Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Good grief, are we still going on about this!?!?! :ohmy:

And I thought Congress was adept at wasting time... :huh: :pinch: :whistle:

It's possible that people who choose to keep talking about a particular subject do so because they continue to get something out their participation. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not beneficial. How long have people been discussing Jesus? 2000 years? And many of them will continue because to them the job isn't finished until Jesus comes back. So excuse us, but can we let conversations continue until the people having them feel like stopping?

Adder: The implication being they start as the same group and its their definition of the struggle which creates the difference. A better term might be overcomers of sufferers and those who don't.

I'm not sure so I'm asking.

Are you assuming that people who complain about racism are "sufferers" and those who don't are "over comers"? (because I've heard this type of sentiment before) If so, I don't think this is a fair assumption because people can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can complain about racism while making almost six figures and know others who do the same. Because part of it is not just seeing and speaking on what happens to you as an individual but you as a "group". This comes with the understanding that you are seen as part of that group and therefore, no matter who you are or how much you enjoy jogging, you can still be viewed by others as a burglar suspect. And unfortunately I don't have to use my imagination for this. I'm talking about Ahmaud Arbery. Not only have there been no arrests, but the obvious thing to me is that no body saw Arbery committing a crime. And just like George Zimmerman, the actual danger isn't the black guy jogging or the black guy walking down an alley wearing a hoodie. The danger is the people who automatically suspect them of being criminals when they aren't even law enforcement. These would be the first people who would get agitated if they felt like they weren't living in a free country but they make it less free for other people.

In this scenario it doesn't matter ONE BIT whether the jogger, walker, etc. thinks they are an over comer or a sufferer. It would actually be to their benefit to think about the dangers they face so they have a better idea how to react and respond when this danger (typically from white Americans) actually comes. For instance, in one real life example, the black guy notified the officer that there was a gun present in the car and that he had a permit. Still he ended up shot with his girlfriend and her baby in the car. What did he do wrong?

In many scenarios racism is something that happens to the person because it's about how OTHER PEOPLE view you. It's not about how you view yourself. You are a victim simply by being victimized. And so the fact that this threat exists is not avoidable and something that every black person should be prepared for. In order to be prepared we cannot be ignorant to the problem. And when it keeps happening to us, ignorance becomes less and less possible. Parents are concerned about their sons, if nothing else, because even if a child isn't aware that they are hated and feared, their parents know. And they worry about what can happen to their INNOCENT child. Arbery was 100% innocent when he died; just as many black people are innocent when they don't get a job or they get passed over time and time again for a promotion. It happens. We know it happens. We know because we keep experiencing it and we share our experiences. It's simply more rare that we share those same experiences with white Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/22/more-than-people-have-been-lynched-us-trump-isnt-one-them/

In the end, being the change I want means being successful while being able to spark and participate in more conversations about race to raise awareness and to share perspectives so that we can gradually shift the culture to one of more empathy (which benefits more than just victims of racism) in general. But to achieve empathy people have to be able to feel someone else's pain and imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. What if that was their family. What if they themselves didn't feel safe just jogging, not because they were scared of criminals like what should be normal, but because they were scared of everyone else. One of the worst things about racism is that we don't know who is racist. We really don't. There's no face tattoo or mole in a certain place; not Hitler mustache we can all see. It could be anyone and therefore you don't know who might be the threat. It's like the woman in the red dress in the Matrix. You have to assume that everyone could be an agent the same way that so-called law abiding citizens assume that everyone (but for racists, especially black people) could be a criminal. And so when they should see something as normal behavior (someone running because they like to run and do it for exercise) they see something else. They project intent onto that otherwise innocent person because they imagine their guilt. It's not just terrible. It's terrorizing. And when Dylan Roof shot up the church that is exactly what he wanted to achieve. Terror. And it is a continuation of the same thing people wanted to achieve with confederate statues and flags. These things then become "Dog whistles". Non racists either don't know what they mean or allow themselves to think it means whatever they say it means. And it becomes "just history" or "just" whatever. And it's downplayed like it's not a problem at all.

Adder: one can afford to exert a level of interaction between someone 'closer' then someone 'removed' from the capability (to measure and adjust each others participation). The less control available the less capability can be applied (either way), but its a two way street and once one party indicates it's not willing to develop a strong relationship then it has to limit the capability offered to that connection.

