White Supremacy

11011121416

Comments

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Russ, if you don't understand what everyday racism might mean for black people, then the efficacy of a low-tolerance (your phasing, not mine) approach to white supremacist violence is never going to make sense to you.

    Not suggesting anyone should tolerate violence.

    And it's no surprise that you want to do something about your cousin's experience of everyday prejudice as well as do something about the white superiority mindset that has influenced your brother.

    But they're not the same thing (or even two parts of the same thing). They're connected in that they're both about race.

    And it's not necessarily the case that anything that reduces the incidence of one issue will also reduce the other.

    Your proposed remedy for white supremacism doesn't seem to reflect the depth of your understanding of the phenomenon.







  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »

    Contra @MaryLouise, it's not that complicated a line between the idea that black people are all lazy, criminally-inclined savages and the idea that therefore white people should run everything. Leaving casually racist ideas about inherent black laziness, criminality, and savagery unaddressed seems like an invitation reach white supremacist conclusions.
    The line you draw is not a complicated line because it is essentially a line with one point. In reality, the line between not racist and explicit racism has many more points.

    Well, the line around explicit racism is whether or not someone is willing to publicly state racist reasons for what they're doing. I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. For example, the voter literacy tests administered by the state of Alabama weren't explicitly racist. They were, in fact, designed to be prima facie race neutral. Depending on racists to "out" themselves rather than applying observation and common sense seems overly restrictive. For example:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Another is that black people are not inherently lazy, but their culture is/they are victims of their culture, so individuals are more likely to be lazy. That shift from race to culture is still racist, but not as far down the line and much easier to justify to oneself. Black people are better at sports, East Asians excel at maths and are industrious, etc. Racist but "positive". And those have modifiers such as "tend to be" to take the racist curse off. Still racist to be sure, but again, more easily hidden from oneself.

    You're able to identify racism despite the fact that it's not "explicit".
  • I’m looking for it and I’m affected by some of it.
    I think there is a useful distinction between explicit and implicit racism. Because it is easy to reject explicit behaviour, but implicit is easier to ignore in oneself and in others.
    Your literacy tests are examples of this.
    Raising awareness that racism is not only hate, that it is more pervasive and exists in seemingly neutral things is important.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host
    Russ wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Russ, if you don't understand what everyday racism might mean for black people, then the efficacy of a low-tolerance (your phasing, not mine) approach to white supremacist violence is never going to make sense to you.

    Not suggesting anyone should tolerate violence.

    And it's no surprise that you want to do something about your cousin's experience of everyday prejudice as well as do something about the white superiority mindset that has influenced your brother.

    But they're not the same thing (or even two parts of the same thing). They're connected in that they're both about race.

    And it's not necessarily the case that anything that reduces the incidence of one issue will also reduce the other.

    Your proposed remedy for white supremacism doesn't seem to reflect the depth of your understanding of the phenomenon.







    No, it isn't about 'my' cousin or 'my' brother as isolated incidents or individual cases. I was trying to make a certain everyday racism more accessible for those from a background in the UK, Europe or the US,.

    What is hard for me to figure out is the distinction between obliviousness, ignorance and denial, not wanting to see what is there, that characterises so many debates like this.
  • This story is worth reading: https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-church-slavery-atonement-20190912-3tllerewzzh7nnqsa5entffssy-story.html

    Deacon of Memorial Episcopal Church in Baltimore’s Bolton Hill learned via
    genealogical research that some of their forebears had been slaves on a local plantation — and the people and the land were owned by the extended family of Memorial’s founding pastor, 19th-century cleric Charles Ridgely Howard. And a current parishioner, someone the Deacon knew for years and respected — was a descendant of the slaveholding clan.

    Seems to me that many such stories need to be told, cried over, reconciled as may be possible. It seems to me that it's a basic principle to reconcile,acknowledgeing that evil and sin may visit unto some biblical number of generations, 5 and beyond. History can cast a long, long shadow, and this shadow can be brought to the light IMO.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    @MaryLouise wrote
    What is hard for me to figure out is the distinction between obliviousness, ignorance and denial, not wanting to see what is there, that characterises so many debates like this.

    What is it that you think people are denying or oblivious of ?

    Lilbuddha has listed some of the aspects of human behaviour which affect the relationship between people of different races:

    - feeling more comfortable with people of one's own culture
    Because that discomfort is what blocks hiring, promotions, equal pay, etc.

    - belief that one's own culture is in some respects better than some other cultures
    black people are not inherently lazy, but their culture is/they are victims of their culture

    - stereotyping
    Black people are better at sports, East Asians excel at maths and are industrious, etc.

    Seems to me that nobody is denying that these phemomena exist; nobody is oblivious to these things.

    The question I'm asking is what causal connection there is between these aspects of human behaviour (can we agree that they apply to everybody, not just white people ?) and white supremacists (the topic at hand).

    If you think the answer is obvious, spell it out in plain English so we can all see if your explanation holds water and whether it sheds any light on supremacist ideology and how it can best be countered.

    Lilbuddha clearly thinks that the connection is "racism". But that doesn't explain anything - as she uses the word it's just a label applied to anything that tends to disadvantage racial minorities.

    Clearly the existence of white supremacists does tend to disadvantage non-white minorities in white-majority countries. Nobody's denying that either.

    But that doesn't tell us anything useful about the people who are attracted into these movements and how that attraction can best be prevented.


