When Woodward asks if Trump has any impetus to understand Black Anger. Trump says "No"
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
USA
Talking about racial privilege in homelessness is still about understanding black anger.
Trump has been attacking every little thing he sees as possibly trying to help end racism against blacks, racial bias, or help black communities recover in any way.
Trump said he doesn't have responsibility to understand anger and pain felt by Black Americans
When asked if he had a responsibility to understand the "anger and pain" felt by Black Americans, Trump said, "No, I don't feel that at all," according to Bob Woodward.www.nbcnews.com
Well, we should look at the things he's done for the black community.
He's removed Consent Decrees, a process used to monitor the police and give some recourse for communities that were deadly with Police Misconduct.
Trumpās Justice Department has a powerful tool to fight police abuse. It refuses to use it.
Right before he resigned, Jeff Sessions sabotaged the DOJās ability to fight police abuse.www.vox.com
Trump declared essential workers must continue on during this pandemic. And lookee here, an overwhelming majority of those workers are minorities. And minorities are the ones hit hardest from Covid. Who would have thunk?
Essential Workers Are Still Dying From Coronavirus
Trump wants life to go back to normal. But the virus is still killing workers.nymag.com
Who are essential workers?: A comprehensive look at their wages, demographics, and unionization rates
While the coronavirus pandemic has shut down much of the U.S. economy, with over 33 million workers applying for unemployment insurance since March 15, millions of workers are still on the job providing essential services. Nearly every state governor has issued executive orders that outline...www.epi.org
Trump won some states by voter id laws
A top Republican just admitted that this is how Trump won Wisconsin
The law blocked thousands of Wisconsinites from voting in 2016, predominantly in Democratic-leaning areas.www.motherjones.com
And Trump keeps pushing for Voter id laws.
Remarks by President Trump in Press Briefing | The White House
Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, New Jersey 4:21 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much everybody. Thank you, and good afternoon. My administrawww.whitehouse.gov
Trump's administration suspends the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which ultimately was set into place for... well, affordable housing.
HUD Indefinitely Suspends AFFH Rule, Withdraws Assessment Tool
A HUD Exchange email arriving at 4:34 pm on Friday, May 18 announced that HUD would be publishing three separate notices in the Federal Register indefinitely suspending implementation of the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule and removing its Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH)...nlihc.org
Trump attempted to roll back disparate impact, which would affect anti-discrimination guidelines made decades ago.
The Trump administration is considering a major rollback of civil rights regulation
A recent Washington Post report says plans to alter disparate impact regulation, a key part of civil rights enforcement, might be in the works.
How could we be so blind as not to see all he's given us...
He could care less about the impact this will actually have on black Americans, it is all a stunt to appeal to his racist base:
Why the Trump administration is slashing anti-discrimination training
Experts in racial equity training and civil rights history say the move is a pre-election stunt.
That is misunderstanding all of what can be involved with " privilege" Privilege is about whether or not someone views and treats you the same as they do others in the same situation or circumstance. Whether they perceive you as a threat, knowing nothing else about you other than the color of your skin. Whether or not people in general trust you, warm up to you, give you the benefit of the doubt. Whether or not they smile at you, make eye contact, laugh with you or give you a touch on your arm. Whether they " give you a pass" or decide to be a hard ass about things. Whether they give you good service at a restaurant or even prescribe you the right medications for the same conditions. There is so much more involved than accumulated wealth and material gain, even though that can be a part of it as well.
The most important thing to understand about privilege is having two people in the exact same circumstance be treated better or lesser than based only on their skin color. White privilege is intertwined in every little aspect of life on a daily basis, not just about haves and have nots.
Two people in the exact same circumstance can have entirely different outcomes based on their privilege. Everything from someone offering you a free coffee or them just calling the cops on you for walking into their business at all is impacted by this.
That sort of thing is something that a myriad of factors beyond whether you're white or not affect, much more so than your skin color too. If you're young fit and hot and especially female you'll get way better treatment than people who are all average in these factors. Also there's just your appearance and getup. If you wear a suit and tie you can go anywhere like you own the place and nobody will bat an eye but if you're in shabby clothing and your hair is a mess you will be accosted. Also there's the opposite thing where if you look unkempt enough you can trick people into giving you free food by pretending to be homeless (saw someone on youtube doing that lol, she got em to buy her taco bell by wearing her pajamas outside and not brushing her frizzy hair that was all over the place).
These things are too multifaceted and variably imprecise to attribute to just whether you're white or not and to tie it all down to this one specific thing you call white privilege is ignorant and reductive. What you're doing is putting undue weight on your critique of some ways in which people differ and the way in which that difference manifests, and ignoring all the other ones which are equally if not more impactful to a person's life but run counter to that racialized view.
Simply put, people are different, in many ways beyond their race, and that difference will affect how people are treated, so no two people will ever be treated the same because them being different people will change the circumstances, and that's good. To imply that the circumstances are exactly the same just because two people are of the same race is to treat racial groups as a monolith.
To put it in different terms, there's some people who say they don't find black women hot, but some of those will have an exception for a couple prominent ones (I've heard this comment the most about Halle Berry but she's kinda old now so I dunno who the kids will use as an example) so that indicates that while there may be a general preference against a characteristic a lot of people share, there can still be other factors a person can have that undo that initial hiccup in how they were received by the other person. It's not as if it's this insurmountable thing that's always gonna be there no matter what.
No that's still way too restrictive in what it considers and only gives things like sexual identity and gender and stuff like that consideration when in fact there's a ton more stuff that doesn't fall within that purview that they ignore because it's easier to blame stuff on people being bigots and not on reasonable thought patterns that lead one to behave reasonably and having that have adverse effects without someone doing something wrong anywhere in the process.Wow, it's like no-one ever thought of that until you just now.
