The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN last Monday, May 25

[marshwiggle]

Someone may be in the country illegally and another person may not identify with their biological gender. There's also a word that sounds like the n word with "ly" at the end used since Shakespeare that means wasteful.

I seem to recall a few years back someone on TV getting in trouble for precisely this.

I don't call those in the country illegally "illegals" or "illegal aliens." I also don't insist on calling people their biological gender if they prefer otherwise. I also refrain from using the word referenced above. There's a reason I do all of these things even though making the statements may be objectively "true." I do this not only because I know they will be misinterpreted by either the subject of the statement and/or others. This makes all of those examples pretty ineffective from a clarity of language standpoint. The only reason I would say any of those three things is if my intent were to inflame. I have to assume this is the desired result of anyone who uses the terms "institutional racism" or "white privilege."

And if Trump gets re-elected, it will be because the progressives don't get this. They define anyone who disagrees with them as a "white supremacist". In other words, as identitarians of the left, anyone who isn't part of their camp they define as an identitarian of the right. They fail to grasp that a large part of society (i.e. voters), are not identitarians at all.

I'm not a big fan of cancel culture but if it's going to happen, I'd like to see whites refusing to hire or patronize people who use those and similar terms, even if they have an obscure footnote to explain their "intended" meaning. I simply don't wish to justify my exclusion from that group or feel as if someone is extorting my cooperation rather than actually trying to present a quality argument to entice me to their point of view. Say what you want, but know that there is a price to pay for continuing to use this language. I have silently made a point of not buying from people who are publicly doing this.

I think this is probably pretty common. As I said above, the large *segment of the population who are not identitarians simply avoid dealing with identitarians as much as possible, but they don't draw attentian to it becuase they're not interested in the pointless battle.

(* The segment of the population who, as MLK would say, choose to judge people on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin (or gender, sexual orientation, etc.))

[archaeo42]

Someone may be in the country illegally and another person may not identify with their biological gender. There's also a word that sounds like the n word with "ly" at the end used since Shakespeare that means wasteful.

I don't call those in the country illegally "illegals" or "illegal aliens." I also don't insist on calling people their biological gender if they prefer otherwise. I also refrain from using the word referenced above. There's a reason I do all of these things even though making the statements may be objectively "true." I do this not only because I know they will be misinterpreted by either the subject of the statement and/or others. This makes all of those examples pretty ineffective from a clarity of language standpoint. The only reason I would say any of those three things is if my intent were to inflame. I have to assume this is the desired result of anyone who uses the terms "institutional racism" or "white privilege."

Something tells me this will make zero difference but here goes:

The history of the United States is built on the subjugation of people of color, from slavery to Native American genocide. If it weren't we wouldn't have needed the 13th, 14th, or 15th Constitutional amendments. Or the Civil Rights Act. Or the Voting Rights Act. Or the The American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Jim Crow laws wouldn't have existed. The GI Bill implemented post-WWII wouldn't have been affected by things like redlining and unequal access to educational benefits because of racial segregation. Things like the destruction of Black Wall Street wouldn't be in our history: https://www.theroot.com/the-other-black-wall-streets-1823010812

Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack  https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf is also an informative essay to understand white privilege and how it works.

And the PBS program Race - The Power of an Illusion has some informative resources for reading as well: https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background.htm

[financeguy]

marshwiggle, there have been so many people who have gotten in trouble for the use of that word specifically that is has its own wikipedia page entitled "controversies about the word..." This should cause anyone to see that word as not particularly "useful" in getting a point across, especially since there are many other synonyms that do not have the downside of a similarity to the most offensive word in the language with a near 100% guarantee that at least someone will only hear this part.

archaeo42, this is exactly what I'm referring to. If you need three footnotes to explain what you've said, you've failed to get your point across in exactly the same way as someone who uses the word I'm referencing above, responding to the near guaranteed backlash with a discussion of the origins of that word preceding the slur that is audibly similar but unrelated. It is no secret that whites do not like these terms, are not hearing whatever point you are trying to make, and are retaliating at least to the extent of aligning with political ideologies that many would not prefer specifically for this reason. At a certain point you have to ask if the get out of jail free card of implying (or even outright stating) that a while person is racist as a rhetorical tool is worth the guaranteed backlash. Of course your goal may not be to pursued myself or anyone else, which is confirmed by your implication that this "won't work." You're absolutely right. It won't. Those who continue to use these phrases have a powerful tool if they wish to inflame but if you actually want to win over opinions of whites on matters related to race, they aren't very useful.

[mamselle]

Language, or the arts, or any form of communication (and including certain types of action as speech acts), have both expressive and persuasive functions or dimensions--among others, it seems to me. (I'm no rhetoricist, but I think there's a nub of something here that an actual rhetoricist might be able to do more with.)

