, it's a trojan horse to let people peddle hate unchecked).

Yeah like Trans author Finney Boylan, who seemingly took no issue with the letter's content, said was just sorry that they were associated with Rowling or the like, in a tweet where they disabled comments. Ironic that they would be on the receiving end of internet outrage over it.

“I did not know who else had signed that letter. I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company. The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry.” - Finney Boylan

Other quotes of relevance

“I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter.” - Malcolm Gladwell, New Yorker

Shadi Hamid of the Brooking Institute didn't pull his punches, saying,

“I suspect part of what angers some commentators so much about the Harper’s letter is just how involved people of color were. For them, we’re only allowed to have one position, and if we diverge from that, we’re not truly what we are”. - Shadi Hamid

Richard Ford of Stanford saw it more as an issue of conservatives but still sees it in progressive circles.

"I’ve witnessed too many cases of ferocious takedowns for defensible if ideologically unorthodox views or relatively minor breaches of political etiquette,” he said. “This is more true of Trumpian conservatives than anyone, but it is also true of some progressives.” - Richard Thompson Ford, Stanford Law

Some didn't even publish their name on the letter from fear of personal reprisal.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Yeah like Trans author Finney Boylan, who seemingly took no issue with the letter's content, said was just sorry that they were associated with Rowling or the like, in a tweet where they disabled comments. Ironic that they would be on the receiving end of internet outrage over it.

“I did not know who else had signed that letter. I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company. The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry.” - Finney Boylan

Other quotes of relevance

“I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter.” - Malcolm Gladwell, New Yorker

Shadi Hamid of the Brooking Institute didn't pull his punches, saying,

“I suspect part of what angers some commentators so much about the Harper’s letter is just how involved people of color were. For them, we’re only allowed to have one position, and if we diverge from that, we’re not truly what we are”. - Shadi Hamid

Richard Ford of Stanford saw it more as an issue of conservatives but still sees it in progressive circles.

"I’ve witnessed too many cases of ferocious takedowns for defensible if ideologically unorthodox views or relatively minor breaches of political etiquette,” he said. “This is more true of Trumpian conservatives than anyone, but it is also true of some progressives.” - Richard Thompson Ford, Stanford Law

Some didn't even publish their name on the letter from fear of personal reprisal.

Just going to quote this from Marlow's link, as many people obviously didn't read it.

"The letter was spearheaded by Thomas Chatterton Williams, a Black writer who believes “that racism at once persists and is also capable of being transcended—especially at the interpersonal level.” Since the letter was published, some commentators have used Williams’s presence and the presence of other non-white writers to argue that the letter presents a selection of diverse voices. But they miss the point: the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Some of the problems they bring up are real and concerning — for example, they seem to be referencing a researcher being fired for sharing a study on Twitter. But they are not trends — at least not in the way that the signatories suggest. In reality, their argument alludes to but does not clearly lay out specific examples, and undermines the very cause they have appointed themselves to uphold. In truth, Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people — particularly Black and trans people — can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially; this seems to be the letter’s greatest concern. What’s perhaps even more grating to many of the signatories is that a critique of their long held views is persuasive."

Source (again) - https://theobjective.substack.com/p/14203152-3a83-4068-b6b2-a5007b0e2f5b

 

[Marlow]

I think what makes debating about Cancel Culture so hard is that it's come to have very different meanings and definitions. I think a lot of people signed that letter in Harper's because on a general level most people agree with blanket statements like being against "ferocious take-downs for defensible if ideologically unorthodox views or relatively minor breaches of political etiquette".

The problem is for a lot of people that's not really what they're trying to do with Canceling someone. For a lot of people it comes down to trying to hold people in a position of power accountable for vocalizing views which many consider non-defensible.

 

[MrArcher15]

If you had read my posts in this thread, you would have known that I have criticized the NFL and President Trump on this issue. I disagree with Colin Kapernick's politics, but I support his right to free speech. You and many others have argued that "free speech does not mean freedom of consequences", but I even support freedom of consequences. No NFL owner has wanted to hire Colin Kapernick precisely because of the kneeling.