I understand perfectly, but this is the problem. As I said in earlier posts, racism is like a virus that is concentrated in different more isolated communities. The more dense the white population is the less likely they are getting adequately exposed to black people and so their image of black people is often based on anecdotes and stereotypes and movies. Shows like Blackish are good as they bring up many of the same topics I do in approachable comical forms but racists don't necessarily watch these shows because they really don't want to have their views challenged or changed. They just assume they're right. And because they don't actually know black people, and therefore far removed, it is easier not to care and to treat them less than human. For the same reason they are probably not going to talk to me or have a real conversation with me about race; especially if they believe their race is superior. But their also far removed from you and others who I would say are more evolved in their thinking. It's like they have the disease and you have the antibodies. A lot of people have been under the assumption that if we don't talk about it, it will go away on its own. It hasn't. And that's because these isolated communities are echo chambers where the virus is constantly reinforced and jumping from person to person. These people often lead very different lives but sometimes those lives overlap and that's where racists are able to victimize minorities.

If these isolated communities had direct exposure to black people that would help. But they don't and typically what you said about being "removed" means that they don't care enough to empathize. But my thing is that if a BAD IDEA, like racism, can be spread virally then it makes sense, at least in my head, that a cure... a GOOD IDEA, can also be spread virally. And communities isolated from minorities may not get such a cure from minorities themselves, but could get that cure from other communities that think differently but share more of their culture and especially its corresponding historical identity as they are more likely to marry and have children with others of that same identity. There are other communities where there are a lot of interracial couples, and often that influence makes more room for interracial couples and pushes very hard against racist ideas. I've seen it. So to mean the removal thing you spoke about is 100% true; however, it can also be overcome. Just not by minorities directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDj8jaialk

For anyone who says "I don't see color" please start watching this video at the 26 min mark. This is not a judgment against you if you say this. Again, the point is so that you can have more productive conversations with people of color.

Nah she is incorrect to assert that is why people say it. Yes I'm sure it might be why 'some' say it, but for others they simply don't need to focus on one groups struggle to acknowledge and focus on the dynamics of dealing with it. At the level of interpersonal relations the application of equality not only does not need a focus on a groups individual struggle, it can be counter-productive to assume that is the only struggle or an accurate representation. Much better to view people as people, and approach things on an equal footing IMO.

But of course my answer might beg the point that things are never equal and not all people are going to be acting fairly, but that is not relevant to this point because I'm talking about the defensive of a point of view from mis-characterization like the lady in the video above.

I guess at a deeper level the problem with her point is, and perhaps your point, these concepts of race are not universal. If they are not, then why bother applying them as seeing people by them. It all comes off as a bit preachy to the choir, because if you tell a racist to see race then its not really helping. So it seems to be more about setting a narrative of emotion by race rather then any measure of anti-discrimination by any real measure.

PS: sorry I didn't see your earlier reply back in April.
From a super super quick look back at it, I'd say no, rather it's about change over time, such that both group were victims but only one retains the suffering as a paradigm to interpret reality such that things become defined as if they were a victim and as a result still are suffering - compared to those victims who overcame it and whilst still no doubt not entirely without suffering are distinct in that they are more able to be tied up in the counter-productive elements of suffering to act more effectively.

Although I admire Jane Elliot : I’ve never met physically the people she always speaks of.

For me - and just me - no one else has to vibe or bibe this way at all but I see a lot of arguments that are either some one else or something else - rarley first hand. Though a lot of what she says is first hand - that’s the part I appreciate and have trouble with. Just me. Sounds like a lot of projection, and that’s really my beef - that’s all. It may not be projection but from here - that’s what it looks like

I've always said, everyone doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when they say it. The point IS that these concepts of race are not universally understood. That, my brother, is why I was presenting a more universal statement of saying the same thing without offending anyone. And then ironically, some people seemed offended at my suggestion. Like I had broken through some kind of political correctness dimension that they didn't want to be limited by.

The point is how things are said vs how things are understood and this can be affected by region and culture. If you're a white person in the US you might hear this and say this and mean something different. If you're a white person in Australia you might say this, thinking it isn't at all controversial, and you can mean to be as least offensive as possible and literally be surprised when someone is offended. And therefore you might take their offense to be their problem. That's not an unlikely or unreasonable scenario.

But it's like asking them to not be offended to bend to your meaning because you're trying to say something positive instead of bending to their meaning and understanding why they are offended and seeing what you're saying as negative.




Jane Elliot, as she explains, is famous for providing "experiences" where people are able to confront their biases. She exposed how these biases can result in oppression. And she did this with classes of students and adults. The results have been consistent enough that she is famous for it. And so she's not simply speaking from her personal opinion but from an opinion academically educated and well reasoned from these group experiences. Her frustration started during the civil rights movement and hearing responses from the white community to Martin Luther King. That's what started her down this path. It really is fascinating, but she was able to confirm a lot of the feelings and suspicions black people have had because we've been quietly dealing with this for hundreds of years. It's so common place that many white people simply aren't conscious of it. And that's her point; that it's unconscious. You can be racist and really not even know it. I know that sounds impossible to a lot of people. But these biases don't always come out until they are tested. Do I think you are unconsciously racist? Probably not. It's really the product of nurture and societal norms. When a group decides that, for example, "brown eyes" are superior and then blue eyes become a lower class. Eventually, negative stereotypes get attached to having blue eyes.