Someone in frustration may say something without thinking; someone trying to persuade others may think so much about pleasing or appeasing their audience that they say almost nothing. (I'd also be interested in a deeper rhetorical analysis of this idea if there's any useful substance to it).

Moving outward from that into the ethical questions of consideration and respect for other created beings, and the more broadly spiritual or moral issues of compassion, filtering or re-wording may need to happen so as not to breach serious, important limits set to prevent harm and do a measure of societal good in the world.

Civil society is made up of a mosaic of those concerns, and re-decides and re-calibrates them constantly.

We're in a process of doing that now.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Moving outward from that into the ethical questions of consideration and respect for other created beings, and the more broadly spiritual or moral issues of compassion, filtering or re-wording may need to happen so as not to breach serious, important limits set to prevent harm and do a measure of societal good in the world.

That sounds as though there are never cases where those are mutually exclusive. Cancer treatment (surgery, chemo, radiation) are all VERY harmful, and are only employed because the alternative is death. "Causing harm" is such an overused phrase today that the statement of any idea, or even *scientific fact, that someone doesn't like can be described as "harmful".

(*For example, all kinds of facts about biological sex will be described as "transphobic" if stated.)

[Descartes]

This might be off topic in regards to the most recent conversations here, but I think it's on topic for the stated title of this thread.

The not-so funny thing about all of this is this:  We need to wait for facts to come out and let the truth fall where it may.

Michael Brown (Ferguson) and the "hands up, don't shoot" was objectively a lie; this was borne out by many investigations including a grand jury investigation.  Michael Brown was a thug who attacked a cop and tried to take his gun.  Yet people jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Trayvon Martin was very likely a thug who, as the saying goes, played stupid games and won stupid prizes.  Zimmerman wasn't a blameless, role model saint, and the things that came out about him after the trial seem to confirm that, but the shooting was likely justified as a matter of morality and was declared justified by a jury as a matter of law.  Yet people still jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Now we have this case.  People jumped to conclusions and rioted.  But the funny thing this time is that the more information we have coming out, it's beginning to look like the evidence is going to point to this in fact being a murder.  More keeps coming out each day about their prior relationship and I just heard something else today that, IF TRUE, and it may not be, but IF it is true, makes the likelihood of this being an outright murder much more solidified in my mind.  We're not done getting the facts, but when all is said and done, this one may be outright unjustified and a blatant murder.

As much as people scream that the system doesn't work, the fact is that it does - for the most part.  I say that because I've also seen career criminal dirt bags get found not guilty and walk free against overwhelming evidence against them.  Somehow people forget that in favor of the narrative that cops get off, everyone else gets the book thrown at them.

But the rioters and BLM folks may have finally done it; they may have finally gotten themselves a case where their poster boy is a true victim (although I hesitate to say that because it's really hard for me to muster any outrage over the killing of a guy who held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach and threatened to pull the trigger, but I digress;  As far as this incident goes, the facts seem to be lining up that the cop may have outright murdered him on purpose with no justifiable reason as of that moment in time.)

[att_mtt]

This might be off topic in regards to the most recent conversations here, but I think it's on topic for the stated title of this thread.

The not-so funny thing about all of this is this:  We need to wait for facts to come out and let the truth fall where it may.

Michael Brown (Ferguson) and the "hands up, don't shoot" was objectively a lie; this was borne out by many investigations including a grand jury investigation.  Michael Brown was a thug who attacked a cop and tried to take his gun.  Yet people jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Trayvon Martin was very likely a thug who, as the saying goes, played stupid games and won stupid prizes.  Zimmerman wasn't a blameless, role model saint, and the things that came out about him after the trial seem to confirm that, but the shooting was likely justified as a matter of morality and was declared justified by a jury as a matter of law.  Yet people still jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Now we have this case.  People jumped to conclusions and rioted.  But the funny thing this time is that the more information we have coming out, it's beginning to look like the evidence is going to point to this in fact being a murder.  More keeps coming out each day about their prior relationship and I just heard something else today that, IF TRUE, and it may not be, but IF it is true, makes the likelihood of this being an outright murder much more solidified in my mind.  We're not done getting the facts, but when all is said and done, this one may be outright unjustified and a blatant murder.

As much as people scream that the system doesn't work, the fact is that it does - for the most part.  I say that because I've also seen career criminal dirt bags get found not guilty and walk free against overwhelming evidence against them.  Somehow people forget that in favor of the narrative that cops get off, everyone else gets the book thrown at them.

