-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Downtown Indy Riots/damage overnight...
- Thread starter billybob44
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If one wanted to destroy a group of people and do so in the easiest way possible, it would be hard to come up with an easier way than to simply start by embracing and encouraging the most destructive elements of that group's culture. The second step is just as easy, all that would need to be done is to encourage entitlement and victim hood while discouraging personal responsibility. Once the destructiveness of that group's culture is celebrated and responsibility is forgotten it's only a matter of time until the group destroy itself. The best part of it is, if you are the evil POS determined to see the group's destruction, once the destruction starts it is nearly a self sustaining process.
As the group slides down the death spiral, they naturally become more and more resentful of other groups that are not failing. If at any time the group threatens to halt it's own destruction there are always useful idiots around to quickly discourage responsibility and promote victim hood. There is rarely a shortage of "do gooders" who just want to feel good about "helping" a downtrodden group and that never stop to consider that their desire to feel good helps to destroy that which they seek to save. Instead of recognizing their own demeaning and destructive bigotry, these want to be do gooders attack and label any who seek to encourage responsibility and halt the destruction with whatever the relevant -ism may be.
Eventually, if not from the very beginning, one bent on destroying a group realizes that there is profit and political power to be gained by that destruction and by harnessing the well meaning fools. There are always more groups to be destroyed and fools to co-opt and while some groups may be slightly more difficult to destroy, the fools willing to do your bidding are always plentiful. Once enough political power is obtained, one can openly incite this destruction, openly encourage divisiveness, even violence and be celebrate for it. All the while the useful idiots/fools continue to do the dirty work and attack the very things and the very people that would dare to try to save the group.
Yeah, unfortunately it's human nature to seek out the smallest nitpicky-est inconsequential nonsense and absolutely obsess over it until they jump up from the camp fire and beat on each other. Maybe there's a survival trait built in there somewhere but fact of the matter is we're plumb goofy over stomping out differences. Is that how humanity creates cultural diversity to give the species flexibility in meeting crises, by forcing isolation on groups to promote overall changes? I know I don't know. But I do know we all need the same things and either help each other or take from each other. And taking has gone too far for too long.
If you want a multi-ethnic society, the society must be united by a shared culture.
When society isn't united, this happens.
T.Lex, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm calling you out, that's not the intent. I'd really like to see you nail this down, how this is "systemic racism" rather than more logically explained by human nature, which manifests in all races. Being critical of some group behaviors is normal. I get to not care for rap music. I get to hate twangy country music. That doesn't mean I'm being any specific "ism" against the cultures that like those things.
So I'd appreciate if you could explain the link between one or more people not liking a behavior associated with social groups and systemic racism. You know. Actually I'd also like you to explain systemic racism, and then list some real world examples of where it exists in the US today. And i'm not saying it doesn't exist. One example off the top of my head is stop-and-frisk. That tends to fit the definition a lot more than this. I've changed my mind before about things. I'm not afraid to modify my world view if some compelling information makes it clear it needs updating. So change my mind.
So I'd appreciate if you could explain the link between one or more people not liking a behavior associated with social groups and systemic racism. You know. Actually I'd also like you to explain systemic racism, and then list some real world examples of where it exists in the US today. And i'm not saying it doesn't exist. One example off the top of my head is stop-and-frisk. That tends to fit the definition a lot more than this. I've changed my mind before about things. I'm not afraid to modify my world view if some compelling information makes it clear it needs updating. So change my mind.
So, I've wrestled with this since my posts yesterday on this. I am uncomfortable taking on a role as mouthpiece for these issues, even here in a relatively "safe" environment.
I am just trying to articulate, in an imperfect way, the conversations I have had with people involved in these matters, over a long period of time. That's filtered, of course, through my own experiences, reflection, and self-examination.
For one thing, IMHO the "systemic racism" is a terrible description for what I understand that part of the problem to be. I think it is a legacy phrase that originally described something specific (like Jim Crow laws or apartheid, or the unwritten "rules" in the South about how black people should behave) but now it is a catchall. The problem with that is that with a huge movement, it means different things to different people.
An operative definition (as I understand it) is more like a system of racism. That is, assigning negative qualities to people based on things tied to the color of their skin - "urban" music, jeans below the waist, tattoos, mannerisms, manner of speech. Kinda like that post upthread.
This is a complicated subject, for which I will emphasize that I am probably not the best person to provide insight. I would encourage everyone to try and get to know people who are actually involved with it - the peaceful protesting part.
Interactions with the looters will likely not be very verbose.
Never!
I like your mind the way it is.
I dont like country, typically, and dont like rap. But I like this. I'm very conflicted. (It gets really interesting at 1:00)
[video=youtube;-DwNEiUcurc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DwNEiUcurc[/video]
So, I've wrestled with this since my posts yesterday on this. I am uncomfortable taking on a role as mouthpiece for these issues, even here in a relatively "safe" environment.
I am just trying to articulate, in an imperfect way, the conversations I have had with people involved in these matters, over a long period of time. That's filtered, of course, through my own experiences, reflection, and self-examination.
