Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

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

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

@James (and anyone who doesn't know what a "Karen" is)

Throughout this racial history of America racist white men have been a direct threat. However... Sometimes the larger threat is the white woman. Why? Because the white woman is often the one who makes false claims about black men that other white men then respond to. She lies for different reasons. If caught in an interracial sexual or emotional relationship she may lie and say she was raped to avoid mistreatment by family, friends, or husband. Sometimes it's pure racism in the form of "I'm better than you." or "This is my territory, you shouldn't be here."

Whatever the case, this white woman may say things and may even go out of her way to say things, in order to get a response from other whites, to invoke the racism of other whites, against the target of her choosing. She knows what the potential responses might be. She doesn't care. This is what we have dubbed the "Karen". Karen is a white woman who uses fear, anger, hostility, and may even go out of her way to challenge the very presence of a person of color.

If you are a black kid mowing someone's lawn for money, a black man watching birds, Karen may call the police and give the police the impression that she doesn't feel safe. In a small fraction of cases the Karen will actually tell the target what she intends to do and what the police might do when they arrive to "protect and serve" her interests. Karen is the one you have to watch out for because Karen doesn't necessarily mind if you don't survive the encounter. So in some cases (that we've seen video of) we see the Karen fake crying or fake some kind of emotional fit in order to manipulate the police to use them as a weapon against the target.

Karen doesn't have to be seen doing this. A black man could be playing with a toy gun at a Walmart and not even know that someone has called the police. But Karen, for all the fear she claims, often confronts and tries to intimidate black people, using her white privilege as "white power". That, is a Karen, and there are countless video exposing this type of person.

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.

You're confused. I used the situation with this person to make a point in a discussion. Any read of being wounded is unfortunately, just your imagination. In fact my gf didn't want to talk to me for a little while after because she felt like I was reprimanding her unfairly. Experiences are teachable moments. I used my past experiences in debates, some very heated, some very disrespectful, in order to show her the fruitlessness of having that kind of dialogue with someone over the internet because they can say anything they want about you because they know they will likely never see you in person and have to back up their intimidation with actual physical strength. It is therefore a waste of time. And this kind of internet thug behavior can also including highly provocative word pictures, appearing to capture what that person thinks you are or thinks you're doing like the picture painted above "crawling, blood and frustrated". I sincerely hope you reconsider this provocative approach in the future. Whether it is your opinion or not, doesn't mean you need to share it or share it in a way that would provoke an emotional response. And then when some people react to that provocation the person who provoked them often tries to hide the cause and bring attention, instead, to the provoked reaction. Definitely, not good.

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.

It sounds more like you're talking about how to go to war rather than how to seek peace. There is something called diplomacy. There is no need to be combative. When you make someone defensive then the argument escalates and their resistance grows to match your offense. Who is right or wrong starts to matter less and less as the argument becomes less about the subject and more about the people having the interaction and which of them is more "powerful" (or more ego driven). This is often an illusion of fear. People are afraid to look weak so they exaggerate their response by being more intimidating and threatening. It's the small dog that barks the most. The stronger you are the less likely you will be effected by that small dog who is identifying its weaknesses through its barking. The stronger you are the easier, in my opinion, it is to have uncomfortable conversations because you need to avoid being provoked by the other side. You can call them out when they get out of line. But you only want to highlight bad behavior, not encourage it.

I know I have talked about debating before like a light saber duel. I was even writing about it and how to do it effectively. However, I don't want people to get the impression that's it's about YOU winning the duel. It should never be about the people "fighting". It should be a battle of ideas. You want the best idea to win even if that idea is the one coming out of the opponents mouth. So when it is about opposing ideas then rules matter and unconventional ways of "winning", may make you "feel" like a winner but you only win when both sides agree on the best idea; not when one side gives up because they hate you or are tired or drained by the conversation.

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.

I don't know where you think I live but my country is not crappy and no one is saying jerks don't exist. Of course calling someone's country crappy is a bit of a jerk move as well. So now I have to mentally decide if you're defending what you think to be a "fellow jerk". I don't have to play that game though. Rather, you seem to be ignorant to the existence of a certain kind of behavior and minimizing it to jerk status, due to the number of people who are jerks and the relative insignificance of their petty and inconvenient trifles, I cannot demote racists and their allies to this common slight. Karen-like behavior is obviously NOT a jerk thing to say if you know what a "Karen" is. If I was choosing the name randomly, sure. Then it would take on a different connotation. However "Becky" and "Karen" are both names given specific meaning in the context in which they are used. And I'm trying to help you and others understand that context so that you have a better understanding of racism and what black people are talking about so that you can be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Wescli Wardest wrote:
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. ...