But the rioters and BLM folks may have finally done it; they may have finally gotten themselves a case where their poster boy is a true victim (although I hesitate to say that because it's really hard for me to muster any outrage over the killing of a guy who held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach and threatened to pull the trigger, but I digress;  As far as this incident goes, the facts seem to be lining up that the cop may have outright murdered him on purpose with no justifiable reason as of that moment in time.)

It might be due to the fact that I didn't grow up in the US, but for me it's very hard to understand why human rights and dignity stop when someone has committed a crime. Does a person need to be a "poster boy" in order to have the right not to be murdered on the street?

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't call those in the country illegally "illegals" or "illegal aliens." I also don't insist on calling people their biological gender if they prefer otherwise. I also refrain from using the word referenced above. There's a reason I do all of these things even though making the statements may be objectively "true." I do this not only because I know they will be misinterpreted by either the subject of the statement and/or others. This makes all of those examples pretty ineffective from a clarity of language standpoint. The only reason I would say any of those three things is if my intent were to inflame. I have to assume this is the desired result of anyone who uses the terms "institutional racism" or "white privilege."

I simply don't wish to justify my exclusion from that group or feel as if someone is extorting my cooperation rather than actually trying to present a quality argument to entice me to their point of view. Say what you want, but know that there is a price to pay for continuing to use this language.

In graduate school I got on an elevator with one of my classmates, I'll call him Anthony.  I honestly can't remember why, but something made me mad (I think I was reading some sort of memo) and I blasphemed loudly by using one of the big curses.

Anthony's spine went straight and his face went stony.  And then I remembered that Anthony was a member of one of the fundamental Christian denominations.

I might have been sanctioned under some sort of institutional rule, but I probably could have argued something 1st Amendmenty or argued that there was nothing in the graduate handbook about obscenities or blasphemies or even personally attacked Anthony for being overly sensitive.  In any event, I doubt much would have happened had he complained.  I could have blasphemed again if I had wanted to.

But I didn't.  Instead I earnestly apologized because, hey, I had no reason to denigrate this nice man or his belief system, even if I am not a Christian.  Anthony and I were always okay.

It was only common courtesy that I thoughtlessly transgressed and made amends for.

[marshwiggle]

It might be due to the fact that I didn't grow up in the US, but for me it's very hard to understand why human rights and dignity stop when someone has committed a crime. Does a person need to be a "poster boy" in order to have the right not to be murdered on the street?

That's just the point: In many cases what gets presented as someone getting "murdered on the street" turns out to be a much more complicated situation as the facts emerge. But if there is some underlying problem, such as police overuse of force, it will be much easier to discuss when the more facts that emerge, the more it appears that the original impressions were correct.

[Wahoo Redux]

And if Trump gets re-elected, it will be because the progressives don't get this. They define anyone who disagrees with them as a "white supremacist". In other words, as identitarians of the left, anyone who isn't part of their camp they define as an identitarian of the right. They fail to grasp that a large part of society (i.e. voters), are not identitarians at all.

So we should not "define anyone" too broadly as an "identitarian" because that misses the individuality of thought and stops us thinking about others' opinions.

Kind of like you just did there.

[apl68]

This might be off topic in regards to the most recent conversations here, but I think it's on topic for the stated title of this thread.

The not-so funny thing about all of this is this:  We need to wait for facts to come out and let the truth fall where it may.

Michael Brown (Ferguson) and the "hands up, don't shoot" was objectively a lie; this was borne out by many investigations including a grand jury investigation.  Michael Brown was a thug who attacked a cop and tried to take his gun.  Yet people jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Trayvon Martin was very likely a thug who, as the saying goes, played stupid games and won stupid prizes.  Zimmerman wasn't a blameless, role model saint, and the things that came out about him after the trial seem to confirm that, but the shooting was likely justified as a matter of morality and was declared justified by a jury as a matter of law.  Yet people still jumped to conclusions and rioted.

Now we have this case.  People jumped to conclusions and rioted.  But the funny thing this time is that the more information we have coming out, it's beginning to look like the evidence is going to point to this in fact being a murder.  More keeps coming out each day about their prior relationship and I just heard something else today that, IF TRUE, and it may not be, but IF it is true, makes the likelihood of this being an outright murder much more solidified in my mind.  We're not done getting the facts, but when all is said and done, this one may be outright unjustified and a blatant murder.

As much as people scream that the system doesn't work, the fact is that it does - for the most part.  I say that because I've also seen career criminal dirt bags get found not guilty and walk free against overwhelming evidence against them.  Somehow people forget that in favor of the narrative that cops get off, everyone else gets the book thrown at them.