  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host
    @Russ, this may sound like a digression but isn't. What I'm hearing and not for the first time, is sealioning. A tactic that consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, in an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Russ, this may sound like a digression but isn't. What I'm hearing and not for the first time, is sealioning. A tactic that consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, in an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
    I believe you have correctly diagnosed the rhetorical strategy being used.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 18
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Another is that black people are not inherently lazy, but their culture is/they are victims of their culture, so individuals are more likely to be lazy. That shift from race to culture is still racist, but not as far down the line and much easier to justify to oneself.

    Yes, using "culture" as a euphemism for race is a particularly obvious and obnoxious dodge used by racists to obscure their motives and reasoning. It posits that a white Londoner and a white Muscovite have the same "culture", while a white Londoner and a black Londoner are from different "cultures". This seems contrary to the way "culture" is typically understood, but it's a common enough obfuscation. For example:
    Russ wrote: »
    @lilbuddha has listed some of the aspects of human behaviour which affect the relationship between people of different races:

    - feeling more comfortable with people of one's own culture

    - belief that one's own culture is in some respects better than some other cultures

    As I pointed out earlier belief in the superiority of white race culture would seem to lead to white supremacist conclusions, if the reasoning were pursued far enough. I guess I didn't use plain enough English in making that point.
    Russ wrote: »
    Not suggesting anyone should tolerate violence.

    And it's no surprise that you want to do something about your cousin's experience of everyday prejudice as well as do something about the white superiority mindset that has influenced your brother.

    But they're not the same thing (or even two parts of the same thing). They're connected in that they're both about race.

    And it's not necessarily the case that anything that reduces the incidence of one issue will also reduce the other.
    Russ wrote: »
    The question I'm asking is what causal connection there is between these aspects of human behaviour (can we agree that they apply to everybody, not just white people ?) and white supremacists (the topic at hand).

    The problem with this position is that it asks us to believe that purely by coincidence white supremacists latch on to the exact same ideas expressed in more casual racism culturism. Dylann Roof, for example, just coincidentally happened to hit on the most common prejudice in American history when selecting his victims by their race culture, completely separate from any outside influence. History's most infamous white supremacist regime just coincidentally made anti-Semitism a major component of their idea of a master race culture, not because of over a millennium of German anti-Semitism. @Russ would have us believe that the Third Reich could just as easily have adopted anti-Polynesianism as a plank. It's all just one huge, historically non-contingent coincidence!

    So yes, I'll agree that not everyone who mutters the occasional racial cultural slur is the equivalent of Dylann Roof or Heinrich Himmler, but it's a difference of commitment and intensity, not of kind. Some people watch sports occasionally on television. Others paint their bodies team colors and endure all kinds of inclement weather to attend matches in person. Despite these differences in commitment we're usually willing to include both in the general category of "sports fan".
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    No, that cap doesn't fit either.

    I've not demanded evidence, nor tried to take the focus of discussion away from the topic. I was just interested in the quality of the argument.

    And I'm not all that persistent- I'll probably give up asking before you give up ducking the question.

    But no promises - I'm not immune to the temptation to try to have the last word...

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The problem with this position is that it asks us to believe that purely by coincidence white supremacists latch on to the exact same ideas expressed in more casual racism culturism. Dylann Roof, for example, just coincidentally happened to hit on the most common prejudice in American history when selecting his victims by their race culture, completely separate from any outside influence. History's most infamous white supremacist regime just coincidentally made anti-Semitism a major component of their idea of a master race culture, not because of over a millennium of German anti-Semitism. @Russ would have us believe that the Third Reich could just as easily have adopted anti-Polynesianism as a plank. It's all just one huge, historically non-contingent coincidence!

    So yes, I'll agree that not everyone who mutters the occasional racial cultural slur is the equivalent of Dylann Roof or Heinrich Himmler, but it's a difference of commitment and intensity, not of kind. Some people watch sports occasionally on television. Others paint their bodies team colors and endure all kinds of inclement weather to attend matches in person. Despite these differences in commitment we're usually willing to include both in the general category of "sports fan".

    I see what you mean by this, but I'm not sure the conclusions necessarily follow from the argument (which doesn't mean they can't be reached via other arguments, of course).

    Your sports fan example is a case in point, because there are also some people who follow their team around the country and engage in acts of violence against fans of other teams. Yet we can condemn those "sports fan extremists" without also condemning those who just watch sports on TV or who attend matches peacefully. Nobody seriously suggests that watching one's team on TV and being a member of one's team's hooligan "firm" are differences of commitment and intensity rather than of kind, or that those who only ever watch on TV are morally wrong because supporting a team in any way inevitably leads to hooliganism.
  • I was just talking to my mates about tennis hooliganism, the lawn bowl riots and why English netball clubs were banned in other countries. Oh, wait...
    Hooliganism is absolutely supported by lower levels of passive and active aggression in fandom.
    Sport can be enjoyed without any violence at all, it is because the fans support it that it continues.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Sport can be enjoyed without any violence at all, it is because the fans support it that it continues.

    I am far from certain that football hooligans are actually fans at all. Sure - their team provides a tribal banner to rally around, and they'll cheer for their tribe, but I'm far from certain that they actually appreciate the sport at all.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 20
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Sport can be enjoyed without any violence at all, it is because the fans support it that it continues.

    I am far from certain that football hooligans are actually fans at all. Sure - their team provides a tribal banner to rally around, and they'll cheer for their tribe, but I'm far from certain that they actually appreciate the sport at all.
    That some of them are arseholes who will find some way to be arseholes no matter what, is true. But also true is that some people who mightn't have been arseholes are encouraged to be.
    It is literally the way crowds work. It is literally the way humanity works.