...or blond hair...

It doesn't matter what that physical difference is, it's simply the difference itself. That's why I don't like the statement, that a person doesn't see color because it's not literally true. Unless you're a K9 you do see color. But what you see should be that there is nothing wrong with that color or pigmentation or lack thereof. Saying I don't see color is like saying you don't hear words. Of course you hear words. Of course you receive stimuli. The problem isn't the stimuli but your reaction to it.

There's many things you can say. Jane Elliot likes to say there are many colors but there's only 1 race. That's totally true and acceptable and the only people who should be offended by that are racists who want there to be multiple "races". But are there different colors? Yes, of course there are. And color is beautiful. Who wants to see all flowers in black and white? So, when I hear that phrase, it, to me, sounds like the person wants to ignore something that to me is beautiful. I understand that may not be what you mean, but that was my point. That if you (people in general) want to be understood better and have more effective conversations on race it'd be better to stay away from certain rhetoric even though it seems to be okay by the amount of white people who use it.

I think what you posted here is a much more logical way than is presented to the average white person in the US. It makes it very reasonable to me, however leaves me with a question.

So both sides of the conversation, the rhetoric is causing an interference between the parties?

Rhetoric can be an issue of context, implied and literal meaning.

This causes both parties in the conversation to prejudge the other by a misunderstanding of what one means to the other?

How do we fix that? There has to be a point where we come together.


Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Thank you.

I think it's simple. There are many scenarios in which one side of the table lacks the knowledge, insight, and experience, the other side of the table has on that subject. So the side that knows more should lead the subject. If we're talking about women's rights/equality you can't "mansplain" what women should know or think on that issue. It would be silly. But it doesn't stop men from doing it. Sarah Silverman made a video that comically talked about the gender cap specifically in terms of wages. Still, a lot of men feel that "male privilege" doesn't exist. Why? Because they're using their limited experiences and trying to impose their view of the world upon a woman who can literally look at the statistics and see that women are paid less. And this even accounts for maternity leave.

If we think about how we should treat women, and how sexism is still a thing, it would be silly to tell women that you don't see their gender. Do women seeking to be equal mean they don't want you to be a gentleman or that they don't want any compliments? Maybe there are people who say "I don't see your gender" but how does every woman react to this? Does it sound genuine? Or does it sound like something men made up to make themselves sound like they weren't sexist?

Ultimately, this needs to be more of a listening experience where we listen to the experiences of those who have a story to tell; whether its oppression in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, molestation, etc. Listen so we can understand and ask questions here and there (Respectfully) when we don't.

The answer is in the understanding. Because if you understand 2+2=4 you wont be going around saying 2+2=5. And if your kids hear you say 2+2=4 then they wont be running around with the wrong answer too. And when their friend says 2+2=5 they can correct them (and trust me they will if children feel comfortable enough with the answer). So this works even with the definition of racism that we use. That too is part of the problem for us getting on the same page. But the biggest thing is to listen and try to understand. Don't try to mansplain gender or whitesplain race.

Because it is entirely possible that you don't know the whole story; that you don't know what you don't know. And that's okay.

I agree completely. Now one of the things I have to ask about is are or were we not making progress on those fronts at all? Things are drastically different than even 10 years ago.

I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds?

The last thing I have to ask is because we just had a good discussion here (at least a great start IMHO). So, I have been able to make sense as I am sure many here have. Now, how do we make that message one can understand with out this form of conversation (to appeal to more without making them feel threatened and guilty instead of truly enlightening them)?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

“
I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds? “


This is the biggest thing for me. I don’t trust just anyone. My fault. I’m working on it.

It’s - for me - ingrained in the “acceptance” rather than tolerant.

I like to validate. It’s the Jedi in me I guess or the soldier.

This is why Joseph C. is still hard for me to read all the way through - I have to find out what he’s talking about.

THESE type of ideas seem to merry go round untill you get off the idea or ride. That’s just for me personally.

Some days I just have to take peoples word for it.
Acceptance can be a distraction as well as frustrating but in the end it’s worth it for me.

Sad this day we live in - some experiences arnt real - some folk just want the attention - some are just bored... some need some want - what a mess to sift through - every time. .... every time .... every time ....