... which is exactly what is happening sometimes. People have been fired for tweeting "All Lives Matter" and criticizing Black Lives Matter. The fact that 150 scholars, the vast majority of whom are liberals, have signed Harper's Letter proves that cancel culture is a radical and ochlocratic movement. It is contemporary McCarthyism.

People have tried to explain to you why the phrase “all lives matter”, isn’t just a phrase multiple times, and why people do deserve what’s coming to them for using it. As others have pointed out it came about to literally undermine the belief that black lives matter. I challenge you to find people using the phrase “All lives matter” before “black lives matter” became a thing. It exists as a counter to us saying hey we want to matter as much as you guys, but “all lives matter” essentially means you do, what’s the matter?If right now with what’s going on with covid, people started saying hey man, let’s not forget HIV matters too, along with all the other viruses. Would you not agree that people are trying to take away from the rightful attention covid is getting?

Yes HIV is also dangerous we know that, but right now people are getting sick from covid at an alarming rate with possible long term effects, we need to put more focus on that. That’s all black lives matter is, yes we all know all lives matter, but right now black lives are not held to the same standard therefore saying all lives matter is disrespectful and demeaning. I’m not sure if you yourself are a supporter of the phrase so don’t think I’m saying you are, I’m just once again trying to make you understand.

Furthermore again as someone who is black, who has been profiled all his life and literally been pulled over and not asked for identification, just asked where he’s going/if he lives here, as someone who got a gun pulled on him by police because he “fit the description of a black man with two guns on his waist” when he was 15, I dont think you truly understand how demeaning it is to constantly feel that your life is less than others. To have people want to champion your equality yet others are essentially telling you, “yeah we all have issues“. Sure I’m aware you all have issues but right now what my people have been going through is being rightfully highlighted, please do not try to take away from that. Again I repeat no person who says black lives matter is saying all lives don’t matter, but the reverse is unfortunately not always true. Excuse the wall of text, I’m on mobile.

 

[M2Dave]

How far does that go, though? If I'm someone with a very public platform, be it on a stage, streaming, media talk show, social network, whatever, and I use my platform to espouse racist or hateful ideas, why shouldn't I face some type of consequence for sharing and promoting that belief?

First of all, if someone publishes "hateful ideas", the content as well as context ought to be examined considering the word "racist" gets thrown around a lot now days. For example, I have been accused of spreading "racist propaganda" in this thread on a couple of occasions. LOL. Second of all, society as a whole, not some far-left mob on Twitter, can judge the racist nature of the content as they accurately did with the George Floyd's murder.

See: how JK Rowling is heavily behind it/pushing it when the vast majority of her Twitter existence is peddling hate against trans people.

Harper's Letter has absolutely nothing to do with trans individuals, who are not even mentioned once in the letter. The letter revolves around open and honest debates without the fear of persecution.

People have tried to explain to you why the phrase “all lives matter”, isn’t just a phrase multiple times, and why people do deserve what’s coming to them for using it. As others have pointed out it came about to literally undermine the belief that black lives matter. I challenge you to find people using the phrase “All lives matter” before “black lives matter” became a thing. It exists as a counter to us saying hey we want to matter as much as you guys, but “all lives matter” essentially means you do, what’s the matter?If right now with what’s going on with covid, people started saying hey man, let’s not forget HIV matters too, along with all the other viruses. Would you not agree that people are trying to take away from the rightful attention covid is getting?

Yes HIV is also dangerous we know that, but right now people are getting sick from covid at an alarming rate with possible long term effects, we need to put more focus on that. That’s all black lives matter is, yes we all know all lives matter, but right now black lives are not held to the same standard therefore saying all lives matter is disrespectful and demeaning. I’m not sure if you yourself are a supporter of the phrase so don’t think I’m saying you are, I’m just once again trying to make you understand.