    ETA: Football encourages hooliganism, regardless of how sincere a fan hooligans might be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Host Hat On

    Sealioning is a subtle form of trolling and is regarded as particularly destructive to the type of discussion the Ship wishes to promote. Even more so in Epiphanies, given the subject matter.

    Shipmates who regularly use this approach to questioning are in breach of C1 and will be dealt with accordingly.

    If a Shipmate believes that another Shipmate is sealioning, they can PM a Host or call the Shipmate to Hell.

    Barnabas62
    Epiphanies Host

    Host Hat Off
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I am far from certain that football hooligans are actually fans at all. Sure - their team provides a tribal banner to rally around, and they'll cheer for their tribe, but I'm far from certain that they actually appreciate the sport at all.

    Would I be right in suspecting some overlap between football hooligans and white supremacists ? Do the two groups have the same appeal to the same type of people ? Black v white in one case, red v blue in the other ?
    Crœsos wrote: »
    using "culture" as a euphemism for race is a particularly obvious and obnoxious dodge used by racists to obscure their motives and reasoning. It posits that a white Londoner and a white Muscovite have the same "culture", while a white Londoner and a black Londoner are from different "cultures". This seems contrary to the way "culture" is typically understood

    I agree that such a usage is unhelpful. And would assert on the contrary that if I were a white Londoner, I would expect to get on better with a black Londoner who speaks with my accent, laughs at my jokes and "gets" any movie references I might make, than with a white Muscovite with heavily-accented English and different attitudes to work, religion, etc.

    Culture matters.
    As I pointed out earlier, belief in the superiority of white race would seem to lead to white supremacist conclusions, if the reasoning were pursued far enough. I guess I didn't use plain enough English in making that point.

    No, that's clear. Just not to the point, because I'm suggesting that "everyday prejudice" isn't based on an idea of white racial superiority. From my (European) perspective it's based on cultural friction with unassimilated immigrants. It may be that there's a different dynamic in the US.
    History's most infamous white supremacist regime just coincidentally made anti-Semitism a major component of their idea of a master race culture, not because of over a millennium of German anti-Semitism. @Russ would have us believe that the Third Reich could just as easily have adopted anti-Polynesianism as a plank.
    Not at all. I doubt that the Nazis could have displayed any such creative originality. I'm suggesting that the idea of racial superiority belongs in the dustbin of history with the phlogiston. That's where the Nazis found it, and the white supremacists who hold that doctrine do so to satisfy some psychological need of their own rather than because they open-minded perceive that there is any evidence in its favour.

    And if you're serious about wanting to combat white supremacist movements, then it's that psychological attraction that you need to address.
  • MaryLouise wrote: »

    What is hard for me to figure out is the distinction between obliviousness, ignorance and denial, not wanting to see what is there, that characterises so many debates like this.
    Is there a special word like "sealion" or "strawman" that describes this sort of omniscient remark as though the speaker and her like minded friends are in the teachers lounge talking about stubborn children who just don't get it? If so, I wish that could be banned. It doesn't name names but is clearly insulting to the people who disagree with the speaker, and we all know who those are.

    "Sealioning," is interesting. I've see questioning used during debates as a fair tactic to get people to stop and examine something that is conventional wisdom but not necessarily correct. We do sometimes take certain things for granted as truths until we're asked to examine them. @Josephine used to use questions for that purpose a lot, (I was on the receiving end a few times) and she's a brilliant woman from whom I learned quite a lot.

    { I'm not arguing with Barnabas's decision to ban people who sealion, I just want a better idea of what it is.}
  • Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    using "culture" as a euphemism for race is a particularly obvious and obnoxious dodge used by racists to obscure their motives and reasoning. It posits that a white Londoner and a white Muscovite have the same "culture", while a white Londoner and a black Londoner are from different "cultures". This seems contrary to the way "culture" is typically understood

    I agree that such a usage is unhelpful. And would assert on the contrary that if I were a white Londoner, I would expect to get on better with a black Londoner who speaks with my accent, laughs at my jokes and "gets" any movie references I might make, than with a white Muscovite with heavily-accented English and different attitudes to work, religion, etc.

    Wow! Just as a point of clarification, not everyone in Moscow speaks English with a heavy accent. Most don't speak English at all, let alone like Boris Badenov. It's not like Jonny Foreigner is just play-acting and if you yell at him loud enough he'll give up the pretense.
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As I pointed out earlier, belief in the superiority of white race culture would seem to lead to white supremacist conclusions, if the reasoning were pursued far enough. I guess I didn't use plain enough English in making that point.

    No, that's clear. Just not to the point, because I'm suggesting that "everyday prejudice" isn't based on an idea of white racial superiority. From my (European) perspective it's based on cultural friction with unassimilated immigrants. It may be that there's a different dynamic in the US.

    Racial slurs, to pick one example of the "everyday racism prejudice" that you find acceptable, are premised on the idea that there is something bad, wrong, or shameful in being a [ nigger / spic / gook / insert slur of choice here ], especially when compared to being "normal" (i.e. white), thus reinforcing notions of white supremacy and I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO AN ALLEGED ADULT WHO FEELS CONFIDENT PONTIFICATING ABOUT RACE.

    I'll just repost @MaryLouise's earlier offering on your idea that European "everyday" racism prejudice is all about "unassimilated immigrants".
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    My cousin is a third-generation British citizen. Her great grandfather from Southern Rhodesia was given British citizenship as a reward for having served in the King's African Rifles in World War I. He moved to Britain to study at the London School of Economics in the 1940s and his children and grand-children were born and grew up in the UK. My cousin points out that there isn't a week without people making assumptions based on her skin colour and reminding her she doesn't belong in Britain: people she meets on the street, in subways, in the workplace, ask her where she is from or tell her to go back to Africa, somewhere she has never lived. She is a highly qualified midwife who lectures in obstetrics and works in the NHS. Because of class divisions, white working-class patients often assume she is someone who makes tea, has somehow cheated the system to get a good job, is incompetent and a recent migrant. When she with others in her community agitated for Stephen Lawrence's case to be reopened, she received hate mail for months. These and other acts of minor or serious aggression, discrimination and disrespect are simply the tenor of her daily life.