What a mess

My hope is that every modern day Jedi understand the need for personal balance. Ya gotta have it. You can have it -

I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

But.... you gotta figure it out - on your own- for you-

Have


What a good word today





Have

The "I don't see your 'characteristic'" has to be taken in the proper context though. It seems implausible that anyone can think it means that the characteristic is invisible. It's rather, a phrase denoting the opposite of what its accused, ie it's a statement of anti-discrimination awareness, not ignorance of discriminatory factors... and is used within that context. I don't think people go around saying it out of that context, just because it doesn't quite make any sense and indeed can only be explained by some idea like she was proposing, however at odds with anyone I know who uses it. I'm not sure if that is a cancel culture thing or not. I don't see your gender could easily be I don't see your age.... and yet these days its not uncommon for job applications to specifically exclude the applicants age so that unconscious bias does not discriminate against mature age applicants within the process of hiring (which is the context in this example). Same sorta thing, but it's a bad example because it's not uncommon for people to pay less attention to age because so many other factors in a person's presence have so much more relevance.... which coincidentally tends to support my other point which is that the individual characteristic at play might not necessarily be all that relevant to dictating the terms of the interaction to begin with.

So you'd have to ask what a person meant by it to know what they meant by it. Assuming it's racist and feeling hurt goes to my point about suffering dictating perception beyond useful measures. There could be a few reasons for its use other than what I'm familiar with. One person might mean for example it helps them move past trauma maybe I dunno. For me, it's a Jedi thing lol, and applies to gender, etc, as well, and species... I try to see the Force

Adder wrote: The "I don't see your 'characteristic'" has to be taken in the proper context though. It seems implausible that anyone can think it means that the characteristic is invisible. It's rather, a phrase denoting the opposite of what its accused, ie it's a statement of anti-discrimination awareness, not ignorance of discriminatory factors... and is used within that context. I don't think people go around saying it out of that context, just because it doesn't quite make any sense and indeed can only be explained by some idea like she was proposing, however at odds with anyone I know who uses it. I'm not sure if that is a cancel culture thing or not. I don't see your gender could easily be I don't see your age.... and yet these days its not uncommon for job applications to specifically exclude the applicants age so that unconscious bias does not discriminate against mature age applicants within the process of hiring (which is the context in this example). Same sorta thing, but it's a bad example because it's not uncommon for people to pay less attention to age because so many other factors in a person's presence have so much more relevance.... which coincidentally tends to support my other point which is that the individual characteristic at play might not necessarily be all that relevant to dictating the terms of the interaction to begin with.

So you'd have to ask what a person meant by it to know what they meant by it. Assuming it's racist and feeling hurt goes to my point about suffering dictating perception beyond useful measures. There could be a few reasons for its use other than what I'm familiar with. One person might mean for example it helps them move past trauma maybe I dunno. For me, it's a Jedi thing lol, and applies to gender, etc, as well, and species... I try to see the Force

Applications often include demographic information which often includes ethnicity. Where previous applications used this against applicants (and some likely still do) many applications collect this data but tell you that you wont be treated differently so the user isn't having to wonder if the people collecting this data see their color as a positive or negative.

If I was 87 and you said "I don't see your age" I'd be happy since chances are... I'd probably rather not be 87. Unless you're a child most people want to look younger. I purposefully guess people are younger than they are all the time because it's a compliment. You can't do that with race.

There is a fine line between invisibility and the motive for why the thing is invisible. If the thing is viewed as a negative then "what huge mole on your face? what unibrow? what gold tooth that's not actually metal? what lazy eye? I don't see it." Is like telling a woman who is 600lbs that she's not fat. What is it that you're trying to deny?

Trying not to see something typically means that thing you're trying not to see is bad. You can say this is taken out of context but the point is that if you have to explain the context then you're message is not being communicated well. Like I said earlier on, I had this conversation with a white woman I was seeing at the time and she brought it up because she had said it before and she had been asked by another black person not to say that. So I wasn't the first. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Both me and the other person who corrected her knew she didn't mean anything bad by it because we knew her. She isn't one of those "I'm not racist because I have a black friend". Her children are actually black.

So we know SHE didn't mean anything wrong by it but she was saying this because she heard other people saying it. And maybe those other people all thought they were saying the right thing because they had good intentions. But being black we know how it "sounds", especially to people who have gotten used to white people seeing our color as something negative. My girlfriend told me the other day about a Hispanic girl that joked about her skin color being "sh-t brown", a very ugly comparison; only to find out this person was actually lighter in complexion.

Without a long history of whites making fun of our color the context may be taken differently. When you have whites dressing up in black face... still... it might be a lot easier to navigate what white people mean, but UNTIL WE KNOW YOU (as an individual) WE CANNOT GUESS WITH 100% ACCURACY WHAT YOUR MEANING IS.

And you shouldn't say things that require us to put in that guesswork. Even if we know you. Hell... if we know you that well, you should know us well enough to know that we don't really like that. Because you should be talking to us just like the woman I'm referring to. At least ask. Some black people it may not bother at all; especially if they're younger.

