What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Let's not keep changing words to keep up with the treadmill.  Every term will eventually get abused, and we're eventually going to run out of combinations of letters to put together if we keep coming up with new and improved versions of the terms to shed the baggage of the prior version.

Okay "white supremacy" is divisive and part of the "treadmill". What term and vocabulary would you like to discuss the fact that the US is set up - in some cases deliberately and in some cases with no overt intent - to consistently treat white people better than black people?

Or do you disagree that that is a fact? Even if you do, I'm still curious what term you'd prefer to discuss the subject since it appears that many people think that it is a fact. Presumably it'd be good to have the argument over whether it's a fact in a less divisive and treadmill-like fashion. So what alternative vocabulary do you prefer?

I think he's agreeing with your POV!

But you don't. You think the terms are divisive - so what terms you prefer be used instead?

[Valmy]

Speaking of crime that was a crazy speech Trump gave to those cops today. Or at least the part Scipio posted on Facebook.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344364-trump-encourages-cops-to-be-rough-with-suspects

Yeah thanks for that Trump.

[Malthus]

Well it does, extreme levels of black violent crime, typically exist only in very specific areas yes? But I don't have any specific information. I mean supposedly in New York and LA things are cool now some small areas in St Louis, Baltimore, and Chicago are very dangerous. But I have never seen very selective crime stats broken down by area and all that before. They probably exist.

What exactly that means or what could therefore be done to help those areas I don't know.

The first step, I'd submit, is to examine the problem. What is causing it? Only then can something be done about it.

For example, in Toronto, there is a great reluctance to publicly admit what is in fact well known - that a large percentage of the gang violence is committed by Jamaicans of recent origin.

On the left, the tendency is to concentrate on the racism (express or implicit) of the press, police and (non-Black) public in reaction to these facts. Example:

http://rrj.ca/collateral-damage/

The right is more emphatic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/toronto-shooting_b_1683102.html

Notice that there is no great disagreement between the two sides over the fact that Jamaicans create a lot of the problem.

[dps]

But I thought we were discussing the appropriateness of white supremacy and systemic racism to describe the current situation. I argue that it captures something that previous discussion of racism didn't. You seem to argue that it detracts from genuine discussion. But thus far, the questions about systems that Jacob, JR or I asked have all been deflected by how the loony left is using distracting words.

It isn't about "deflection". Though it is a neat rhetorical trick, to throw around loaded terms and then accuse one's opponents of "deflection"! 

Rather, it's a genuine disagreement over the cause of inequality of outcome that everyone admits exists.

Do they exist because of current racial animus and "White Supremacy"?

Once again, no-one denies that racists and White Supremacists exist today. How much actual influence do they have, though? If they were all eliminated or changed their minds tomorrow - would the perceived inequalities between racial groups disappear?

On the other hand - are these inequalities based on historical and cultural factors that are unlikely to disappear, even if every single White Supremacist was converted? And why does this matter?

I submit, it matters because the solutions one ought to rationally adopt for change will be different, and depend a lot on what one thinks the actual problems are.

Those on the "loony left" (your term) tend to view these things in almost religious terms - convert everyone to one point of view, and change will happen. Raise consciousness. If White, accept guilt and acknowledge privilege - much like the rite of confession. Purge oneself of racial sins.

Problem is, none of that, cathartic though it may be, will of itself create actual change. That requires concrete proposals - over which, as I've said, reasonable people may disagree: the example I've given (though no-one wished to debate it) was "hard" racial quotas. 

 

My take is that the legal structures that institutionalized racism have been removed, and the "system" as such, today, is not racist.  The disparity in outcomes we see today are the result of historical legal discrimination, and ingrained cultural attitudes within poor black communities that tend to retard progress (and similar attitudes exist in many poor white communities, which also tends to inhibit social and economic progress in those communities as well).

Since (IMO) current laws aren't racist, I don't see how the problem can be attacked legislatively.  Education could certainly help, and we probably need to do something to improve educational opportunities in poor communities.  But, OTOH, I think that's problematic at least in the near term, because one of the cultural attitudes that holds back many poor communities is a disdain for "book learning".  There is a heavy strain of anti-intellectualism among the poor in America (though it's not limited to just the poor;  it exists in the middle class as well, and there is probably some of it even in the upper class). 