    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?
  • Twilight wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »

    What is hard for me to figure out is the distinction between obliviousness, ignorance and denial, not wanting to see what is there, that characterises so many debates like this.
    Is there a special word like "sealion" or "strawman" that describes this sort of omniscient remark as though the speaker and her like minded friends are in the teachers lounge talking about stubborn children who just don't get it? If so, I wish that could be banned. It doesn't name names but is clearly insulting to the people who disagree with the speaker, and we all know who those are.
    I don't she is implying any sort of omniscience. She is saying that the distinction is not clear.
    The frustrating part is what we see as clear, others do not see. And that is because we do not have the choice to ignore it, it is thrust upon us.
    Race has similarities to disability in this. If one is not affected, it is easy to dismiss societal treatment as cases of individual misadventure instead of systemic abuse. But see the abuse from the inside, it is far too common to be anomalous.
    Twilight wrote: »
    "Sealioning," is interesting. I've see questioning used during debates as a fair tactic to get people to stop and examine something that is conventional wisdom but not necessarily correct. We do sometimes take certain things for granted as truths until we're asked to examine them. @Josephine used to use questions for that purpose a lot, (I was on the receiving end a few times) and she's a brilliant woman from whom I learned quite a lot.

    { I'm not arguing with Barnabas's decision to ban people who sealion, I just want a better idea of what it is.}
    There is a difference between questioning and using questions to troll. To see it, one must disconnect from the question asked and examine the way the questions are asked and the pattern of behaviour.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?
    Obviously she must go back to Africa.

  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host
    Twilight wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »


    "Sealioning," is interesting. I've see questioning used during debates as a fair tactic to get people to stop and examine something that is conventional wisdom but not necessarily correct. We do sometimes take certain things for granted as truths until we're asked to examine them. @Josephine used to use questions for that purpose a lot, (I was on the receiving end a few times) and she's a brilliant woman from whom I learned quite a lot.

    { I'm not arguing with Barnabas's decision to ban people who sealion, I just want a better idea of what it is.}

    What lilbuddha said.

    Twilight, I'm not sure what its so hard to grasp here. What did you find in the explanatory links that made you think of Josephine who is one of the more thoughtful and informed posters here? Sealioning has to do with malicious intent.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host
    edited September 22
    @Croesus, @lilbuddha

    I wonder if it would help to look at another aspect to the Zimbabwean diaspora and the white privilege sometimes called social capital . I'm going into particulars because I'm not sure 'social capital' means much as an abstract term.

    *

    A white ex-Rhodesian I'm calling John immigrated from the new Zimbabwe to the UK with an ancestral visa. It took him, he says, about six months to find his feet. His uncle was an estate agent in London who helped him find a place to rent in Wimbledon and lent him his car to get to interviews. John's wife was pregnant and stayed with some family in Devon who arranged for her to see a private gynae and avoid the waiting list for the NHS. John wore his old Peterhouse school tie with a suit to the interview because the CEO had been to the same school some years before. He got the job, was fast-tracked to citizenship.

    His wife had grown up Anglican and the women in her new church threw a baby shower for her. John and his wife began going to pub quizzes each week in the pub down the road and made friends in the neighborhood. Johns wife inherited a small legacy from an elderly aunt in Devon so they could put down a deposit on a new home. It wasn't all easy: the weather got them down and London was seeming 'too Third World', in John's words. He rang another old school friend in Australia who offered him a job in IT, and said he'd help get their son into a good school. So John and his family sold up and moved again. Another seamless transition.

    *

    Social capital is all about the influential networks, inherited advantages, group cohesions, shared cultural bonds and buffers that promote cultural and geographic mobility to ensure white middle-class immigrants fit in within a generation. It's not an unquestioned absolute because gender, class, sexual preference, disability or age intersect. Going back through this thread, it seems to me that if we can't quite grasp what everyday racism is, the connection to white supremacist thinking may be harder to understand.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Racial slurs, to pick one example of the "everyday racism prejudice" that you find acceptable, are premised on the idea that there is something bad, wrong, or shameful in being a [ nigger / spic / gook / insert slur of choice here ], especially when compared to being "normal" (i.e. white), thus reinforcing notions of white supremacy

    I'm not saying that the set of behaviours that you call "everyday racism" are either acceptable or unacceptable. I'm arguing that they are a more diverse set than your narrative allows.

    But I'll focus on the specific point we're discussing here - whether addressing such behaviours is an effective way of tackling the apparent increase of white supremacist groups.

    Your example is use of the N-word. Why do you think someone would use that word ?

    - to assert their firm conviction of white racial superiority ? Possibly. Will telling them not to say it undermine that conviction ? No.

    - because they're too young to know better, or too old and set in their ways to change ? This is use in innocence of implied inferiority, rather than as a deliberate slur.

    - because it's seen as cool and edgy and brave to transgress social norms (in a situation where there's no authority-figure around to punish such transgression) ? Every generation of young people develops its own slang, attractive precisely because it's theirs and is outside the culture they've been taught. Will increasing the degree of bravery required eliminate the usage ? There's a real possibility that it will encourage it.