There are many black people who assume, as a DEFENSIVE STANCE (important context), that every white person is somewhere on the spectrum of racist. Is it true? No. But do they take time to sit and think about who should be excluded? No. Does racism seem to be a global phenomenon? Yes. So can we understand why many feel that way? We should. It would be one thing if it was just a problem with Southern whites. And of course there are many white people in the south that love black people. But we're talking about volume. Black people typically take a more defensive stance because we know there are more racists than we think and they don't typically expose themselves. So they say they're not racist all the time. They do. Because almost no one is proud to be a racist. They just are. If you see 2 who are proud of it there are probably 80 who are neither proud nor ashamed.

And so when black people befriend or get into relationships with whites there are always a fair number of our peers who think we are "in bed with the enemy". But again... CONTEXT matters. This understanding of "the white man" is a literary device used to represent an overall model of white supremacy with many faces. It isn't talking about all white people without exception. When we talk to each other we know what we mean but it needs to be explained when talking to... you.

And so it is when white people say things like "I don't see color". I don't even know why you kind of "bleeped" out color and replaced it with characteristic. I take your meaning as all characteristics could be interchangeable in this expression but which characteristics NEED to be? How many beautiful women are told "I don't see beauty". How many petite women are told "I don't see size". How many muscular men are told "I don't see muscles". How many rich people are told (such that it is believed) "I don't see wealth".

Typically if you're saying "You don't see ______" the _________ is something that person is commonly negatively judged by. So it doesn't affirm that there is nothing wrong with that characteristic. It almost confirms the person thinks so! If a woman is beautiful you tell her she's beautiful. You don't hide it. Women want to hear that. They don't wear makeup and have their nails done and wear heels so you can NOT notice how they look. When it is a positive thing then people want to be recognized. They are PROUD of it. Even when it's about sex... something most people do in private... because homosexuals are different and because they have been mocked and ridiculed and ostracized because of it, their response is no more "let me hide in the closet". It's "I'm here. I'm queer. Get over it." (That's not me saying this. Just so we're clear.)

When James Brown came out with the song saying "Say it loud. I'm black and I'm proud." Black people weren't exactly all proud of being black because we had absorbed so much negativity as a result of that word that we saw it as a negative. It took years but over time we, at least for us, took that negative and started making it a positive. We had to change the way we saw ourselves. Many of us go through a period where we say "I'm not black. I'm brown. I'm literally brown so why should accept being called black?" but then when we understand the struggle and that we're not alone in it but we are connected to each other by it, that's where the pride comes from. I'm not accepting a label that white people called us. I'm accepting a label that we adopted and changed into a positive. And so I DO see color but I see color as beautiful. Black is beautiful. Brown is beautiful. White is beautiful. ALL colors are (not sure about orange) generally beautiful.

This is easy to see when it comes to different breeds of our pets. So why is it so hard with our own species? My girlfriend is so light in complexion that I joke about her being white all the time. So does her mom. Her mom says all the time that she got the wrong baby from the hospital. My girlfriend laughs but she also doesn't like it because she's proud to be black. It's not because there's something wrong with being white. It's because there's nothing wrong with being black and that's what she is.

We all are just looking for acceptance. Equality. I want you to see my color. I just want you to see that it is beautiful just like yours is beautiful. Maybe you don't think it's AS beautiful as your own and that's OKAY. No one has to have the same level of attraction to a different color. Call it bias or preference. We're okay with that. No one has to think one thing is as beautiful as something else because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective.

What's objective is that we all look different. But it's like flowers. I bought blue flowers. Guess what my favorite color is. It's blue. No one cares. The point Jane Elliot made is the same thing a lot of black people are going to think; which is that YOU OBVIOUSLY DO SEE COLOR. Now you can call that a knee jerk literal interpretation but for the figurative interpretation to work we kinda have to deal with the physical interpretation because we have been judged because of a PHYSICAL difference, not just an intangible philosophical idea. So the two are linked. Maybe you don't think about it as deeply so this doesn't all occur to you. We think about it all the time. I wish we didn't have to but part of being "black" and not just having brown skin, is understanding how you are viewed by whites such that you can defend yourself and avoid as many obstacles as you can. We were told that we had to work harder and do better in school than white kids because we had to overcome the perceived disadvantage of just having the wrong skin color.

When you call someone's place of origin a "sh-t hole country" you further establish this narrative that whites are better/superior. White children are believing this. I know because I personally heard a white child say this to my kid at a pool... in OHIO.

And if nothing else, kids definitely see color even if adults want to pretend otherwise. So for all the multitude of reasons I've tried to give and those I wasn't thinking about, it would simply be better not to say this (at least not to black people). And say instead that you don't discriminate by color. If you are dying to say "I don't see _____" then are you willing to compromise and say "I don't see __race__" as a better alternative? And if you hear other white people saying they don't see color you can tell them that a black dude told you that they prefer you say "I don't see race". And if they ask why you can have the same conversation I'm having with you and the world will be a better place because we're having the conversation. There should only be one race; the human race. Many colors, but one race. Saying this doesn't take anything away from anyone nor does it pretend that a characteristic someone happens to be proud of and thinks is beautiful, it doesn't seek to turn that invisible and pretend it doesn't matter. It matters to me because it's a part of me; a part of who I am, a part of my culture and heritage.