Furthermore again as someone who is black, who has been profiled all his life and literally been pulled over and not asked for identification, just asked where he’s going/if he lives here, as someone who got a gun pulled on him by police because he “fit the description of a black man with two guns on his waist” when he was 15, I dont think you truly understand how demeaning it is to constantly feel that your life is less than others. To have people want to champion your equality yet others are essentially telling you, “yeah we all have issues“. Sure I’m aware you all have issues but right now what my people have been going through is being rightfully highlighted, please do not try to take away from that. Again I repeat no person who says black lives matter is saying all lives don’t matter, but the reverse is unfortunately not always true. Excuse the wall of text, I’m on mobile.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your premise. I believe that people who tweet "All Lives Matter" ought not be fired or exiled from their community. Please remember that just because you defend someone's speech does not mean you support his or her message. Again, I would not kneel during the national anthem, but I support and defend Colin Kapernick's right to do so without any repercussions.

 

[ChaosTheory]

You can take that HIV/Covid analogy in another light...

There's a huge and far more pressing issue for black Americans right now than police brutality. Like it or not, it's the truth. It's the Covid-19 in the analogy. Ruffled feathers aside; police brutality is the HIV of the analogy.

 

[mrapchem]

If you had read my posts in this thread, you would have known that I have criticized the NFL and President Trump on this issue. I disagree with Colin Kapernick's politics, but I support his right to free speech. You and many others have argued that "free speech does not mean freedom of consequences", but I even support freedom of consequences. No NFL owner has wanted to hire Colin Kapernick precisely because of the kneeling.



... which is exactly what is happening sometimes. People have been fired for tweeting "All Lives Matter" and criticizing Black Lives Matter. The fact that 150 scholars, the vast majority of whom are liberals, have signed Harper's Letter proves that cancel culture is a radical and ochlocratic movement. It is contemporary McCarthyism.

I never said you didn't criticize the NFL - as a matter of fact, I never made any statement about your stance on that issue whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

I do not support freedom of consequences for exercising free speech, as this will lead to people like FChamp being able to spout racist tropes over the internet and nobody being able to do anything about it.

Freedom of consequence translates to racists, bigots, sexists, homo/transphobes and others being able to say whatever they want about whomever they wish without repercussion; I absolutely oppose this in all ways, especially since it is diametrically opposed to the full-accountability-driven individualism that you and other center-right/right-wing thinkers claim to cherish so much.

It's interesting to see you proclaim that Black people should take full accountability for their plight in this country, because they have apparently been lied to by the Democrats that all of their problems are caused by racism. Yet, now that you have powerful and accomplished mostly White people wanting to hog up all the free-speech idea space, complaining that everyone else might cancel them, suddenly you embrace the idea of freedom from consequence.

Shouldn't these people take full-accountability for the things that they say, just like you say Black people should? Just a thought....




As for that letter you keep espousing, damn near everyone on that list is a prominent White speaker who already has massive platforms to espouse dissident views. They simply want ALL the real-estate to say anything they wish without blowback. Where is everyone else? Many of the same people that signed that list have ironically hampered the free-speech rights of their colored/LBGTQ counterparts - demonstrating that they are not principled believers in freedom of speech/consequence for all people so much as they are for themselves only.

Those signees already have a great deal of power - their letter signifies their desire to wield even more of it, at the expense of those who would rightfully reject many of their most repugnant members' ideas. They wish to suppress everyone else's free speech by proclaiming theirs to be absolute - hell to the no.




And about those two people that you mentioned several pages ago that were apparently fired for their thoughts - if they were indeed fired strictly because they proclaimed that "All Lives Matter", then that is unfortunate. Poor babies..... Black women get fired from their jobs because of their hair.

However, when you dig into nuances of their stories, it becomes apparent that each of them had underlying issues that were present before their terminations - their posts became the excuse to fire them, not the cause.

And even in the instance that I'm wrong, these people are the fringe cases of so-called "authoritarian cancel-culture"; they are not the rule. The overwhelming "victims" of cancel culture are people that were genuinely degrading marginalized peoples' dignity. They deserved to be cancelled due to their actions - they should have been more accountable for their own shit.

They ought to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and not ask the government or anyone to stop everyone else from exercising their right to democratically and collectively reject piss-poor words and deeds.