But the rioters and BLM folks may have finally done it; they may have finally gotten themselves a case where their poster boy is a true victim (although I hesitate to say that because it's really hard for me to muster any outrage over the killing of a guy who held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach and threatened to pull the trigger, but I digress;  As far as this incident goes, the facts seem to be lining up that the cop may have outright murdered him on purpose with no justifiable reason as of that moment in time.)

It might be due to the fact that I didn't grow up in the US, but for me it's very hard to understand why human rights and dignity stop when someone has committed a crime. Does a person need to be a "poster boy" in order to have the right not to be murdered on the street?

I find it regrettable that a person with such a history of vile behavior is now being venerated as a martyr.  But yes, the larger point stands that the police shouldn't be murdering people.  Even people with very ugly histories.  George Floyd's history of vicious behavior does not in any way complicate the case against the officers who killed him.

That's part of why the Floyd case has created such an unprecedented nationwide series of protests.  It's NOT complicated the way some of the other cases have been.  This wasn't a man being shot as a result of a split-second decision in a fast-moving situation.  This is a man who was slowly choked to death even after he was clearly past the point of being able to offer any resistance.

[quasihumanist]

It might be due to the fact that I didn't grow up in the US, but for me it's very hard to understand why human rights and dignity stop when someone has committed a crime. Does a person need to be a "poster boy" in order to have the right not to be murdered on the street?

That's just the point: In many cases what gets presented as someone getting "murdered on the street" turns out to be a much more complicated situation as the facts emerge. But if there is some underlying problem, such as police overuse of force, it will be much easier to discuss when the more facts that emerge, the more it appears that the original impressions were correct.

I think part of the problem is that there are implicit disagreements on appropriate use of force.

I don't care if someone is a thug - if they're not clearly(*) about to kill you or someone else right that moment, you don't have the right to kill them, whether you're a cop or not, and you should go to jail if you do.

(*) No reasonably fear standard or anything like that - I mean they actually have to have their finger on the trigger of a gun - and, no, something that you were worried might be a gun doesn't count.

My opinion is perhaps extreme, and some people might say that I don't believe in the right of self defense.  Okay, by your definition, I don't believe in the right of self defense, and while I wouldn't agree with such a definition, I can see that it's within the range of commonly accepted definitions.

[marshwiggle]

And if Trump gets re-elected, it will be because the progressives don't get this. They define anyone who disagrees with them as a "white supremacist". In other words, as identitarians of the left, anyone who isn't part of their camp they define as an identitarian of the right. They fail to grasp that a large part of society (i.e. voters), are not identitarians at all.

So we should not "define anyone" too broadly as an "identitarian" because that misses the individuality of thought and stops us thinking about others' opinions.

Kind of like you just did there.

I stand corrected. In my experience, people who call themselves "progressives" tend to also be "identitarian", but I may be missing many people who would call themselves "progressive" but would also be "egalitarian". (Again, in my experience, people who call themselves "egalitarian" don't tend to also call themselves "progressive"; they tend to use terms like "social democrat", "classical liberal", "left-leaning" or something else.)

[marshwiggle]

I think part of the problem is that there are implicit disagreements on appropriate use of force.

I don't care if someone is a thug - if they're not clearly(*) about to kill you or someone else right that moment, you don't have the right to kill them, whether you're a cop or not, and you should go to jail if you do.

(*) No reasonably fear standard or anything like that - I mean they actually have to have their finger on the trigger of a gun - and, no, something that you were worried might be a gun doesn't count.

So if they have their hand in a pocket, with something in the pocket pointed in your direction, you can't shoot, because you can't be sure they have their finger on the trigger of a gun.   

Pro-tip for criminals: conceal your weapon under some sort of cover while you aim it at cops. And fire whenever you want.

[mahagonny]

Now we have this case.  People jumped to conclusions and rioted.  But the funny thing this time is that the more information we have coming out, it's beginning to look like the evidence is going to point to this in fact being a murder. More keeps coming out each day about their prior relationship and I just heard something else today that, IF TRUE, and it may not be, but IF it is true, makes the likelihood of this being an outright murder much more solidified in my mind.  We're not done getting the facts, but when all is said and done, this one may be outright unjustified and a blatant murder.

So that could point to personal differences more than racism. Or even not racism at all...?

So that would mean BLM loses some its steam, as the perpetrator (Chauvin) was appropriately prosecuted, fired?

But the rioters and BLM folks may have finally done it; they may have finally gotten themselves a case where their poster boy is a true victim (although I hesitate to say that because it's really hard for me to muster any outrage over the killing of a guy who held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach and threatened to pull the trigger, but I digress;  As far as this incident goes, the facts seem to be lining up that the cop may have outright murdered him on purpose with no justifiable reason as of that moment in time.)

One per cent of us are just psychopathic. Cops...?