The News Thread

[CiG]

I've heard the phrase colourism before, which was used by a black intellectual to separate overt, actively prejudiced racism from subconscious tribalism which sees people treat those of similar skin colour preferably.

 

[rms]

pretty sure colorism is an inter-black discrimination of light vs. dark skin blacks, at least in America. not sure if it's a global thing or what not

 

[CiG]

No that is shadism.

 

[rms]

maybe in aus, not here. never heard shadism in my life

 

[CiG]

Well the black guy that used colourism in the sense I'm talking about was American but they're actually probably just synonyms for the same thing.

 

[Krow]

pretty sure colorism is an inter-black discrimination of light vs. dark skin blacks, at least in America. not sure if it's a global thing or what not

Dunno if it's true or not but I've heard Africans aren't fans of African Americans for the most part.

 

[rms]

Well the black guy that used colourism in the sense I'm talking about was American but they're actually probably just synonyms for the same thing.

https://twitter.com/bomani_jones/status/873868898852098048

you can read this little chain to get a sense of it

Dunno if it's true or not but I've heard Africans aren't fans of African Americans for the most part.

yes and i attribute that because of the negativity of american black culture

 

[EternalMetal]

Well, I absolutely fall prey to this, but it's usually because it feels easier to keep saying "racism" rather than introducing additional terms. On an individual level, I'd use "bigot" instead of "racist."

That said, I have some problems with it, primarily with his really weird logic when dealing with the different definitions of racism. Take this section in particular:



This assumes the consequences are homogeneous--i.e. that there is no harm caused to any minority community because of all the hypothetical material benefits.

You talk negatively about assuming homogeneity and then mention minority communities. I think the point is the immerse yourself in the scenario for the sake of theoretical discussion, the specifics of what can happen are purposefully ignored.

That's absurd because the material benefits outnumbering the symbolic detriments doesn't mean that the symbolic detriments disappear. Even sticking to the logic of consequences, it makes no sense to say that the KKK not marching would be the (more) racist behavior.

The ends justify the means vs. original intent. Since the meaning of "Definition By Consequences" implies the former, he is arguing exactly that: it would be racist not to march since the outcome was more positive for anti-racist motives. If you can inadvertently be racist, you can also inadvertently be anti-racist. The absurd scenario is at least in part a point the author is trying to make; he is logically following an accepted definition of racism and spinning a scenario that debunks it as irrationally derived.

If the KKK hadn't marched, the support that was realized because of the march would still be there, supposedly. It just simply wouldn't have to be demonstrated in the first place. The minority community could be comfortable in the fact that they don't have to deal with blatant hostility from hate groups, and derive from this comfort the conclusion that they (the minority) are a widely accepted community. That the support had to be shown underscores their support by the country at large, sure; but it also illuminates the persistence of a loathsome sect that reminds the minority group of their troubled history in this country. The fact that widespread support was shown doesn't erase the negative consequence of a Klan march.

The point of the excerpt was reaction and result. Your analysis seems reasonable to me, but doesnt really run parallel with the point the author was trying to make. If initially non-racist motives can be deemed racist by consequence, then the latter must be true. The main point being that it is disingenuous to label someone as a racist if their acts inadvertently provide racial consequences. The author previously provides 6 examples of people who make decisions that would consider them a racist by the definition of consequence (ok, maybe except for Dan who kept his stupid mouth shut). The author is being painstakingly consistent with logic to prove this point, in which he knows will be misinterpreted considering the implications.

 

[Einherjar86]

You talk negatively about assuming homogeneity and then mention minority communities. I think the point is the immerse yourself in the scenario for the sake of theoretical discussion, the specifics of what can happen are purposefully ignored.



The ends justify the means vs. original intent. Since the meaning of "Definition By Consequences" implies the former, he is arguing exactly that: it would be racist not to march since the outcome was more positive for anti-racist motives. If you can inadvertently be racist, you can also inadvertently be anti-racist. The absurd scenario is at least in part a point the author is trying to make; he is logically following an accepted definition of racism and spinning a scenario that debunks it as irrationally derived.



The point of the excerpt was reaction and result. Your analysis seems reasonable to me, but doesnt really run parallel with the point the author was trying to make. If initially non-racist motives can be deemed racist by consequence, then the latter must be true. The main point being that it is disingenuous to label someone as a racist if their acts inadvertently provide racial consequences. The author previously provides 6 examples of people who make decisions that would consider them a racist by the definition of consequence (ok, maybe except for Dan who kept his stupid mouth shut). The author is being painstakingly consistent with logic to prove this point, in which he knows will be misinterpreted considering the implications.

