Apology accepted. Now let's talk about where you screwed up. Because you screwed up. And you don't understand that you screwed up, which means you'll screw up again. You didn't write "where you're at." You didn't write "where I see you." You wrote "this is where you claim to stand based on your post." That's called "distancing language." I said something, and rather than accept that I said something, you phrased your response to suggest I'm a liar. Now how 'bout this? It does, though. See, your every move has been to invalidate my opinion until I got up in your grille and said "stop fucking invalidating my opinion." Your defense for invalidating my opinion is "I don't...know you" and you "didn't think it offensive to restate the position that I've observed you take." But you're NOT restating my position. You're denigrating my position. You're demeaning my position. You're sweeping my position under the rug because rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, listen to me at face value, or presume that I might actually have an opinion worth acknowledging, you presume that this is the internet and the only position that matters is yours. No, you don't actually know me... but you know the words I've put onto this page. That's enough. You can accept them as sincere and we can have a discussion, or you can argue that because news is on a cycle everything everyone else says is invalid. Which seems to be where you're going. "News" means "information that is new." That's why coverage of every recent black brutality gets buried in triviality - otherwise we'd still be outraged about Medgar Evars and Dred Scott. Besides which, this isn't the news. This is a small community directly conversing about this subject. Here we are, outraged. here we are, engaged. here we are, sympathetic and here we are, talking about it. So why do you keep throwing "the news media" in my face? You're not "personally admonishing" me. You're negating everything I say and using me as a proxy object to vilify the nameless something out there that perpetuates racism and violence against blacks. And that's the discussion to have: How is it that I, a person who can have a conversation like this, can wake up and express sympathy and concern only to not want to address racism? 'cuz that's what's happened. I woke up dismayed at more cops doing more inhuman bullshit only to be told it's my fault, I can't be trusted, I'm responsible for the news cycle and I should feel bad even though I've never even been to South Carolina. This is how racial divides happen. Next time? not gonna say a goddamn word. If I can't even have a sympathetic opinion without being to blame, I'm gonna keep myself to myself because that's the least conflict for me.I dont actually know you... You could very well be a model citizen and even do a better job at the items I think and feel should happen, but I do not feel this makes my points illegitimate at large, which is the P.O.V from which I am trying to write.
I'd like you to clarify this post a bit more because I'm no longer sure if you're speaking about your personal offense at the words I used within the point I was trying to make, if you feel I shouldn't have disagreed with your original reply and my choice of words made it worse, or if my point can no longer be valid because the language I used can lead to it being perceived as a personal attack on you over a discussion of behaviors at large (perhaps some combination of the three? at the moment it's reading to me that this is more about the personal language choice and not the steps I think we should be taking.) That specific question aside I'd like to clarify statements outside of the discussion of poor language use. I think these places are where the disconnect began to happen: Having gone back, it seems that you've taken my statements as personal attacks because of positions you hold.
If we go back to the reply I @'d you in originally, I am piggybacking off of mk statement
This is not clear (which is my fault.) The steps 2a,b,&c I listed aren't a direct attack on your personal position. They are genuine actions I think and feel anyone, who says they've moved beyond that construct, should be able to participate in. 2b. People (read: white people and "minorities") who are aware must be active in engaging the people and environments who are subject to the construct in question. Part of mk 's suggestion (2a,b) Notice that I didn't exclude the responsibility of all involved peoples and instead only drew the line in terms of the apparent construct "white people and minorities." (Which is a thing people see, so I felt it relate-able.) I am genuinely saying that we all should be taking these actions in w.e capacity we can. Now, where I would be challenging your position directly is here : Not being an explicit or implicit racist is step 1 and that is not enough. It isn't. The "progress" made thus far wasn't because of people who went "I'm not a bad guy that's enough." It's the people who went and marched and protested and tried to take over government positions and etc. You do have concrete opportunities. In 2c, I listed 3 activists groups who could use support. So even if you don't have to deal with racists directly, or have the chance to interact with other peoples and cultures consistently, you can still at least help the organized groups who are working on challenging the system. If we agree that one option is the "few." It's still something that can be done and from my life experience a lot of people who claim to be as genuine as you, wont do that small task. Not so much as a RT or link to their work let alone donation. That's mainly what I am trying to highlight. That there have been people working on creating the space necessary to combat the tools of the system. Which bring me to clarifying another point which popped up later: this is not a nameless something. This is a clearly defined history of a specific, seemingly popular, demographic of people using the powers granted by American society to create environments by which another specific demographic of people can be systemically limited. This is not nameless, books have been written on New Jim Crow, our disproportionate legal action against black and hispanic peoples, white flight, discriminatory hiring practices. These are the actions of people and have to be addressed as such 1st. It's this understanding that influenced step 1. and why I claim that step 1 hasn't made it very far at all because these people are still acting in the environment with a very large amount of influence. Hopefully that's a clearer explanation. I think that's it.Arguably less, in fact: Here we are, going "what can be done?" and your argument is "stop being racist."