    Isn't it obvious that the people most at risk of being drawn into white supremacist groups are the third category - young men finding a way to assert their masculinity ? That such groups are getting off on being counter-cultural together ?

    If use of the N-word were normal, and it carried an overtone of white superiority, then you'd have a point. People could conceivably come to believe in white superiority because that assumption was built into the language they use.

    But we're way past that point. We're at the point where the social forbiddenness of the usage is part of the attraction.
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?

    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The frustrating part is what we see as clear, others do not see.

    Rest assured, you have no monopoly on frustration.

    And there are things that other people see clearly and you don't seem to.
    And that is because we do not have the choice to ignore it, it is thrust upon us.

    Sure, it's not an academic issue for you.

    But that doesn't convey upon you any immunity from philosophical error or from seeing patterns that aren't there.

    We can talk about what is objectively and knowably true, where there is arguably some moral obligation on us all to conform our picture of the world more closely to that truth.

    Or we can talk about people's different subjective perspectives arising from their different experiences, where arguably every perspective is valid.

    But you seem to want to do neither of these but to argue from authority - that your perspective is objective truth because your experience is at the sharp end.

    Which seems clearly false...

  • MaryLouise wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »


    "Sealioning," is interesting. I've see questioning used during debates as a fair tactic to get people to stop and examine something that is conventional wisdom but not necessarily correct. We do sometimes take certain things for granted as truths until we're asked to examine them. @Josephine used to use questions for that purpose a lot, (I was on the receiving end a few times) and she's a brilliant woman from whom I learned quite a lot.

    { I'm not arguing with Barnabas's decision to ban people who sealion, I just want a better idea of what it is.}

    What lilbuddha said.

    Twilight, I'm not sure what its so hard to grasp here. What did you find in the explanatory links that made you think of Josephine who is one of the more thoughtful and informed posters here? Sealioning has to do with malicious intent.
    I called Josephine brilliant. I used her as a good example of how questioning can be used wisely in debate. I did not use her as an example of sealioning, but rather the opposite.

    Everyone else seemed to understand that. Yet you ask me why I'm having trouble grasping things. This is one example of why I don't think you should be the judge of who isn't understanding things, or who is sealioning or who has "malicious intent."
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited September 22
    Hosting
    The admins, as Barnabas just pointed out, are the judges of what is sealioning or any other form of generalised misbehaviour falling under C1.

    This discussion is becoming far too personalised. If you want to know what sealioning is, please look it up. If you want to discuss it in general, go to another board where general matters may be discussed. If you have a problem with another poster, then please take it to the Hell board but you must stop it here.

    Arguments and tactics in posting can be discussed but when such discussions become too personal they must stop or be taken to Hell as usual.

    May I also add, this board is not Dead Horses, and we're concerned that people sharing about painful realities in their lives like racism should not be shut down by game-playing or aggression or personal attacks.

    This is a bit of a work in progress, but I'd like people to bear in mind, that we're looking for something a bit different here.
    Louise
    Epiphanies host

    Hosting off



  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 22
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?

    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.

    So in trying to combat systemic racism / white supremacist thought and action and white normative thought and action - I’d ask *you* what *we* - as a white dominant society and as individuals within that society - should do, and should not do so that her being mistaken for a recent immigrant a) does not matter, and does not detrimentally effect her life and b) make it less likely this assumption will be made ?
  • Russ wrote: »
    But I'll focus on the specific point we're discussing here - whether addressing such behaviours is an effective way of tackling the apparent increase of white supremacist groups.

    Your example is use of the N-word. Why do you think someone would use that word ?

    <snip>

    If use of the N-word were normal, and it carried an overtone of white superiority, then you'd have a point. People could conceivably come to believe in white superiority because that assumption was built into the language they use.

    I'd say the fact that you feel the need to abbreviate "the N-word" completely contradicts your claim that it's not a slur or an insult, and if characterizing someone's race is an insult it implies that there is something wrong or inferior with their race.
    Russ wrote: »
    But we're way past that point. We're at the point where the social forbiddenness of the usage is part of the attraction.

    Who exactly is "we" in this construction? It certainly doesn't include you since you can't even type the slur in an internet forum. I certainly would consider calling someone "nigger" to their face to be an insult, and that the fact that's it's intended to be insulting is necessarily a denigration of black people collectively. Who is this "we" that considers racial slurs to have nothing to do with race and no longer to be slurs at all?
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?

    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.

    And why, exactly, is she being mistaken for a recent migrant? Since we have a lot of UK-based shipmates I'll through the question open. How often do our white, native-born British shipmates get mistaken for recent immigrants? Or told to "go back to Africa"? Weekly? Daily? Never? If the explanation is that "it's to do with immigration" and has nothing at all to do with skin color I'm sure we'll shortly be inundated in anecdotes.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I pass seamlessly as White British. In fact, for the first half of my life, I believed I was entirely White British, descended from stout yeoman stock on one side and middle class London natives on the other.

    My dad was Jewish.

    So, while I can rock a kippah, or look incredibly Semitic in a keffiyeh, and have members of the local Hassidic community mistake me for one of their wayward sons, pretty much everyone in my 95% White British community assumes I'm from the same stock as they are.

    I can confirm that no one has ever told me to "go back to Israel" (or Jewland, or whatever) or subjected me to any anti-Semitic slur. Even when I challenge people making anti-Semitic comments and out myself, they usually shut up with a "I didn't mean you".

    Just a data point. Use it as you wish.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »

    Twilight, I'm not sure what its so hard to grasp here. What did you find in the explanatory links that made you think of Josephine who is one of the more thoughtful and informed posters here? Sealioning has to do with malicious intent.
    I called Josephine brilliant. I used her as a good example of how questioning can be used wisely in debate. I did not use her as an example of sealioning, but rather the opposite.

