Massacre at historic African American Church in Charleston

[derspiess]

At the very least stopping the positive reinforcement of racism is a start.

Not sure I agree that it's a positive reinforcement of racism for most who like that flag, those generals, etc.  But to play along, let's say it is.  Then what?

[derspiess]

You were trying to explain a position that I don't understand which is how the history of racism of that place doesn't play a role but instead the actions of the shooter can be explained by the shooter spending time in a predominately black school.  It seems to me spending time in a black school only becomes relevant in a society that views the racial distinction as particularly relevant.

I don't think Yi was just speculating he went to a majority black school.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was meaning to say Roof went to a majority black school and was picked on, or had some other negative experience in that school that warped his impression of black folks.

[crazy canuck]

At the very least stopping the positive reinforcement of racism is a start.

Not sure I agree that it's a positive reinforcement of racism for most who like that flag, those generals, etc.  But to play along, let's say it is.  Then what?

I don't understand your question.  If one accepts that the flag is a positive reinforcement of racist views what legitimate reason can there be for keeping it?

[viper37]

The only dispute I would have is the tone (and maybe I am reading it wrong) that is basically, "Well, changing laws are hard, and don't even work perfectly, so that isn't a solution..."

Ah, well, that is the impression I give, on re-reading myself.  Well, I just want to say it is hard and not 100% guarantee of anything.
Especially for guns since there's so many guns out there, it will take a century before seeing any effect.

To the extent that this man's actions are suscpetible to societal pressure, we can change our societies attitudes. It is entirely possible, even if it is not easy.

Well, tbh, the US did make some tremendous progress since the 60s.
But can societal attitudes change without laws to coherce people into it?  It took a war to finally end slavery, and it took a law that forever altered the political landscape of the US to end segregation.  Of course, the Democrats are already hated in the South, so they could pass new laws against racism.  If only they have a super majority in Congress...

But locally, in each States, really, I don't know.  I can't see the Federal outlawing Confederate Symbols or ciminalizing hate speech, so what do you have in mind, specifically?

Now, 30 year ago someone might say "You cannot just ban smoking! People love to smoke, and there is too much money in it, and it is an ingrained part of our culture. Trying to change it would be hopeless and pointless!" and that would be a pretty convincing argument.

Well, if I remember the debates on Languish, it's closer to 10 years ago, when you yourself might have been talking about nanny state

Yet today, without ever banning smoking, nobody would even consider lighting a cig up in a car full of kids.

Still plenty of people do it, here, at least.  The government talks every now and then about officially banning it.

The rate of smoking is a fraction  of what it used to be. Culturally, smoking is not see as cool, healthy, or something desirable in any way. We made legal changes (restricting where you can smoke in public), economic changes (taxing consumption at high rates) and cultural changes (less "hey this is cool" advertising, etc).

culture wise, I think there's been extensive lobby by non smoking group to pressure Hollywood into reducing the number of smokers on screen.

That part has already been done for black actors in lead role, for treating black actors fairly, for treating black characters fairly and representing slavey not as this cool institution that defined the way of the Ol' South were everyone was happy with their situation (12 years as a slave VS Gone with the Wind).

We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

Standing up and speaking against it, I see it happening, but as for the rest, I do not know enough about what is constitutionnaly legal.

So I don't think we should not do anything because whatever we can do can't work on it's own. I think we should continue to do what we can to combat this kind of ignorance, even if the steps to do so are often small and seemingly ineffective.

I think the Democrat Party should be a lot more agressive in its speech, personally.  Say, use the same tone the Republicans used to justify the war in Irak, i.e., "Defeatocrats" and stuff like that to fight racism and intolerance.  Fight fire with fire.

[crazy canuck]

You were trying to explain a position that I don't understand which is how the history of racism of that place doesn't play a role but instead the actions of the shooter can be explained by the shooter spending time in a predominately black school.  It seems to me spending time in a black school only becomes relevant in a society that views the racial distinction as particularly relevant.

I don't think Yi was just speculating he went to a majority black school.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was meaning to say Roof went to a majority black school and was picked on, or had some other negative experience in that school that warped his impression of black folks.