Incidentally, I think one of the reasons that many Asian immigrants in America do so well comparatively is that they don't have a cultural disdain for learning.

[Malthus]

But you don't. You think the terms are divisive - so what terms you prefer be used instead?

That's just it. I have no quarrel with terms like "racist" and "White supremacist". I'd just prefer that they be used for racists and White Supremacists.

In looking at problems (such as unequal outcomes), I'd prefer a reasoned analysis as to what is continuing to cause the unequal outcomes, rather than resorting to slogans - of whatever sort. If it is "racism" then it is racism.

To give a concrete example - as in another strand of this discussion - one unequal outcome is that young Black Jamaicans are unequally involved in gun violence in my city. I suspect that the cause of this is rooted in Jamaican culture, in which violent gangs feature among a criminal minority.

While the response in the non-Jamaican community and police may well be an increase in racism, as Blacks are unfairly smeared and targeted (see "carding" controversy) racism (or even "racism" of whatever diluted type) isn't the cause. Even if every person in Toronto converted to anti-racism overnight, if I am correct, gun violence would still be a problem in the Jamaican community.

In short, focusing on "racism" would simply prove ineffective - because in this case, that's not the problem.

[DGuller]

I personally think the big problem is not with words, but with the ability to say them without repercussions.  This one is squarely on the left. 

You cannot solve problems if you can't clearly state them without beating around the bush, or if requirement of politeness require you to say things that you know or should know are false.  You also discredit yourself by saying things are the the right things to say but factually false.

[Fate]

Hah. Reince Priebus is out. What's gonna happen next week on Survivor White House edition?

[derspiess]

Speaking of crime that was a crazy speech Trump gave to those cops today. Or at least the part Scipio posted on Facebook.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344364-trump-encourages-cops-to-be-rough-with-suspects

Yeah thanks for that Trump.

I heard it on the radio.  Pretty sure he was making a joke.

[garbon]

Apparently the Mooch is now getting divorced.

[HVC]

Caught with an intern already? If so that's record time.

[garbon]

His wife has said she was tired of his naked ambition which is enormous.

[mongers]

Hah. Reince Priebus is out. What's gonna happen next week on Survivor White House edition?

That was quick.

But given the maturity of those involved, what about 'Lord of the Flies' instead?

[11B4V]

Hah. Reince Priebus is out. What's gonna happen next week on Survivor White House edition?

That was quick.

But given the maturity of those involved, what about 'Lord of the Flies' instead?

Only in America. Seedy we will survive this.

[derspiess]

His wife has said she was tired of his naked ambition which is enormous.

Most women seem to like that.

[Jacob]

That's just it. I have no quarrel with terms like "racist" and "White supremacist". I'd just prefer that they be used for racists and White Supremacists.

So are you saying the terms should only be applied to people, not to systems or organizations?

In looking at problems (such as unequal outcomes), I'd prefer a reasoned analysis as to what is continuing to cause the unequal outcomes, rather than resorting to slogans - of whatever sort. If it is "racism" then it is racism.

To give a concrete example - as in another strand of this discussion - one unequal outcome is that young Black Jamaicans are unequally involved in gun violence in my city. I suspect that the cause of this is rooted in Jamaican culture, in which violent gangs feature among a criminal minority.

While the response in the non-Jamaican community and police may well be an increase in racism, as Blacks are unfairly smeared and targeted (see "carding" controversy) racism (or even "racism" of whatever diluted type) isn't the cause. Even if every person in Toronto converted to anti-racism overnight, if I am correct, gun violence would still be a problem in the Jamaican community.

In short, focusing on "racism" would simply prove ineffective - because in this case, that's not the problem.

I'm not sure I follow completely but I'll give it a go...

You're saying the the issues that are receiving attention in Toronto regarding Jamaicans are not particularly due to systemic racism or white supremacy, and it would be a mistake to analyze them as such? Fair enough. I'm sure there are other cases like that.

Looking at the US are you saying that each particular incident (i.e. Freddy Grey's death) or type of issue (the high rate of death of black men when interacting with police) should be analyzed, but to argue that they form a larger pattern of systemic racism and/ or white supremacy is "resorting to slogans" and not "reasoned analysis"?

Or is that okay, it's just that sometimes people apply those terms to other situations and issues that are manifestly not contributing to systemic racism or white supremacy, and that gets your goat?