And if it matters to me it shouldn't be something you try to ignore just as I wouldn't ignore that which matters to you. We don't do that to people we're in a relationship with so we should use the same methods to improve race relations that we use to improve interpersonal relationships with family and friends.

Yea I know applications can ask all sorts of things... I'm talking about efforts to generate best practice to mitigate discrimination in action, not what people have been doing wrong. We are both undoubtedly defining the problem in a way to justify a particular solution, but the way I see it is anti-discrimination measures should look at those factors at that location and be adjusted to suit... it's highly relative to the environment, and so the language and context these problems have to be approached from cannot be caged within the narrative of a particular populations struggle, it needs a more universal language so it can have widespread application, and adoption. Which has the by-product of making easier for racists to start accepting their own hypocrisy as a way for them to effect a deconstruction of their bigotry.... probably because it doesn't paint them into a corner as the bad guy in explaining why its wrong LOL. It might be as simple as that TBH, because emotion is primal thing and it might be short circuiting their capacity for a logical reaction in every instance the topic is raised.

So in turn, the longer a discrimination issue is fought using terms of the conflict, the deeper the conflict will tend to be. Whether that translates to duration depends on the course of the conflict. Part of my Jedi approach is to understand factors around conflict and try to mitigate them where the conflict is not really the intention. Obviously though at some level when people stop caring it's too late for folk to come together as one and then they splinter off, explode with a footprint on others, or quietly disappear. Not much can be done about that beyond conventional enforcement approaches be it within the circle of friends, groups, workplace, State or Federal domains of potential awareness and actions to call it out and address it.

So for whether a person should respect your wishes on how to be communicated with.... it depends on the person, and their relationship to you. The world doesn't coddle anyone, unless they have wealth or power, or are children (lucky to have a loving family). It's not a race or gender thing. The reality that privilege exists in a certain demographic doesn't really dictate how best to resolve it. Go to China and the privilege between white and black probably vanishes, and is replaced by Chinese privilege... and all of a sudden the whole narrative and context is lost and ineffective within that new environment. But since the mechanism of action is the same, it's much easier to deal with it at the level of discrimination (the single category of actions, with various types) rather than individual discriminatory actions (zillions of actions to all people of all types, in the various types within that category).

Adder wrote: So for whether a person should respect your wishes on how to be communicated with.... it depends on the person, and their relationship to you. The world doesn't coddle anyone, unless they have wealth or power, or are children (lucky to have a loving family). It's not a race or gender thing. The reality that privilege exists in a certain demographic doesn't really dictate how best to resolve it.

Yesterday, my GF and I got into an argument over what happened when another female on FB called her a B-tch. We were having a political discussion with a couple black Trump supporters and this lady jumped in and started talking wrecklessly.

Once that language was used their conversation quickly devolved into how they were going to physically assault each other. While my GF could have taken the high road she was tired of doing that and simply doesn't handle disrespect well. I think we can all sympathize. And this female was displaying some "Karen"-like behavior. My Girlfriend didn't like that I reprimanded her on the post. But I told her that if my children get into a fight I'm going to talk to my children because they are my responsibility. The other child is the responsibility of their parents. And I didn't know this woman. We weren't friends. So my opinion or moral shaming or whatever wouldn't mean much to her anyway. And I told my GF I was more concerned with how that back and forth made her look than how it made this woman look.

So in this very real situation, the use of incindiary or inflammatory language shuts down positive conversation. Maybe she really felt like my GF was what she called her. But to call her that, isn't simply "not coddling". It's uncalled for and disrespectful. There are ways to make a point. There are proper ways to communicate with people if you want to have a positive dialogue with a positive result.

So what I'm saying is that IF there is an aim, desire, etc. to IMPROVE racial relations, and not just police them with legal structure, then both sides need to come to the table with respect. If you come at us making accusations because that's how YOU feel, then you should expect the same in return in a way that isn't nice and friendly and full of hugs. The reality is that people get offended and when they get offended because you're on offense, they're going to be automatically put on defensive and will respond defensively. Saying its about not coddling suggests that there are negative things to be said. But how could there be negative things to say about an entire group of people who happen to be labeled "black" when in reality we are all part of the human race but many different colors exist?

Whatever negative interaction you had with ANY OTHER black person has nothing to do with me or any other black person. Black people are not guilty of crimes committed by any other black person nor is it our job or responsibility to police other black people. I'm not saying you believe this. This is pretty standard stuff that for some reason I have to repeat every 3 months or so because... racists.

