Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

How Anti-Racist Are You Poll

How to be an Anti-Racist Poll  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Check all of the below that you DISAGREE with:

    • Denial is the heartbeat of racism.
    • Saying one is "not racist" signifies neutrality: "I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism." 
    • The opposite of "racist" is not "not racist." It is "anti-racist."
    • Racist and anti-racist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and an antiracist the next. 
    • A racist is one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inactions or expressing a racist idea. 
    • Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produce and normalizes racial inequities.
    • The fact that 71% of White families live in owner-occupied homes, while only 45% of Hispanics and 41% of Blacks do is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed.
      0
    • There is no such thing as a race-neutral or nonracist policy, as each policy produces or sustains racial inequity or racial equity. 
    • We all have the power to discriminate. Only a few have the power to make policy.
    • The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination
    • The most threatening racist movement is not the "Alt-Right" but the regular American's drive for a "race-neutral" country. 
    • Racial groups are equals in all their apparant differences--there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: White people are more likely than Black and Hispanic people to sell drugs, and the races consume drugs at similar rates; yet, Blacks are more likely to be jailed for drug offenses. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Non-violent Black drug offenders stay in prison for about the same length of time as violent White drug offenders
    • High unemployment corresponds with violent crime; racial minorities do not correspond with violent crime.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black people comprise 13% of the population and at least 26% of those killed by police. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Unarmed black men are twice as likely to be killed by police as unarmed white men. 
    • There is no such thing as a dangerous racial group; there are only dangerous individuals. 
      0
    • Colorism is a serious issue among blacks and whites, creating inequities between light color blacks and dark color blacks. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Lighter skin people are more likely to receive good paying jobs and get accepted to better schools than dark skin people. 
    • Racist ideas suspend reality and retrofit history, including individual histories
    • Increased voter suppression in the states is making it harder for minorities to vote out people who are not promoting anti-racist policies.
    • A large percentage of black people hold anti-black racist ideas. That is, ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 
      0
    • Black people can be racist because black people do have power, even if limited. 
      0
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Only 27% of white cops think the issue of blacks being killed more often than whites by violent cops are signs of a broader problem, compared to the 57% of black cops. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The black poverty rate is 3x the white poverty rate
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black unemployment is 2x that of white unemployment
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The median net worth of white families is 10x more than black families
    • To love capitalism is to end up loving racism
    • The idea of the dangerous black neighborhood is the most dangerous racist idea.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women with college education make the same or less as a White woman with a high school degree.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women have to earn an advanced degree to earn as much as a white woman with only a bachelor's degree. 
    • The United States is a racist nation because its policymakers and policies have been racist from the beginning.
    • Racism has always been terminal and curable. Racism has always been recognizable and mortal. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  2. 2. Kendi lists 11 things that should be done to make America more anti-racist. Check those that you DISAGREE with:

    • Admit racial inequity is a problem of bad policy, not bad people. 
    • Identify racial inequity in all its intersections and manifestations. 
    • Investigate and uncover the racist policies causing racial inequity. 
    • Invent or find anti-racist policy that can eliminate racial inequity. 
    • Figure out who or what group has the power to institute anti-racist policy
    • Disseminate and educate about the uncovered racist policy and anti-racist policy correctives
    • Work with sympathetic anti-racist policymakers to institute anti-racist policy
    • Deploy anti-racist power to compel or drive from power the unsympathetic racist policymakers in order to institute the anti-racist policy. 
    • Monitor closely to ensure the anti-racist policy reduces and eliminates racial inequity.
    • When policies fail, do not blame the people. Start over and seek out new and more affective anti-racist treatments until they work. 
    • Monitor closely to prevent new racist policies from being instituted. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  3. 3. After considering the above, Ibram X. Kendi would likely consider me......