 

[mrapchem]

Just going to quote this from Marlow's link, as many people obviously didn't read it.

"The letter was spearheaded by Thomas Chatterton Williams, a Black writer who believes “that racism at once persists and is also capable of being transcended—especially at the interpersonal level.” Since the letter was published, some commentators have used Williams’s presence and the presence of other non-white writers to argue that the letter presents a selection of diverse voices. But they miss the point: the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Some of the problems they bring up are real and concerning — for example, they seem to be referencing a researcher being fired for sharing a study on Twitter. But they are not trends — at least not in the way that the signatories suggest. In reality, their argument alludes to but does not clearly lay out specific examples, and undermines the very cause they have appointed themselves to uphold. In truth, Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people — particularly Black and trans people — can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially; this seems to be the letter’s greatest concern. What’s perhaps even more grating to many of the signatories is that a critique of their long held views is persuasive."

Source (again) - https://theobjective.substack.com/p/14203152-3a83-4068-b6b2-a5007b0e2f5b

I read the article - it is quite eye-opening and fascinating to read. The author is correct.

 

[Marlow]

First of all, if someone publishes "hateful ideas", the content as well as context ought to be examined considering the word "racist" gets thrown around a lot now days.

That's what I've been saying the entire time.

Second of all, society as a whole, not some far-left mob on Twitter, can judge the racist nature of the content as they accurately did with the George Floyd's murder.

Most of the time it's not some far-left or far-right mob. Most of the time it's not even about politics.

 

[M2Dave]

I never said you didn't criticize the NFL - as a matter of fact, I never made any statement about your stance on that issue whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

I was quoting Crimson's post, not yours, on that matter.

Shouldn't these people take full-accountability for the things that they say, just like you say Black people should? Just a thought....

Full accountability according to whom? The far left's perception of racism and hate speech? Ha!

You are also misrepresenting my view on black people and accountability. While personal responsibility could be practiced in the areas of single-parent households and high school retention, an honest discussion about police brutality and certain injustices in the legal system seems valid and necessary. Liberals should not connect every issue to racism. Likewise, conservatives should not connect every issue to personal responsibility. The truth is arguably somewhere in the middle.

Those signees already have a great deal of power - their letter signifies their desire to wield even more of it, at the expense of those who would rightfully reject many of their most repugnant members' ideas. They wish to suppress everyone else's free speech by proclaiming theirs to be absolute - hell to the no.

The people who signed Harper's Letter are some of the most liberal people in the country. Noam Chomsky, whose linguistic theories I study to enhance my teaching, is one of the signers. He is incredibly liberal on almost every single issue. He is on your side. So why are you obsessed with the color of his skin?

And about those two people that you mentioned several pages ago that were apparently fired for their thoughts - if they were indeed fired strictly because they proclaimed that "All Lives Matter", then that is unfortunate. Poor babies..... Black women get fired from their jobs because of their hair.

Where is your evidence? And even if true, how about promoting a society in which neither one happens? Instead, you continue focusing on identity politics, revenge politics, and people's "whiteness".

 

[CrimsonShadow]

You are also misrepresenting my view on black people and accountability. While personal responsibility could be practiced in the areas of single-parent households and high school retention, an honest discussion about police brutality and certain injustices in the legal system seems valid and necessary. Liberals should not connect every issue to racism. Likewise, conservatives should not connect every issue to personal responsibility. The truth is arguably somewhere in the middle.

I think you're misunderstanding what people actually mean. Each one of these issues is connected to racism. No one is saying that there is no personal responsibility.. But you're not asking yourself the obvious question. Which is:

"Are African-Americans somehow just genetically lazier, less morally inclined, or just don't want to be parents, or just like money less then people of a different skin color?"

And if the answer is "no" (and, for anyone who's not racist, I'm hoping the answer is 'no'), then you have to ask yourself why a people who are not genetically predisposed to be any lazier or less loving or more immoral than people with skin of a different color would be behind in certain areas statistically.