The intersectionals are the people who have the pyramid of oppression and judge the value of your speech on specific boxes you tick, not on the actual experiences you have had in ticking those boxes, both in the confines of those boxes and outside of those, because if you do that, there's no groups, everyone's an island and has a completely individualized intersection of experiences exclusive to them, which is why I support individualism and not collectivism and which is why the solution to these issues is more freedom for the individual as opposed to a group-based one, because any grouping is artificial and doesn't fit right.
This is why you get black people who vote for Trump get treatment like they're some sort of traitor to their race, when in fact there is no race and they just agree with this or that policy as individuals. I think that treatment, to be seen as a traitor for just living your life, is way worse than anything some redneck may yell at you on the road.
Last edited:
It's really not, it's just your understanding of it all is so limited, because it's merely reactive to political stuff you don't like.
Much of what you are talking about in #66 as if it's some kind of novel insight would be understood under intersectionality as social class; accents are actually quite powerful activators, often representing class and geographical stereotypes. People are of course highly aware of the concept of general presentability and appropriate behaviour, but this is usually accounted for somewhat separately because virtually anyone can take a shower, comb their hair, buy/rent a suit and learn to get through a conversation without swearing.
I couldn't care less about your protestations of believing in individuality, especially because your attitude to transsexuals from other threads reveals you actually have a far more limited respect of other people's individuality than you claim.
I think the issue is that because everyone can take a shower and be presentable, when someone doesn't, people judge em, and it's on their choices, not their immutable traits.
And I dunno what you're talking about regarding transsexuals lol. Anyhow, individuality is about yourself, it doesn't extend to other people, so if you believe in individuality it doesn't even matter what other people think, that's their problem, you still get to be yourself however you want if we protect individual rights, despite people's feelings on that one way or another. On a more general point I tend to be extremely open minded with people and I don't care about what weird things they get up to. My policy is to not judge other people's weird stuff because I don't want other people judging mine. Now if your issue is me seeing those things as weird in and of itself, well, shouldn't you be happy that I don't judge em despite that though? Isn't that more significant than being fine with something you consider normal and unremarkable?
Do you need me for this one?
"Do you think you have to work to understand the pain of the black community?"
"No."
"Do you think there is systemic racism?"
"Yes."
"Do you think there's systemic racism here"
"Yes, and it's unfortunate."
Do you really need the official forum Trump translator to explain that not being racist?
Right. And it's precisely because some people judge others on their immutable traits that you need to protest so hard that you don't. And yet at the same time you're also trying to make out people don't judge others by their immutable traits, which is the sort of reason your argument here is incoherent.
Yes, and that in and of itself tells us all a great deal.
If you are a Black man in NYC you likely remember a period where getting thrown against a wall and searched by a cop was a daily occurrence. In Chicago you couldāve been tortured by police to get a confession as recently as the 90ās at the very least. LA County Sherrifās deputies have repeatedly formed white supremacist street gangs. Black neighborhoods are dramatically more likely to still have lead paint, including in schools.
To say that the playing field is āracially unbiasedā is hilariously inaccurate. Our society has been a formless mess of injustice since day one. There is no repairing this and no return to a nonexistent tabula rasa. There is no reality before the fall of man we can aim to reproduce. The ability to build a more just society lies in our hands, and it isnāt an easy task. But I prefer it to living under the idealistic delusion that any of this is just the way things have to be. There is no natural order to the distribution of human suffering, dignity, merit. Itās a chaotic thing under the influence of innumerable factors, and can always be changed towards something better.
To say that the playing field is āracially unbiasedā is hilariously inaccurate. Our society has been a formless mess of injustice since day one. There is no repairing this and no return to a nonexistent tabula rasa. There is no reality before the fall of man we can aim to reproduce. The ability to build a more just society lies in our hands, and it isnāt an easy task. But I prefer it to living under the idealistic delusion that any of this is just the way things have to be. There is no natural order to the distribution of human suffering, dignity, merit. Itās a chaotic thing under the influence of innumerable factors, and can always be changed towards something better.
Funny how that's different from everything he says publicly.
Out of the population that have ever lived, how many people did the invading? Because going on invasion trips doesn't work too well with farming. Could it be that MOST people didn't do the invading and some select groups did multiple invasions? Usually someone with grandiose titles like King or Emperor. Those 1% don't represent most peopleList of invasions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
World history would disagree with you.
Yeah, because it automatically dropped black enrolments by 50% the literal following year. You showed me the graphs. So now they are way underrepresented. I'm not saying we should have Prop 209 but something funky is going on and saying "well, they just aren't clever enough" is just not good enough. (In fact, I'd call that racist but I know how that's the most offensive word in the world at the moment.) NOT doing something will continue to put pressure back on accepting Prop 209
Didn't we just go through a thread where Trump lied to stop panic and *checks note* Tstorm agreed that was a good thing?
But, somehow, he didn't lie here to 'stop panic'
He didn't stop panic, though. In fact, quite the opposite. After all, when the shit finally hit the fan and the government wasn't ready, it's a lot more alarming than if the government had taken it seriously, made proper preparations, eased the population in, and given the people confidence the government was on top of things. It meant that the US people were confused over measures, with the incoherence doubled by lack of co-ordination and stupid, futile bickering between federal and state officials.
Too easy.
The Trump administration does not believe in systemic racism. But it's so real that Merriam-Webster is changing the definition of racism to include it.
President Donald Trump has been dismissive of conversations on systemic racism, and some of his top advisers don't believe it exists at all.
www.businessinsider.com