    • Anti-racist, because I actively support anti-racist policy and anti-racist ideas.
    • Racist, because even if I am not actively supporting racist policies and ideas, I am indirectly sustaining these ideas through my inaction in supporting anti-racist policies and anti-racist ideas.
    • I disagree with Kendi that being neutral on race is racist and that being just "not racist" is racist. Thus, not being "anti-racist" does not mean one is racist.
  4. 4. Will the United States ever have approximate equality/equity among different races, ethnicities, gender, etc.?

    • Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and determination by federal, state, local governments and the citizens and companies therein.
    • No, our country was founded on an inequality/inequity that will be impossible to shake.
    • I don't know/don't have a hunch
      0
  5. 5. Is capitalism and/or Socialism helping or harming the quest for racial inquity

    • Capitalism is absolutely anti-racist; Socialism is absolutely racist
      0
    • Capitalism is more anti-racist than Socialism
    • Socialism would be more anti-racist than Capitalism
    • Socialism is absolutely anti-racist; Capitalism is absolutely racist
      0
    • It is unclear to me if any of these systems have any impact on racial inequity or not.


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

You took an extremist position that the language that is the closest thing to a global language that we have is actually the worst language for the job.

My response was the forum equivalent of an eye roll because that was your defense to the fact that you don’t have even an elementary school level  understanding of how to use basic punctuation despite presumably being a native speaker of the language.

This makes your thoughts come across as unhinged, rather than carefully considered and presented.  Take the time to organize your thoughts in your mind and then onto paper/this forum, and you would find that you’re taken a little more seriously.

We have forum users here who speak English as a second or even third language, and they still come across much more coherently than you do.

Why?

They learned how to think about their own ideas and present them in a way that would make others interested in thinking about those ideas as well.

I said I was quoting linguists, who were making this opinion on a number of qualities, such as learnability as a second language, a lack of consistency in form and lexicon, and many other features. And these linguists were indeed making tier assessment by their, but application or practice of what was going on in the word, which I also said a couple of times. But, despite me saying EACH AND EVERY TIME I made the statement, you always retorted as I had stated a PERSONAL opinion of MINE I had conjured from some extremist vindictiveness. Now, WHO is lacking the comprehensions of the other one's message (or perhaps just deliberately ignoring it) to make an unwarranted personal attack, here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I said I was quoting linguists, who were making this opinion on a number of qualities, such as learnability as a second language, a lack of consistency in form and lexicon, and many other features. And these linguists were indeed making tier assessment by their, but application or practice of what was going on in the word, which I also said a couple of times. But, despite me saying EACH AND EVERY TIME I made the statement, you always retorted as I had stated a PERSONAL opinion of MINE I had conjured from some extremist vindictiveness. Now, WHO is lacking the comprehensions of the other one's message (or perhaps just deliberately ignoring it) to make an unwarranted personal attack, here?

I don't even care about the language issue, so I'm prepared to just let this one drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I don't even care about the language issue, so I'm prepared to just let this one drop.

I just wish you hadn't defended it, and made it into a personal against me, to this point, and that you would actually have the decency to admit it was an unwarranted an inappropriate personal attack. But that must be too much to ask. That would take a bit of emotional maturity, and a reigning in of your ego. But I know it can be hard - but it's hard when I have to do it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I just wish you hadn't defended it, and made it into a personal against me, to this point, and that you would actually have the decency to admit it was an unwarranted an inappropriate personal attack. But that must be too much to ask. That would take a bit of emotional maturity, and a reigning in of your ego. But I know it can be hard - but it's hard when I have to do it, too.

I started to respond to this, but it actually was veering into a personal attack, so I deleted it.

Your response to questioning your use of a 119-word sentence was to bemoan that the English language is imperfect.  It was a silly response, which I probably could have just ignored but gave a silly response to as well.  And then you escalated it into a debate about...whether other languages even exist?  Honestly, I don't even know.  That's why I'm letting it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

 And then you escalated it into a debate about...whether other languages even exist? 