    Everyone else seemed to understand that. Yet you ask me why I'm having trouble grasping things. This is one example of why I don't think you should be the judge of who isn't understanding things, or who is sealioning or who has "malicious intent."
    I think what MaryLouise is asking is that you look at what made you think Josephine's comments conducive to learning. By doing so, you might contrast why some other people's questioning appears different in intent.
    Josephine uses questions as a helpful tool, not everyone does.
  • Over the last week, Trudeau has been embroyed in a controversy of his own making for youthful indiscretions of wearing brown/blackface when he should not have done it. Question: even though he has apologized and said he did it our of white privilege and now realizes he should not have done it, are they unforgivable?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 22
    He wasn’t that young to be fair - though, in terms of getting POC into government he has at least made an effort to put his money where his mouth is. However, other policies have been less positive in their impact.
  • MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Croesus, @lilbuddha

    I wonder if it would help to look at another aspect to the Zimbabwean diaspora and the white privilege sometimes called social capital . I'm going into particulars because I'm not sure 'social capital' means much as an abstract term.
    .
    The conditions listed in you link outline social capital very well.
    1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
    2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
    3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
    4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
    5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
    6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
    7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
    8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
    9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
    10. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
    11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
    12. I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
    13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
    14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
    15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
    16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
    17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
    18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.
    19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.
    20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.
    21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
    22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.
    23. I can choose public accommodations without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
    24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
    25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
    26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more less match my skin.

    I will note that people might look at the economic factors and consider them outside of race. However, POC/BME suffer from poverty at a greater rate than do white people.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited September 22
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »

    Twilight, I'm not sure what its so hard to grasp here. What did you find in the explanatory links that made you think of Josephine who is one of the more thoughtful and informed posters here? Sealioning has to do with malicious intent.
    I called Josephine brilliant. I used her as a good example of how questioning can be used wisely in debate. I did not use her as an example of sealioning, but rather the opposite.

    Everyone else seemed to understand that. Yet you ask me why I'm having trouble grasping things. This is one example of why I don't think you should be the judge of who isn't understanding things, or who is sealioning or who has "malicious intent."
    I think what MaryLouise is asking is that you look at what made you think Josephine's comments conducive to learning. By doing so, you might contrast why some other people's questioning appears different in intent.
    Josephine uses questions as a helpful tool, not everyone does.


    Hosting

    Could people drop this specific discussion unless they'd like to move it to the Hell Board?

    Thanks
    Louise
    Epiphanies host
    Hosting off
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 23
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Racial slurs, to pick one example of the "everyday racism prejudice" that you find acceptable, are premised on the idea that there is something bad, wrong, or shameful in being a [ nigger / spic / gook / insert slur of choice here ], especially when compared to being "normal" (i.e. white), thus reinforcing notions of white supremacy

    I'm not saying that the set of behaviours that you call "everyday racism" are either acceptable or unacceptable. I'm arguing that they are a more diverse set than your narrative allows.

    But I'll focus on the specific point we're discussing here - whether addressing such behaviours is an effective way of tackling the apparent increase of white supremacist groups.

    Your example is use of the N-word. Why do you think someone would use that word ?

    - to assert their firm conviction of white racial superiority ? Possibly. Will telling them not to say it undermine that conviction ? No.

    - because they're too young to know better, or too old and set in their ways to change ? This is use in innocence of implied inferiority, rather than as a deliberate slur.

    - because it's seen as cool and edgy and brave to transgress social norms (in a situation where there's no authority-figure around to punish such transgression) ? Every generation of young people develops its own slang, attractive precisely because it's theirs and is outside the culture they've been taught. Will increasing the degree of bravery required eliminate the usage ? There's a real possibility that it will encourage it.

    Isn't it obvious that the people most at risk of being drawn into white supremacist groups are the third category - young men finding a way to assert their masculinity ? That such groups are getting off on being counter-cultural together ?

    If use of the N-word were normal, and it carried an overtone of white superiority, then you'd have a point. People could conceivably come to believe in white superiority because that assumption was built into the language they use.

    But we're way past that point. We're at the point where the social forbiddenness of the usage is part of the attraction.
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?

    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.

    There comes a time when you have to pick a side. Sometimes the why someone says or does something isn’t as relevant as the what. Racial slurs are just that, slurs. Used by one group to demonstrate their power and superiority over another. There is no if. The assumption is already there in the word itself.

    People get drawn into right-wing groups because they feel they’re not getting the opportunities that others get and the groups play into that anger. They tell people that “immigrants” are taking things are that rightfully theirs and the solution to the problem is to make the immigrants go away / not let any more in. Over the years these ideas have been normalised by the media and mainstream politicians. People can also find loads of like-minded people easily on social.

    It’s rubbish. The lack of opportunities are, more than likely, due to bad government policies with no investment in communities etc. As is your argument about counter-culture and a desire to challenge accepted social behaviours.

    As a result, people feel that asking to someone who looks or sounds “foreign” how long they’ve been here / when they’re planning to “go back home” is acceptable. It has nothing to do with the immigrant. It has nothing to do with how much or little they’re “assimilated”. It has everything to do with the person who’s made the comment.

    It's time to stop making excuses and call it out for what it is. Racism. Then do something about it ... Challenge someone's choice of words, buy a different newspaper, write to our MP and ask them to stop with the dog-whistle politics ...
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Over the last week, Trudeau has been embroyed in a controversy of his own making for youthful indiscretions of wearing brown/blackface when he should not have done it. Question: even though he has apologized and said he did it our of white privilege and now realizes he should not have done it, are they unforgivable?