Regarding the author's main point, which you emphasize--that if non-racist motives can be deemed racist by consequence, then the opposite must also be true--I think that's correct, and I'm not trying to suggest it isn't possible. I think my main problem is with his example, which maybe I'm making too much of... but as I see it, we can't simplify this example to an instance of racist motives that generate non-racist consequences. Regardless of intent or motive, this scenario (as the author outlines it) generates both racist and non-racist consequences. It can't simply be reduced to one or the other.

That was what I was referring to by homogeneity. I realize that I'm assuming the same thing when discussing minority communities, but it seems to me that the author is already assuming a uniform reaction/response to the Klan march within the community itself.

The abstract logic makes sense, I just don't think the example adequately illustrates it.

 

[Dak]

I appreciate that as a Jew, SA didn't make a special exception for antisemitism.

 

[arg]

FAKE NEWS

 

[Satanstoenail]

A woman was found trapped under the kitchen floor of a 'haunted' house in the burbs of Melbourne this week.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/w...urne-house-for-four-days-20170624-gwxyyc.html

Metropolitan Fire Brigade Commander Roger Chitty said the woman was "extremely dehydrated and incoherent".

"We weren't able to make conversation with her," Commander Chitty said.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Cardinal Pell is finally going to have to come home and face the music...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-29/cardinal-george-pell-charged-sexual-assault-offences/8547668

 

[Einherjar86]

So much for democrats being the only ones who don't know how to operate guns.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/hoax-anti-confederate-rally?utm_term=.mmNEZnmQE#.cf7X70rZX

A self-described “patriot” accidentally shot himself in the leg at Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, where he and dozens of others had assembled to protest reports of a group allegedly planning to desecrate Confederate graves and burn flags.

Turns out, the whole anti-Confederate rally was a hoax.

Benjamin Hornberger, 23, shot himself in the leg Saturday when he accidentally triggered his revolver as he briefly rested the bottom of his flagpole against the holster it was in, Penn Live reported. Park police applied a tourniquet until he could be transported by paramedics.

The rally he and dozens of others were at was in response to reports that anti-fascist group Antifa was going to show up to damage graves and burn Confederate flags on the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.

But those reports turned out to be false.

 

[CiG]

Apparently he is a volunteer firefighter and is ex-military. Articles are saying his gun was a mess.

Edit: And his Facebook is now being flooded with mocking and hateful comments.

 

[Dak]

I'm trying to figure out how a revolver went off by accident in the holster, and then supposedly again when a cop tried to unload it. Either the gun was a total pos and/or the reporting was wrong on the gun type. Maybe shitty reloads?

 

[arg]

 

[J.]

Love it.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/...ed-a-culture-of-brutality-in-the-marines.html

Such a terrible article for multiple reasons. First, the stupid bitch is conflating getting choked or having your head slammed against a wall with the standard training that hurts her ignorant sensibilities. Second, providing the number of investigations over years and years without the context of how many recruits come through, how many are limited to how many DIs (betting it's the same handful), etc, while talking about the "culture of brutality". Third, no counter interviews unless you count a couple of officers (who have never experienced enlisted bootcamp). Fourth, the throw away reference to the phone call and then later explaining why it sounded like it did without tying the two together explicitly. Fifth, a throw away quote about the Marine Corps "not evolving" and comment about a "shadow culture" from the everpresent "unnamed source(s)". Sixth, presenting the well known/established (hell, shits on multiple videos available on youtube) boot camp routines as revealed to the author as "a production", like it's a problematic secret rather than the point. I could go on.

She listed five particularly bad incidents including the title incident, starting at 2005 (full disclosure, I was about to graduate boot camp when the drowning incident occurred) and going to 2016. In that time, ~187,000 recruits went through Parris Island, including myself. With rigorous training which includes sleep deprivation, food deprivation, live firing hundreds of rounds per recruit with ( and some recruits that may have never handled a weapon before), carrying heavy weights, martial arts training, exposure to high heat/humidity or extreme cold, rappelling, intense physical training, many bodies in close quarters with a lack of showering/laundry, and fear and disorientation, it's statistically fucking amazing that there aren't more incidents (obviously there are plenty of recruits that are hurt/get sick/quit out etc otherwise, but not dying in the pool or on the range or whatever). Culture my goddamn ass.

 

[CiG]

So in Hamburg the so called anti-fascists are causing mayhem. People standing outside of their houses watching their own cars that were set on fire burning.