When did the Hell did I say this weird stuff? I was talking about linguists' views on a sub-optimal lingua franca in theory - not in practice. I have absolutely NO Idea at all where you even got the idea I said this you did. Do you even know what the term "lingua franca," means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

When did the Hell did I say this weird stuff? I was talking about linguists' views on a sub-optimal lingua franca in theory - not in practice. I have absolutely NO Idea at all where you even got the idea I said this you did. Do you even know what the term "lingua franca," means?

I

Let

It

Go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I

Let

It

Go

Without acknowledging being an ass out of nowhere for no reason. I've majorly cut that down with regards to you since we first were sparring a few years ago, in case you hadn't noticed. But this will be noted that you still believe being a condescending cad is perfectly acceptable as long as you just disengage. Like Nixon hightailing out of Indochina with no sense of responsibility for the death and destruction in those countries, the propping up of corrupt, bloody-handed tyrants, and the betrayal and lying to the nation, and the tragic of so many young men's lives for nothing by the U.S. Government given no responsibility for. But you always did admire the sociopathic, honourless, and criminal (Chicken) War Hawks in Washington, DC, as opposed to the few there who have a sense of humanity on the issue. And with that, I am done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Initial response to poll: define 'racist'.

It's in there, but here's the condensced version. 

A racist, according to Kendi, is someone who is not anti-racist. This would include the following:

  • Someone that is active in pushing racist policy or racist ideas. That is, policies and ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 
  • Someone that is only self-declared "not racist" or self-declared "race-neutral," who is not actively anti-racist; therefore, sustaining and not actively overturning policies and ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 

Seems like the strongest reactions against this book are whites who try to use the "not racist" defense has being enough in the battle to combat inequity. Kendi uses contrasts between whites and blacks in criminal justice, but he has a whole chapter on how many blacks and other races are also racist by sustaining things create or increase racial inequity. 

It seems, in Kendi's opinion, that most racists (under his definition) are unaware they are racist or are unintentionally racist. By his definition, a racist is not just an old white man that uses racial slurs and stereotypes black people. It can also include a housewife that's never said anything but good things about black people. Basically, Kendi believes there is no such thing as fence-sitting on racial inequity. You're either passively sustaining the racial inequity or you are working to achieve or supporting racial equity. 

I think he's right on with most things, but it doesn't kind of bother me that he doesn't allow for exceptions, but I understand the logic of what he's saying, and I agree with it more than I disagree with it. I guess what I mostly disagree with is how the book is written as a treatise aimed at converting "racists" to "anti-racists." It seems to be geared towards those that thought they were anti-racists and then realized that, "Wow, I didn't realize I was unintentionally racist. I aught to do something!" I think the only people that will get offended are those that are probably racist, have a narrow definition of what defines racism and not racism, are suddenly realize they're racist and don't want to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

How does he define 'racial inequity' - what does that mean?

The condition that a racial group, statistically speaking, can be predicted to have a higher chance of being in a worse situation than another group of people based off their race or based off ideas and policies that make it more difficult for that race to achieve racial equity. That is, racial equity is the condition that would be achieved if one's racial identity no longer predicted, in a statistical sense, how one fares. Examples of racial inequity are in the poll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

That is, racial equity is the condition that would be achieved if one's racial identity no longer predicted, in a statistical sense, how one fares.

All major socio-economic outcomes the same for major ethnic groups? Am I reading this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's in there, but here's the condensced version. 

A racist, according to Kendi, is someone who is not anti-racist.

Forgive me if that specific wording (intent or broader viewpoint aside, which is likely meant to be much nobler in nature, but that specific wording as stated) sounds vaguely McCarthyist in styling.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

"There's only two kinds of people in America: patriotic American citizens and Communist traitors and homosexual degenerate."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

"Only a Communist or a cocksucker would go up against Joe McCarthy."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

 

Such absolutist, binary divides in socio-political affairs are often the grounds for among the most frightening, most atrocious, and most horrible of movements. I am always at least dubious of any movement that uses such wording, regardless of their intent or views.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Forgive me if that specific wording (intent or broader viewpoint aside, which is likely meant to be much nobler in nature, but that specific wording as stated) sounds vaguely McCarthyist in styling.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

"There's only two kinds of people in America: patriotic American citizens and Communist traitors and homosexual degenerate."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

"Only a Communist or a cocksucker would go up against Joe McCarthy."