Which is funny because we all agree that it's the government's job to police the Mafia and all the European criminal syndicates, not other members of the 'race' to which they belong.

So what could there possibly be to say to a black person that requires not "coddling"? Curious.

The way we come at each other is more than words. It's attitude. It's body language. It's tone. All these things is part of communication and when communication is done poorly then the point of it is lost because those ideas, while they can be transmitted without care or concern, they are far less likely to be received. Haven't you ever had a fight with a girlfriend that became a shouting match? As much as you might feel like you're right and she's wrong shouting over each other rarely works. It is usually only after things calm down can both sides really hear each other. Black people are not your children, one way or the other. 'Coddled' shouldn't even be used in this context. If you speak to me like an adult. I'll listen and respond in kind. But I don't owe my ears to anyone who wasn't personally involved in their creation. If you want to have an adult conversation with black people in general you have to be respectful; especially if you're in close proximity.

So knowing that people don't have to listen to you, SHOULD alter your angle. If it doesn't then the problem is not with them. It's with you. If you can't be respectful then you should not try to engage at all. At the end of the day black people are people. And you speak to them that way. Period.

I don't care where you are. The more you know people the more you see their value. Asian people were told by Europeans not to trust black people. So when we go over there (and there are Youtube videos of black people interviewed in Asian countries) there typically isn't the same experience of racism that exists in America. However, a lot of Asian ideas are formed through media because that is their ONLY exposure.

I met a little girls when I lived in Alabama. She was from a small town with little or no black people. But she was my boss's niece. When she saw me she literally pointed at me and said "you're a black man!" But she was super nice and sweet. She just hadn't met one before. She sat on my lap and I let her play on my computer. Interactions like that create positive experiences that become knowledge. When you don't know someone or something that's ignorance. And IGNORANCE is the main driver of racism. So while we can talk about policing the activities of racism that's not my main focus because that effort started long ago. That doesn't end racism. What ends racism is destroying the ignorance that manifests itself in communicating racist ideas and acting upon them. If you can stop the IGNORANCE then you can stop the racism. But to correct the ignorance we have to build relationships and interact without hostile intent or being offensive.

Yesterday, my GF and I got into an argument over what happened when another female on FB called her a B-tch. We were having a political discussion with a couple black Trump supporters and this lady jumped in and started talking wrecklessly.

Once that language was used their conversation quickly devolved into how they were going to physically assault each other. While my GF could have taken the high road she was tired of doing that and simply doesn't handle disrespect well. I think we can all sympathize. And this female was displaying some "Karen"-like behavior. My Girlfriend didn't like that I reprimanded her on the post. But I told her that if my children get into a fight I'm going to talk to my children because they are my responsibility. The other child is the responsibility of their parents. And I didn't know this woman. We weren't friends. So my opinion or moral shaming or whatever wouldn't mean much to her anyway. And I told my GF I was more concerned with how that back and forth made her look than how it made this woman look.

So in this very real situation, the use of incindiary or inflammatory language shuts down positive conversation. Maybe she really felt like my GF was what she called her. But to call her that, isn't simply "not coddling". It's uncalled for and disrespectful. There are ways to make a point. There are proper ways to communicate with people if you want to have a positive dialogue with a positive result.

I don't know if your girlfriend is a bitch, and I have no idea what "karen"-like behaviour is.

I have some small idea what power is though, and it's easy to spot people who don't have any. They can usually be found arguing on facebook (or, I suppose, forums :dry: )

Perhaps you, or your girlfriend, should look to consolidate power, influence, and dare I say it - privilege, rather than scrap for moral points in a pointless textual war.

At the moment you're a wounded dog, a barb (that probably cost your opponent nothing) has you crawling to totjo, bloody and frustrated, looking for support.

There are proper ways to communicate with people if you want to have a positive dialogue with a positive result.

The best way to have a positive result (ie - the result you want) when communicating with someone is to have all the balls, courts, racquets, and less metaphorically, supporters in your pocket before you even have the discussion - then they either survive by agreeing with you, or are eliminated by opposing you.

Winning conversations is like winning battles - two armies on an open field, with all their capability and movements on display is a terrible idea. Ambushes, on the other hand, are remarkably effective.

So knowing that people don't have to listen to you, SHOULD alter your angle. If it doesn't then the problem is not with them. It's with you. If you can't be respectful then you should not try to engage at all. At the end of the day black people are people. And you speak to them that way. Period.

You think jerks are jerks to black people because they're black?
Oh, sweet summer child.
Jerks are jerks to people because they can be.
It's like being a jerk to the meatsack that bags your groceries - why not be a jerk to them? what are the consequences? and it feels nice to be more powerful than someone.

see how you used the term "karen"-like behaviour? That's a jerk thing to say, but it's okay at the moment, so you're getting on board with it.

until it's not okay to be jerks to black people in your crappy country, people will do it, and they don't even need to be racist, they just need to be jerks.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Full Stop. You're saying people who want to be jerk-bags will find and justify a reason to be a jerk to others? Well, I never.