And the answer is, and will always be, that that's what happens when you rip people from their motherland, subject them to hundreds of years of slavery, divide their families, beat or kill them if they learn to read and write, use the women for concubines, then 'free' them but don't allow them into schools, restaurants, public facilities, hang them or burn their towns down if they complain, don't let them vote, then later move out when they move in, leave the schools when they're finally allowed to attend them, take the resources out of their neighborhoods so that prosperous and thriving metropolitain areas like Detroit and Oakland become absolute wastelands, constantly harass them with police just for walking or driving a car or existing, etc.

Racism IS the reason. You can run as much as you want, and you can try to talk circles around it, but you can't get away from it.

 

[MrArcher15]

You can take that HIV/Covid analogy in another light...

There's a huge and far more pressing issue for black Americans right now than police brutality. Like it or not, it's the truth. It's the Covid-19 in the analogy. Ruffled feathers aside; police brutality is the HIV of the analogy.

What are you saying?

 

[mrapchem]

I was quoting Crimson's post, not yours, on that matter.



Full accountability according to whom? The far left's perception of racism and hate speech? Ha!

You are also misrepresenting my view on black people and accountability. While personal responsibility could be practiced in the areas of single-parent households and high school retention, an honest discussion about police brutality and certain injustices in the legal system seems valid and necessary. Liberals should not connect every issue to racism. Likewise, conservatives should not connect every issue to personal responsibility. The truth is arguably somewhere in the middle.



The people who signed Harper's Letter are some of the most liberal people in the country. Noam Chomsky, whose linguistic theories I study to enhance my teaching, is one of the signers. He is incredibly liberal on almost every single issue. He is on your side. So why are you obsessed with the color of his skin?



Where is your evidence? And even if true, how about promoting a society in which neither one happens? Instead, you continue focusing on identity politics, revenge politics, and people's "whiteness".

You never espoused any kind of middle-truth argument at all in this thread until now. All before then, all you kept doing is blaming Black people for their own issues and downplaying the effect of racism on their lives. If you had a nuanced view this entire time, you should have expressed it in order to avoid being misrepresented.

Yes, some of the people that signed Harper's letter are quite liberal, like Noam Chomsky. However a large chunk of them are absolutely not liberal at all, which is neither here nor there. My point is virtually all the signees of that letter are powerful and White, whereas the cancel-culture that they oppose is primarily exercised by those that are not, namely Black/Brown/LGBTQ. The counter-letter that Marlow linked points this out quite effectively, if you'd take the time to read it - and it has more signatures than the first one. Plus, I already answered this particular inquiry.

You want evidence that Black women are targets at their jobs because of their hair? I know you won't read these articles, but I'll list them anyway:

https://www.miklasemploymentlaw.com/fired-employee-told-her-afro-was-not-classy-and-did-not-meet-the-company-s-standards..html

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/3/20680946/california-crown-act-natural-hair-discrimination

https://www.ebony.com/culture/black-news-anchor-fired-unprofessional-natural-hair/

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17242788/chastity-jones-dreadlock-job-discrimination

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50786370


Clearly, this is an issue that isn't even limited to American shorelines, but it is still an issue. Plus, I have personal experience with this because my wife was fired from her first banking job at Chase after getting box-braids in her hair. She was a fresh initiate into banking and hadn't made any other mistakes in order to get fired; she did, however, notice the look on her manager's face the day she walked into the branch with her new hairdo.


I'm sure that you and others like you will find some obtuse way to disregard this phenomenon, but I mention it regardless, not as a way to justify "All Lives Matter" terminations, but rather to illustrate that not only are Black female hair texture terminations far more prevalent, but other groups of people are fired for reasons far more trivial than their own words.

Black women and girls are routinely cancelled for their intrinsic features; I and others cancel people because of their delinquent words and deeds.