Due to your somewhat vague use of "BS Artist" there are a number of directions you could be going. It seems very open to interpretation which also allows it to be potentially be taken the wrong way. I prefer you just say exactly what you mean and who you mean to discuss.

When you talk about people trying to build a utopian society I honestly do not know who you are talking about? Are you talking about black people arguing on behalf of equality and justice? Because then why fight wars for independence? Why start democracies? Why create a constitution and bill of rights? Why do anything? Why not just accept your feudal lord and your life as a peon on his land?

Trying to make something better should never be confused for trying to reach the "perfect" and therefore unobtainable. This confusion should always be turned around on the person from which it comes. Because what other societal issues do they believe are acceptable in light of what they believe to be the positives? Does that mean women should accept being treated like property and having any voting rights? Or is this a man talking who never had to worry about being thusly impacted and told all the things that he couldn't do because he was born with the wrong genitalia... or the wrong skin color.

It is much easier to view society as "Acceptable" when you are part of the most acceptable group in that society. I'm trying not to use the word "privilege" but it applies here.

The real issue facing all societies is not death. It is LIFE. It is HOW we live. That creates quality of life that affects everyone. When it comes to how much time I spend thinking about death vs life I spend 99.99% of my life thinking about life and... LIVING. So that's where my concern is.

No one, to my knowledge, is talking about starting over in any significant way. It is more like evolution. The body tries to adapt to changes in environment. Some parts of the body may become obsolete or irrelevant. Some parts may have depreciated uses. For certain "acceptable" members of society it "works" so if it aint broken, why fix it? But again, it's easy to say this from that particular vantage point because that group isn't the one experiencing the dysfunction. Along with training society has also been given copious amounts of TIME. Time was given to white society to adapt to seeing black people as equal citizens; judging not by color but by content of character. For many, the time was simply spent getting accustomed to new parameters of racism and the "new Jim Crow". It wasn't spent seeing the different wrongs and making corrections.

And now a new generation that is tired of waiting is saying "since you haven't done enough to stop this we're going to make it less comfortable". And if certain institutions cannot change because of their culture then you have take some money away from them and redirect it into establishing other emergency services so that mental health and other professionals can respond to 911 calls and actually assist the police in doing things they are not trained to do. And so they can treat people with the kind of care and support those people and those situations need. People who do not take the time to even understand what is being demanded are typically those who are simply more comfortable with the status quo. And perhaps a sizable number of them are perfectly happy with people of color not feeling safe in the United States of America. And according, not a new Utopian constitution, but to the present day constitution that was penned by the founding fathers, who provided for the use of amendments to make a "more perfect union"... all races, religions, ethnicities, etc. should all have the same expectation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All should have the same justice, the same mercy, the same freedom of speech, the same right to protect ones self from the government, etc. If we aren't there yet then we are not even at the goal of what the United States was meant to be yet.

So forget utopia... we just want the promise of America not to be a lie. And it doesn't have to be if we work together to continue to build on its old foundations.

Kobos wrote: 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

I think people often underestimate the GOOD in just hearing "there's a problem". I think a lot of people feel like... why even bother or try because its like a mountain we're all trying to move with 'thoughts and prayers'. When people deny the problem exists we don't know whether its because its too big for them or because they actually don't agree it is a problem. For all we know they view it as the solution to a different problem.

But when someone says "there's a problem and I think we need to work on it" that's what melts our hearts because we can see your heart isn't ice. We gain more respect for these individuals whether they think they're being brave or not. It can be brave if the community around you is racist. These words seems so... easy to say, so logical, so obvious... but because we are not used to hearing it from white people it makes us more cautious of whites in general because racism is something very easily hidden. All racists have had to do in the last 60 years has really been to just be quiet and say nothing about race.

So it is in that silence that nothing significant has been done and that same silence that makes it difficult for us to know who is on our side and when I say "our side" I mean the side of humanity against these harmful artificial divisions and anti-human propaganda because there is only one race, the human race, and so when you advance the notion that it is okay to oppress humans based on the color of their skin you're actually doing damage to your own (human) race.

So I just wanted to call you out Kobos... and say thank you for what you said. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is.

Thank you Zealot,

The thing is there are a lot of us out there that see there is a problem. A lot of us work in ways within our own grasp to change it. My personal field is education. I don't hold much power. However, I do what I can. Sometimes that means pointing out things that a lot of people will just chalk up to random things. Like I said one of the most irritating things to me is the response to behavioral/academic problems being just lowering the standard to make it look like it's not happening.

The solution is to bring communities together to hold themselves accountable. I find it, hard to believe that a national response will be effective, they hardly are (that actually work) no matter the problem. I think this idea that there is a solve all is an issue has led to a lot of complications that will compound it. People don't like riots but overwhelmingly respect and respond to peaceful protests. This is an issue right now, there has been a significant attempt to change the definition of "peaceful" protest and that is a huge issue. It disenfranchises many potential allies that actually have the means to actually assist. The thing is that there are a lot of peaceful actual protesters that are not willing to point or turn in the people who violently act. This is huge and it is having horrible side effects, it is quite literally undermining the real solutions that could be brought up.