    In my part of Canada, dressing as an indigenous person would be worse. Politically during this federal election (we vote 21 Oct) it's hard to say what it will mean to him and his party. Given his major opponent Scheer is shown in video to be anti-gay, anti marriage equality, anti-abortion, the damage is spread in this election.

    He was 29 in the most widely circulated photo, dressed as Aladdin. I'm quite a bit older and would not have considered this at that age at an earlier time.

    We see the equivalent of blackface with sports teams, e.g. Washington Redskins. Which is achingly not changing and is defended. Racist as hell. Washington Blackfaces wouldn't play.
  • Racism can be a mixed and complex thing. Calling a sports team the redskins is not the same thing as would be calling a team the blackfaces. Whilst the word redskins is racist, it was chosen because the "respect" for the brave, Indian warrior, not something one can say for blackface.
    It is still racist as fuck. It is actually a perfect example of implicit racism/white privilege/etc. White people say "We are honouring natives by acknowledging their martial prowess." and believe they not being racist.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    So in trying to combat systemic racism / white supremacist thought and action and white normative thought and action - I’d ask *you* what *we* - as a white dominant society and as individuals within that society - should do, and should not do so that her being mistaken for a recent immigrant a) does not matter, and does not detrimentally effect her life and b) make it less likely this assumption will be made ?

    Why are you mixing up white supremacism with "white normative" ?

    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    Sure, each of those countries may have a minority of non-indigeneous people. It doesn't follow that expectations about what is normal imply any view about racial supremacy.

    Your question is about immigration and not about an ideology of racial supremacy.

    Start a thread on immigration and I'll be happy to try to give you a straight answer.


  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    White people say "We are honouring natives by acknowledging their martial prowess." and believe they not being racist.

    Is it racist to attribute any characteristic to a race of people ?

    Even if there is evidence to justify such attribution ?

  • Russ wrote: »
    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    Normal is a rather loaded word. It can be a mere statement of frequency, but it can also imply a value judgement - that things that are abnormal are undesirable. There are plenty of people who like to hide behind the statistical statement of fact whilst implying (subtly or otherwise) the other, and those people are racists.
  • The days of the racially pure nation are long past. As soon as a nation starts admitting immigrants, then it IS racist to say "Swedish people are or should be white." That is just racist. As fuck. Because it is implying either (a) Sweden should not admit non-white immigrants, or (b) the non-white immigrants they have aren't really Swedish. WHICH IS RACIST. I can't see how this isn't more obvious than the sun in the sky.
  • No group is pure anything. It is simply not how things work. BTW, white Swedes were immigrants into a land already occupied by brown people. The Sami are the indigenous people of Scandinavia
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 24
    Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    White people say "We are honouring natives by acknowledging their martial prowess." and believe they not being racist.

    Is it racist to attribute any characteristic to a race of people ?

    Even if there is evidence to justify such attribution ?

    Potentially, yes. You wouldn't judge all white, middle-aged American men on the basis of watching Homer in action over 30 seasons of the Simpsons now, would you?

    What you seem to have been ignoring throughout the sections of the conversation that I’ve read is that that person on the receiving end of the behaviour matters just as much as the person doing the behaving. Then moving on from that to say that they shouldn’t bother challenging the racist behaviour because it won’t change anything / they’re just being edgy / don’t know any better / there’s evidence for that. Which is racist bullshit from where I'm sitting.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?
    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.
    Russ wrote: »
    So in trying to combat systemic racism / white supremacist thought and action and white normative thought and action - I’d ask *you* what *we* - as a white dominant society and as individuals within that society - should do, and should not do so that her being mistaken for a recent immigrant a) does not matter, and does not detrimentally effect her life and b) make it less likely this assumption will be made ?

    Why are you mixing up white supremacism with "white normative" ?

    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    Sure, each of those countries may have a minority of non-indigeneous people. It doesn't follow that expectations about what is normal imply any view about racial supremacy.

    Your question is about immigration and not about an ideology of racial supremacy.

    Thanks for clarifying that when you say "it's to do with immigration and assimilation" you mean "it's to do with skin color and physical appearance". Most of us got what you were saying already, but it's nice to have it stated baldly.

    Of course, being told to leave your native country and go "back" to X, even if you've never been there in your life, based on assimilation the color of your non-immigrant skin seems pretty hostile, a way of telling someone that no one who looks like you could possibly belong where you are, but I'm sure @Russ will be along shortly to tell us how helpful it is. Maybe you just didn't know you were walking around with unassimilated skin and your kindly interlocutor was simply telling you where you "really" belong.
    Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Whilst the word redskins is racist, it was chosen because the "respect" for the brave, Indian warrior, not something one can say for blackface.
    It is still racist as fuck. It is actually a perfect example of implicit racism/white privilege/etc. White people say "We are honouring natives by acknowledging their martial prowess." and believe they not being racist.
    Is it racist to attribute any characteristic to a race of people ?

    Even if there is evidence to justify such attribution ?

    I'm not sure admiring someone for their supposed racial tendency for brutal savagery (and savage brutality) counts as "respect". And yes, George Preston Marshall*, the owner who picked the name originally, was quite the racist culturist and almost certainly leaned into the "savage Indian" stereotype for his new team.

    Given contemporary American ideas about black criminality and violence, the Washington Blackskins might very well convey the same message.