Ok but again, being picked on by a black kid is only a meaningful description if the racial distinction is particularly relevant.  There are a lot of other ways that hypothetical bully could be described: a kid in an older grade; a kid from a different economic background; a kid from a different social group in the school; or just the group of school thugs that bullied everyone; etc etc etc.

How one gets from being bullied by a kid from a particular racial group to wanting to kill others from that same racial group, its seems to me, is necessarily and by definition informed by a racist point of view.

[Maximus]

I don't get the question, sorry.

the only way to connect the boyfriend in high school with the people in the church was if he was already racist.

[viper37]

Vipe:Sure, we should have thought crime legislation, but not cameras, and I'm the extremist?

Cameras are evil.  But necessary in many places.  Just not with a radar, m'kay?

Well, BB is the expert in Canadian law, but here's what I found on Wikipedia:

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
[...]
In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group"

[derspiess]

I don't understand your question.  If one accepts that the flag is a positive reinforcement of racist views what legitimate reason can there be for keeping it?

My question is where do you proceed from there?  Okay, the flag is gone from state property in southern states and all streets named after Confederate generals have been renamed.  Leaving aside the fact that the flag will still be fairly ubiquitous on private property, what's next?

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand your question.  If one accepts that the flag is a positive reinforcement of racist views what legitimate reason can there be for keeping it?

My question is where do you proceed from there?  Okay, the flag is gone from state property in southern states and all streets named after Confederate generals have been renamed.  Leaving aside the fact that the flag will still be fairly ubiquitous on private property, what's next?

If racism isn't officially sanctioned then one would hope one would see a reduction of racism over time.  I seem to have more faith in your countrymen than you do.

[Barrister]

Vipe:Sure, we should have thought crime legislation, but not cameras, and I'm the extremist?

Cameras are evil.  But necessary in many places.  Just not with a radar, m'kay?

Well, BB is the expert in Canadian law, but here's what I found on Wikipedia:

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
[...]
In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group"

They're mixing up the Criminal Code charges with human rights commissions.  Two separate legal processes.

[derspiess]

Well, you're wrong. It signals that the cultural victory of revanchist white racists is finally being rolled back, and that symbols of treason and slavery will at least no longer be endorsed by the state, and thereby are not endorsed by the sovereign, the people. It will nor solve race in America, but it will remove one brick from racism's foundation,

I appreciate your idealism but I don't see it as having the same effect you guys see. 

And don't get me wrong, I despise the Confederate battle flag and would be all for having it banned from my state capitol if I were unfortunate enough to live in such a state. 

[Berkut]

I think the pervasive racism that still exists, that drives to some extent the actions of otherwise marginally stable individuals, can and should be attacked. Culturally, politically, and legally. They all go together, and they all feed off of one another. We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

I don't think removing the Confederate battle flag from state property and renaming streets is going to do anything to stop people from being racist.  What other suggestions do you have?

I think you are wrong. And I think any possible other step I could contemplate will be dismissed out of hand just like this one was, and just like people once dismissed the silly notion that making black people drink from different fountains could reduce racism.

[derspiess]

If racism isn't officially sanctioned then one would hope one would see a reduction of racism over time.  I seem to have more faith in your countrymen than you do.

I disagree with your assumption that flying or displaying the flag = officially sanctioning racism. 

[Berkut]

I don't understand your question.  If one accepts that the flag is a positive reinforcement of racist views what legitimate reason can there be for keeping it?

My question is where do you proceed from there?  Okay, the flag is gone from state property in southern states and all streets named after Confederate generals have been renamed.  Leaving aside the fact that the flag will still be fairly ubiquitous on private property, what's next?

I dunno - what do you think?

How about we address what we can now, see how that plays out, then proceed?

[crazy canuck]

If racism isn't officially sanctioned then one would hope one would see a reduction of racism over time.  I seem to have more faith in your countrymen than you do.

I disagree with your assumption that flying or displaying the flag = officially sanctioning racism.

I would like to hear your argument as to why you disagree. 

And by the way, no take backs, you posed your question to me assuming it did.