His suggestion (as I read it), is for white people to squash the subtle shit that perpetuates this us/them mentality at every opportunity
2a. People (read: white people and "minorities") who are aware and are active in environments where these behaviors manifest must confront them on an individual basis.
Despite what you may think, there are very few concrete opportunities for the average white citizen to combat racism and police brutality.
And then proceed to argue that "actions against the construct" need to take part in "actions against the construct."
the nameless something out there that perpetuates racism and violence against blacks
I had a bunch of shit written. Links, quotes. Doesn't matter. Here's the meat. My position: you cannot affect positive change via antagonism. Your position: unintentional antagonism isn't antagonism. I think we can both agree that you didn't mean offense. We might even agree that you created offense. Problem is, you don't see why I keep harping on that offense because, well, that's not the subject at hand. It is, though. Consider: you entered this discussion by implicating all of "White America" in callous indifference to the suffering of African Americans. You doubled down by informing mk that a solution was "literally not possible". So I'm the dumbass for trying to engage; I knew it was gonna be an uphill slog but I didn't expect to spend four exchanges explaining why "where you claim to stand" is an antagonistic way to restate someone's argument. If there's one thing to hear, it's this: when someone is asking for a concrete, right-now action item, burying a list of social media action groups nebulously arrayed around racial justice in Paragraph (2) Subsection (c) is the wrong way to do it. Particularly when Paragraph (2) Codicil (1) is "I don't believe you aren't racist." 'cuz they won't hear it. And they won't engage again, either. I'm just as outraged about police brutality as I was this morning. But I'm never going to engage about it on here ever again. If the simple act of expressing solidarity is gonna force me to defend myself, I'll skip it, thanks. And if you want to know why this stuff disappears from the media, there's a clue; when the only thing "black people" want "white people" to do is "feel bad about it" there's a lot of incentive to move on to the roast of Justin Bieber.
It upsets me that you feel behooved to halt engagement on this topic and potentially others out of an instinct of self-preservation, of keeping the blood pressure low as my eighth grade social studies teacher puts it. Hopefully you only feel that way because of the heat of the moment, because I have questions! : ) For one, these actionable items for concerned white males: besides continual awareness expansion and civic engagement, what more can we do? (I mean that question seriously, I hope it doesn't read sarcastically.) And also, is it inappropriate for white males to come up with answers to that question? Is the domain of that question reserved only for minorities to answer? I ask this because I would normally feel pretty confident in my abilities to brainstorm and act but I've been brushing up close, through hubski and other avenues, with these new ideas of social justice, chiefly, that the white man stay back and simply make room for those historically dispossessed and disenfranchised. I guess my natural inclination to get my hands dirty is running into some really sophisticated ideas on how things should truly progress.I'm just as outraged about police brutality as I was this morning. But I'm never going to engage about it on here ever again. If the simple act of expressing solidarity is gonna force me to defend myself, I'll skip it, thanks.
This is the beginning of answering your question. People make a big deal out of the phrase "you can't solve the problem with the same tools that created it," or something to that effect. How can the resolution to these problems be led by the same people who created/benefit/exist in them by default? The primary engineers and architects have to come from among those who have been victimized. You have to follow the lead of the victim. Ultimately, while the while people are capable of complete empathy, empathy is not the equivalent of lived and living experience. If you cannot have complete understanding of these experiences (read: systemic racism, the problem), then you are likely not capable of defining what the solutions need to look like. So at the moment
And when the victimized (read: minorities) begun to push back and create spaces in which all of their humanity can be accepted, you should likewise assist them in the capacity you are able to. So when minorities band together to try and push political issues relevant to dismantling systemic racism, support them. Don't try an recenter the action around what you want to do because it isn't about what you want. It is, fundamentally, about what we want. Always welcome to reply and I hope I havent made you feel threatened. Apparently, I'm prone to do so when speaking on this. that the white man stay back and simply make room for those historically dispossessed and disenfranchised
For one, these actionable items for concerned white males: besides continual awareness expansion and civic engagement, what more can we do?
Is something you should absolutely continue to do in the best capacity you are able to.