For one thing, IMHO the "systemic racism" is a terrible description for what I understand that part of the problem to be. I think it is a legacy phrase that originally described something specific (like Jim Crow laws or apartheid, or the unwritten "rules" in the South about how black people should behave) but now it is a catchall. The problem with that is that with a huge movement, it means different things to different people.
An operative definition (as I understand it) is more like a system of racism. That is, assigning negative qualities to people based on things tied to the color of their skin - "urban" music, jeans below the waist, tattoos, mannerisms, manner of speech. Kinda like that post upthread.
This is a complicated subject, for which I will emphasize that I am probably not the best person to provide insight. I would encourage everyone to try and get to know people who are actually involved with it - the peaceful protesting part.
Interactions with the looters will likely not be very verbose.
Never!
I've had some of those conversations as well. I think a lot of white people dismiss a lot of the complaints (some of which are legitimate, some not). So it seems pretty obvious that the not so legitimate complaints deserve a voice too. People should listen to the complaints in the public square, but people should also listen to the rebuttals. Not every complaint is valid, not every complaint is invalid. Same with rebuttals.
From what you're describing, I think a better word than "system" would be "pattern". It's more of naming a pattern of behavior that is racist. So a pattern of racism would be defined as something like a common instantiation of a given racist act across by many people. For example, that many racists use racial slurs against people of races they don't like is a pattern of racism. Burning crosses on black people's lawns, or lynching, extreme patterns of racism. It's only systemic if it becomes imposed by tradition or custom or policy. I don't really see that happening with the this. Pattern sure. Racist, maybe. Maye not.
It's a common pattern of thought or behavior that some people don't like some cultural behaviors. That's not racist. It could become racist if the reason for it is specifically because of race/culture. It's not racist to dislike seeing saggy pants. If the dislike for the behavior doesn't derive from the person's race, it's not a racist pattern. Doesn't matter. Rap music, tattoos, mannerisms, language. Any one of those or even all of those doesn't it racist. But it does make it difficult to know it was racism because you have to know what they're thinking. People shouldn't assume that because a white person doesn't like some behaviors of black people, that the reason for that must be racism. Unless you're trying to establish a norm that you must like the thing that the minorities like, or you're a racist.
Not that you and I get to decide such things, but a label different than "systemic racism" would probably be helpful for the people seeking to change things.
One issue with what you posted (since this is INGO, I can skip all the parts we agree on)
is the idea that some of the behaviors you list (saggy pants, certain mannerisms and speech patterns) are very specific to modern "black" culture. It is so intrinsically a part of that culture that one cannot separate it. (I omitted rap because, well, there's commercialism and appealing to the broader market of white people. And I like good rap.)For me, and likely you, the conversations about this have been very much a give-and-take, with a great deal of common ground (after some initial friction sometimes). There's no rebuttal for some of this, though. At least not now. Discussion over changes that might be appropriate or those things, sure. But there's no real rebuttal to an emotional position.
Not that you and I get to decide such things, but a label different than "systemic racism" would probably be helpful for the people seeking to change things.
One issue with what you posted (since this is INGO, I can skip all the parts we agree on)
For me, and likely you, the conversations about this have been very much a give-and-take, with a great deal of common ground (after some initial friction sometimes). There's no rebuttal for some of this, though. At least not now. Discussion over changes that might be appropriate or those things, sure. But there's no real rebuttal to an emotional position.
So? Just because one culture might have some mannerisms unique to them, is that now off the table to dislike? And hopefully you'd apply that to any culture. What about Bubba? Bubba has a lot of mannerisms that are unique to rednecks. Many of those mannerisms are distasteful to many people who aren't Bubba's. So if you hate those things is that problematic in the same way as, say, not thinking very highly of Ebonics? I mean. Bubba has his own version of English too. Remember. We're talking about cultural mannerisms, not skin color. Some black people don't like those things associated with "black" culture.
Okay, but about rebuttals/emotional positions. Of course there are rebuttals, even to emotional positions. Ask my wife. Does it get me anywhere? Well, yeah. Sometimes. But applying that to the civil unrest now, they have an emotional position, much of which is instigated by political ideologues for a purpose. So the emotions are being stoked. And that's why we're being told that we must only listen, that only they can speak.
Ok. I'm going to get lambasted by INGO for this: right now, most white people need to sit down and shut up. And mostly listen. WAY more listening.
And this is not about one's ability or freedom to not like things. It his how that transfers over to how they are treated. I've witnessed that those cultural indicators have resulted in different treatment (in VERY modest ways) by white people.
If we're going to nominate new phrases, this one will never make the cut, but something like "acculturated racism." That goes both directions. Segments of the African American culture have been acculturated to dress, talk, and act in certain ways that brings out an acculturated response in many white people - some in authority. It is rarely ever (FBI stats unavailable) in a violent way, or even a reaction by police. That part is a difficult cycle to break, but one that I think is at the center of what's going on now.
Yes, the best way to get people to listen to you is to tell them to sit down and shut up.
I'm not telling anyone to listen to me - I've pointed out that I'm not a good source for this.
I'm telling people to listen to the protesters. (Not the looters.)
Well, I see an awful lot of white protestors. I'm confused on which whites need to STFU.
This is one of those times when it's good to be Hispanic.
haha
Well, I think those protesting would say that they've spent years asking nicely to be heard, without much result. So now they're being more direct.