    In a related project, an artist made a project of reworking the logo of another team with a similar name problem, the Cleveland Indians, with representations of other racial and ethnic groups.
    The aim of this project is of course to shock, but perhaps the most shocking thing is that many would look at these other logos and be more shocked. How are these logos any different from what Cleveland did for so long? The truth is they’re not. We’re rightly outraged at racist depictions of Blacks, Asians, Jews, and others, but why are we somehow alright with bigotry towards Native Americans? Looking at them all side-by-side, these should all be viewed with the same amount of scorn. One or a few of these are not worse than the others. You’re either outraged at all of them or none of them.


    *not to be confused with George Catlett Marshall, Jr. the WWII general
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    Russ wrote: »
    Why are you mixing up white supremacism with "white normative" ?

    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    "Normative" and "normal" are different words. They mean different things. 'Normative' means complying with an expected standard, 'normal' means of high statistical frequency or lying within a range of expected variation.

    I'm not sure exactly what Doublethink means by "white normative" but that phrase implies far more than "most people in [LOCALITY] are [COLOUR]", and I would take it to refer (critically) to a conscious or unconscious viewpoint that "only white people are rightly and properly included in the community without having to justify their place".

    That may not be full-on white supremacy, but the association of race with a right to national and social participation would make it a hell of a lot easier to get to white supremacy.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 24
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    What exactly should @MaryLouise's cousin do to "assimilate" better to the culture she was born into?
    Not saying she should necessarily do anything different.

    She's being mistaken for a recent migrant. Of course it's to do with immigration and assimilation.
    Russ wrote: »
    So in trying to combat systemic racism / white supremacist thought and action and white normative thought and action - I’d ask *you* what *we* - as a white dominant society and as individuals within that society - should do, and should not do so that her being mistaken for a recent immigrant a) does not matter, and does not detrimentally effect her life and b) make it less likely this assumption will be made ?

    Why are you mixing up white supremacism with "white normative" ?

    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    Sure, each of those countries may have a minority of non-indigeneous people. It doesn't follow that expectations about what is normal imply any view about racial supremacy.

    Your question is about immigration and not about an ideology of racial supremacy.

    Thanks for clarifying that when you say "it's to do with immigration and assimilation" you mean "it's to do with skin color and physical appearance". Most of us got what you were saying already, but it's nice to have it stated baldly.

    Of course, being told to leave your native country and go "back" to X, even if you've never been there in your life, based on assimilation the color of your non-immigrant skin seems pretty hostile, a way of telling someone that no one who looks like you could possibly belong where you are, but I'm sure @Russ will be along shortly to tell us how helpful it is. Maybe you just didn't know you were walking around with unassimilated skin and your kindly interlocutor was simply telling you where you "really" belong.

    ...

    I’m a white haired lady of indeterminate age. The default assumption in many conversations is that I’m fine with casual racism, think Brexit is awesome and read the Daily Mail. It’s a big no from me to all those things.

    It’s difficult to know the best way to handle this without potentially making the situation worse. Sometimes I say something, other times I change the subject quickly to something more neutral … It’s annoying. It’s unhelpful. It’s lazy at best and ageist at worst. Then I imagine how it must feel to have to deal with this nonsense and worse Every Damn. Day and being expected to just sit back and take it because of unassimilated skin. :angry:
  • White supremacists in the news:
    A 24-year-old soldier in Kansas who allegedly planned to fight with a violent far-right group in Ukraine was charged Monday with distributing bomb-making information over social media, according to the Justice Department.

    The FBI says Army Spc. Jarrett William Smith, stationed at Fort Riley, came under investigation in March, when authorities learned he had given bomb-making lessons over Facebook. The FBI also says Smith was in talks about traveling to Ukraine, where he wanted to fight alongside the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov Battalion.

    What NPR fails to mention is that the Azov Battalion is a) officially part of the Ukrainian national guard and b) is being armed by the United States. In fact it seems most major media reporting on this arrest are omitting that bit.
  • White supremacists in the news:
    A 24-year-old soldier in Kansas who allegedly planned to fight with a violent far-right group in Ukraine was charged Monday with distributing bomb-making information over social media, according to the Justice Department.

    The FBI says Army Spc. Jarrett William Smith, stationed at Fort Riley, came under investigation in March, when authorities learned he had given bomb-making lessons over Facebook. The FBI also says Smith was in talks about traveling to Ukraine, where he wanted to fight alongside the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov Battalion.

    What NPR fails to mention is that the Azov Battalion is a) officially part of the Ukrainian national guard and b) is being armed by the United States. In fact it seems most major media reporting on this arrest are omitting that bit.
    Perhaps because the focus of the story is Smith and it is a short article, not an in-depth one.
    America funding unsavoury groups to further its own agenda is nothing new.
  • An extra sentence or two noting this significant but widely unknown fact would not require an in-depth article.

    When the Boston marathon was bombed in 2013 everybody was scrambling to examine conditions in Chechnya and when/where/how the Tsarnaev brothers were radicalized.

    When the media is so eager to jump down Trump's throat for infractions big and small, the omission of the fact that he is arming Neo-Nazis doesn't look like an innocent oversight.
  • An extra sentence or two noting this significant but widely unknown fact would not require an in-depth article.

    When the Boston marathon was bombed in 2013 everybody was scrambling to examine conditions in Chechnya and when/where/how the Tsarnaev brothers were radicalized.

    When the media is so eager to jump down Trump's throat for infractions big and small, the omission of the fact that he is arming Neo-Nazis doesn't look like an innocent oversight.
    NPR is as close to neutral as America has. The typical bias accusation against them is from the right, the threat to their funding is from the right. The implication that they are intentionally obscuring something Trump is doing is a bit odd.
This discussion has been closed.