This to me is a problem that has really really set us back. Bad faith actors not willing to have a conversation, but to further their own agendas, and that has to be called out or will continue to get worse.The sad part is that national leaders of the movement have disowned this behavior, but the national people in government have not.

I guess my biggest thing is to really push the peaceful part and how we can hold the politic in general responsible for the actions the do not or will not make to work towards the problem. Also, on a side note, to many it seems that they are being brow beaten into accepting a solution they don't see as effective, it causes us to take steps back in progress.

Again just my point of view.

Much love,
Kobos

Kobos, you bring up a good point.

Let's take TOTJO for an example. We have different views because we're not a monolith that forces a certain view, certain beliefs or practices. Therefore, we're not really responsible for one another. What does the Force mean to you? What is your expression of the Force? These are all you and no one else can know where you stand unless they ask you.

Some protesters are like Jedi. They absolutely agree with you about the value of peaceful protest and feel like that is the way.

Some protesters are like Sith. They want to break their chains but it has been so long that they are simply willing to be more destructive. If you keep slapping an animal but expect it not to bite you or use its claws then to some degree, when it happens its your fault. You provoked them.

I'm not a sith. It's not really in my DNA. But do I understand it? Yes. For them, they believe the only way to get the less "Jedi" of white people... the more sith-like white people who have a lot of power... to do something is to hurt them financially. The idea that protesters are all trying to convince little old ladies isn't true. And the protests, even the peaceful ones, aren't really targeted at whites who are already progressive and who already see a problem. These white people often march along side of the black protesters because they're both trying to be heard by a larger group.

The people in the middle.

The people in the middle lean in both directions because this is a spectrum, not a binary thing. There are many who lean towards the sith mentality but admit to no such thing. And then there are those who lean towards Jedi but are pained to take any action because they are passive. Passivity can be thought of as a trait that is more likely to be found in Jedi rather than Sith.

So the protest is actually two pronged. And even back in the early civil rights movement it was also 2 pronged because you had Martin Luther King on one hand and Malcolm X on the other. And one of them stood for "by any means necessary". So you had people who agreed with MLK and thought peaceful demonstration was the way. And then you had people who agreed more with X and they weren't about 'asking' for equality. And still today, black people identify more with one or the other but typically love and respect both. And ultimately, realize that a middleground between them is what's necessary.

Me being much more aligned with the positive flow of energy, epitomized by the Jedi, I'm more MLK and therefore feel like the more hostile protests are a set back. However, I also believe in the notion of establishing economic power in the black community so that until racism goes away we have our own stuff and don't have to be in an inferior economic position. But I believe it is a balance that is necessary, between taking care of ourselves and trying to change the minds of others and urge society to appeal to what's right; our "better angels" if you will.

When one approach fails... when the peaceful approach seems to hit a wall... the other approach is bound to appear and grown in strength. There now exists a black militia. I hate that this is something they felt necessary. But at the same time, not only do they see the killings by police (which is only a symptom of a large disease), but also they see Nazis coming out to play, and other people committing acts of domestic terror with the very motive of starting a race war.

Those people are not interested in hugs. No one's going to convince them with old negro hymns and MLK speeches about children playing together. And while we can say, "then why bother", the truth is it's often those people that have the guns... and badges.

So we need to have the more Jedi-like white people to help identify, call out, and get those more sith-like white people out of positions where they can murder, steal from, or try to destroy the lives of minorities. Beyond conversations, we as a society, have that power. And before protesters should ever be expected to turn in more violent protesters, the police should be expected and required to turn in more violent cops. Companies should turn in more racist managers and bosses. Etc.

The worst thing the Jedi did in the fictional universe was to fail to identify the threat before the threat could take over and execute them. But all of society has the same problem. Karens only try to identify black and brown people they feel threatened by. They call them out to be punished when they're doing nothing wrong. Meanwhile many of those actually doing wrong are never even suspected.

So the way I feel about it is, I understand the violent protesters and even though that's not my cup of tea there is a limit to how much tea we can drink before we dump it in the harbor. There's a limit to how much we can take before we fight back and turn the colonies into a nation. There's a limit to how much we can take before we fought the civil war. And as long as racists are being protect, both in and out of the police forces, then I don't feel inclined to turn in people who are fighting for the same thing, just in another way. I do hear you though and your point has validity. I just don't think that should come first because that is what's causing more attention on the subject. Sometimes you have to make people uncomfortable in order to be heard and a regular protest doesn't do that.