-Senator Joseph McCarthy

 

Such absolutist, binary divides in socio-political affairs are often the grounds for among the most frightening, most atrocious, and most horrible of movements. I am always at least dubious of any movement that uses such wording, regardless of their intent or views.

It's very McCarthyist. Like I had made in an earlier comment, it's really just going to further cause division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

All major socio-economic outcomes the same for major ethnic groups? Am I reading this right?

Can be predicted to be approximately the same on the basis of race. Basically, an anti-racist policy and idea is one that tries to create or better allow the situation of the statistically differences of the races being virtually identical. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Basically, an anti-racist policy and idea is one that tries to create or better allow the situation of the statistically differences of the races being virtually identical.

For certain things, this is going to be strange. Ethnies have different average ages, geographic concentration, urban-suburban-rural %s, and so on.

But sounds like he's attempting to redefine 'racist' from 'someone who believes a racial group is superior to another' to 'not trying to eliminate any differences between racial groups'.

So any use of 'racist' re this should instead be replaced with 'racial inequity', the more accurate term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

For certain things, this is going to be strange. Ethnies have different average ages, geographic concentration, urban-suburban-rural %s, and so on.

But sounds like he's attempting to redefine 'racist' from 'someone who believes a racial group is superior to another' to 'not trying to eliminate any differences between racial groups'.

So any use of 'racist' re this should instead be replaced with 'racial inequity', the more accurate term.

No,  he's redefining "racist" as "anyone not actively supporting policies and ideas that seek to reduce racial inequities." He uses the standard definition of racial inequity and racial equity. The only redefinition he making is in regards to "racist, " which might not really be a redefinition at all. It's more like shining a light on those that are unaware that they might support racist ideas of policies. He brings up a good point, and I think we all should consider what ideas and policies we favor might unintentionally be racist. I also agree with him that it is impossible to be truly race-neutral since there's repurcussion for being race-neutral. I'm a little uncomfortable with him not at least having some sort of spectrum of racism---it's either you are racist or anti-racist. I think there should be some spectrum, but I also think the self-declared "not racist" and "race neutral" are should be leaning-racist since they are just accepting the status quo, which is currently embracing some causes of racial inequity. It isn't just geared at Conservatives. For instance, @Reagan04 is a libertarian conservative and he agrees with at least some (maybe most) of what Kendi is arguing. Overall, to argue this on Kendi's terms makes the reader have to admit, at least to themself, whether or not he or she might be racist, even if unintentionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The only redefinition he making is in regards to "racist, " which might not really be a redefinition at all

Seems a pretty clear redefinition to me. If 'racist' means 'not actively supporting policies that seek to reduce the home ownership gap between blacks and hispanics', say, this loses much of its emotional power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

For instance, @Reagan04 is a libertarian conservative and he agrees with at least some (maybe most) of what Kendi is arguing.

Indeed

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Overall, to argue this on Kendi's terms makes the reader have to admit, at least to themself, whether or not he or she might be racist, even if unintentionally. 

Which most white people are not ready nor willing to do. This makes it a hard but incredibly necessary pill to swallow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Seems a pretty clear redefinition to me. If 'racist' means 'not actively supporting policies that seek to reduce the home ownership gap between blacks and hispanics', say, this loses much of its emotional power.

 

How so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

How so? 

It's an obvious redefinition.

Dictionary.com defines 'racist' as "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

Very different from differences in home ownership %s, say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

It's an obvious redefinition.

Dictionary.com defines 'racist' as "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

Very different from differences in home ownership %s, say.

I was saying "How so" in regards to losing emotional power. I understand the redefinition. 

I'm also curious what your thoughts are in regards to the statements mentioned in the poll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...