On the real. This is key thank you James. Though I won't deny that there are race problems here in the US, ones that actually need solving. I will absolutely say it does us no good what so ever to point to on group who is using race as the reasoning behind their justification (Ironically this comes from both sides of the current situation). Then allowing negative action by using the simplest to reach justification.

An interesting question for us here in the US, is having lower expectations on behavior based on race, racist (like really racist)?
I would say so, and it seems to be and have been the case for quite some time. I could go into a few stories about the education system if need be but they are just what I have seen personally.

All I am saying is let's actually work on things instead of tearing things apart and then saying, "well, it's because XYZ and it's justified".

Right now in the US, 29 people ave died due directly from this behavior(not counting the national uptick in violent crimes), how many more have to die?

Just think about it,
Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

In my own crappy two cents worth


If we managed better ...

If we as individuals never needed a maw or some one else to govern us .... why do some need to be governed and some don’t ?


Flat out : some use free will to inslave - instigate and evening pick fights - once you have learn the difference you won’t un see it.

Poor management
Almost any problem in the work place comes to this as well as in the world
Greed or bad management ( from geeed )
There are people who wanna see the world burn.
(Used to be one )

There are soooo many factors in things now a days it’s never light and dark cut and dry any more

We need great managers or - people who are accountable and responsible .

Guaranteed it - if ...accountability with police was better managed - one life wouldn’t be valued more than others if we were treated all the same and given the same judgment and management.

All crimes matter

That’s just me - I don’t have many of the problems I used to and I’m glad. Eventually you get tired of spiting the nose to cut the face - kinna like the usefulness of a screen door on a submarine - faith without works ... it just ain’t happening ... it’s like a song you can’t sing.

No ones singing

Still no rain ...

Not everything is light and dark - know and unknown - for everything else there’s ... character and virtue.
Hope ya got some - want some - find some or get some, steal some or fake mint- either way -You won’t regret it

What missing is better management and character but that’s just me.

Finding a solution by having civil conversation between people grounded in reality is not terribly difficult. Add just one of any number of the insane BS artist out there to the equation and the whole thing turns into a sh!t show that never resolves.

The issue including the BS Artist is that the BS Artist think they are the ones grounded in reality and are having civil conversations. They project their inadequacies and fallacies on others; are blind to their own double standards; reject any well-formed opposition as some kind of “ism” or “ist” (who knows what they’ll dream up next) And have pretty much been brain washed to hate or despise the place they live, the people they live with and can, and will, find fault and flaws with every and any aspect of anything presented them.

The real issue facing all societies is that everything dies. No person or group of people can ever make a utopian society. Because we are flawed as individuals it is impossible for us to create something perfect. And no matter how good something is, there will always be those that want to tear it down and destroy it. The BS Artist believe that to achieve their unachievable goals they have to tear down what is there and start over. They have no idea how to start over or what it takes to have a high functioning society. They have nice sounding rhetoric; but, that is all it ever mounts to. Societies can not be built on rhetoric. So, the BS Artist doesn’t build or create, just destroy. Meantime, the person trying to conserve what is good about the current situation and change what needs to be changed gets steam rolled over. This is because as one negotiates there is trade, this for that. Eventually what is there trying to be preserved, is traded away piece by piece and replaced with insanity. (something designed to fail so that the new thing can be put in its place)

This is the natural order of the universe. Al things die. All living things struggle to survive. What replaces the old is not always better. Often it is far worst. And that will be replaced by the next and next till something more resilient comes along. But it will fall to time as well. This is balance; the balance of the Force. The coming and going, the struggle, the fall, the rebirth.

“ This is balance; the balance of the Force. The coming and going, the struggle, the fall, the rebirth.”

Granddaddy Wess
Smiley face

I want to take another time out and sincerely thank everyone for participating in what could be considered an uncomfortable conversation with a black man. I found this video from a series of videos of the same type and title that are really excellent. They're from Emmanuel Acho. Seems like a great guy, not because I agree with his point of view, but because he navigates these conversations honestly and skillfully, probably much better than myself. So I thank you guys for putting up with me and our back and forths, but I would like to share a video that also talks about the subject of "seeing color". Because when I say it, it's still something you're hearing from an underrepresented minority and you could say "Well that's just him. I know other black people and they don't feel the same way." And I will say it is difficult even trying to be a spokesman because I step on that soap box knowing that my community is not monolithic. However, because we share a culture and because we share a lot of experiences we have a lot of commonalities with regard to our response to racism and white supremacy. But without further ado, here's the video. If anyone wants to discuss the contents after feel free to do so. Ask any questions you feel the need to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfo1XJDJKSU