Our society is growing increasingly intolerant of racist words, deeds and ideas and is moving at a pace to change it that is too rapid for some people. That's unfortunate for them, but it's necessary for the survival of humankind and highly overdue. It remains to be seen if the anti-racist backlash is too harsh, but if a person can't be bothered to learn that using the phrase "All Lives Matter" is little more than a racist dismissal of the insistence that Black lives are important, then I can't be bothered to have sympathy for them. Especially given the fact that:

a.) All-Lives-Matter firings are about as prevalent as blue bumblebees,
b.) there are far more people being fired for either being gay/trans or for wearing hairstyles that are too ethnic,
c.) nearly anyone that is fired for making an 'all lives matter' statement will bounce back on their feet easily because employment opportunities
are near limitless for those that are rich and White
d.) Breonna Taylor's killers STILL haven't been arrested and will likely never be served prison time for their crimes

Those in positions of power aren't going to obtain my sympathy or my defense of their consolidation of freedom - that must be reserved for the vulnerable in our society.

 

[M2Dave]

No one is saying that there is no personal responsibility.

If there is any personal responsibility discussion to be had, you, MrApchem, and Angelman have certainly made no mentions or arguments. Connecting every single issue to racism, as you have done, and preaching personal responsibility is an oxymoron. You can connect certain issues to racism and certain issues to personal responsibility after studying evidence. The feasible lack of success of an African-American man or woman always leaves room for racism yet none for personal responsibility, according to your theory.

Those in positions of power aren't going to obtain my sympathy...

First of all, why do you associate "white" with "power" and "wealth"?

c.) nearly anyone that is fired for making an 'all lives matter' statement will bounce back on their feet easily because employment opportunities are near limitless for those that are rich and White.

Needless to say, there are many poor white people in America who are neither rich nor powerful.

Second of all, if you exhibit no sympathy to others, expect none in return and do not complain about it.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

If there is any personal responsibility discussion to be had, you, MrApchem, and Angelman have certainly made no mentions or arguments. Connecting every single issue to racism, as you have done, and preaching personal responsibility is an oxymoron. You can connect certain issues to racism and certain issues to personal responsibility after studying evidence. The feasible lack of success of an African-American man or woman always leaves room for racism yet none for personal responsibility, according to your theory.

No, you're creating a false dichotomy here that doesn't exist. And you completely missed my point.

No one is saying that any individual doesn't carry responsibility for their lives. We're talking about the fact that if you take the entire African-American race in America, including people of all levels of personal responsibility, work ethic, etc., and compare them to Causasians in America as a whole, at all levels of personal responsibility, work ethic, etc, there's a disparity there on the whole which is not due to any particular person's work ethic, etc.

And so that unless you believe that African-Americans are some how genetically inferior, such that by being born with darker skin, they intrinsically have less work-ethic or take less responsibility than Caucasians (which in itself is a pretty racist talking point), then you have to ask where this disparity came from.

And all it takes is to actually read the history to know where it comes from. The disparity on the whole is not genetic, but is caused by the effects of nearly 400 years of torture, oppression, exploitation, harassment and societal inequality due to racism.

 

[mrapchem]

First of all, why do you associate "white" with "power" and "wealth"?



Needless to say, there are many poor white people in America who are neither rich nor powerful.

Second of all, if you exhibit no sympathy to others, expect none in return and do not complain about it.

I'll let you think about your first inquiry.

To your second statement, that's why I included the qualifier 'and' - to specifically denote people that fall into both categories at the same time. People that are rich and White do indeed have near limitless opportunities, and that is a fact. Clearly, poor Whites do not fall into this category - they are marginalized people that deserve our sympathy, our collective defense as well as policies to directly pull them out of poverty. Just like every other marginalized person in this country.

If you somehow conclude that I - after everything that I've stated in this thread - exhibit no sympathy to others, you ain't been reading. That's on you.

 

[Marlow]

First of all, why do you associate "white" with "power" and "wealth"?

Because in America there's a disproportionate amount of wealth and power concentrated among white people.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/wealth/wealth-asset-ownership.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/

Connecting every single issue to racism, as you have done, and preaching personal responsibility is an oxymoron.

I don't think that's true. We know that things like racism can impact things like poverty, but that doesn't mean all black people who are poor are only because of racism. There's always a place for personal responsibility. But at the same time I don't think it's wise to use personal responsibility as a way to put on blinders to systemic issues.