Segregation. Is it the answer?

Not so since anyone can be any sex they want to be or not sex at all and any race. Steve Martin was a poor little black boy. Ideology is a mind set that can be changed.

 

The word racism is so overused these days it has become meaningless. The way it is so frequently used everyone on this planet will eventually be labeled a racist.

 

Can you imagine Robin DiAngelo's face if you presented that argument as your response to her?

 

That does complicate matters.

 

no, in fact I think self segregated black areas harm more than help as well, diversity is best

 

Segregation is only a solution if you are willing to admit your population consists of a majority of window licking morons who can't act like adults and have no business being treated as such. If we have to resort to segregation again, all of us should be put in what are essentially adult daycares, where people wipe our asses and feed us applesauce, because intellectually we don't have the ability to do those things for ourselves. But we wouldn't even be able to use people to do that, we'd have to use robots. The robots will care for us in our stupidity and incompetence.

 

How does putting people together of different skin color make things better for everyone?

 

not putting anyone anywhere, diversity is best, self segregation has shown to not do as well

 

I could. But I'm sure I'd get a response that would make me go "okay fine, be that way."

 

Yes

 

Hi, Eleuthera.

Thank you for taking time to read my post.

In response to your question: Racism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Regards stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, SiNNiK.

Rather than commenting on a specific post, it's important to know that statements about racism aren't necessarily racist. That racism is a problem within American society is shown by the sheer number of references to it in print and word.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Do you have any data on what proportion of liberals actually believe in that, though? Reading the book doesn't equate to agreement. Liberal reviews seem to be negative.

How 'White Fragility' Talks Down to Black People - The Atlantic

Review of ‘White Fragility’ by Robin DiAngelo - The Washington Post

So far, the right just seems to equate believing "racism still exists" with "white people are bad." The former being a fairly obvious truth, the latter being ridiculous fringe.

 

No, I think it's rather simplistic to think that "the right just seems to equate believing "racism still exists" with "white people are bad." The right has has a more nuanced approach to this because it has to.

For example, you are seeming to say that the antiracism position is too extreme for most liberals to actually believe, and I suspect you are right about that, however this verson of antiracism IS the official position of the DIE bureaucracy. That's what's being taught at all of these conferences and DIE programs in every major corporation, every university, and every government bureaucracy. In this thread's example, we're talking about Robin DiAngelo's comments, but DiAngelo and Kendi's version of antiracism is what every one of these DIE organizations teach.

So where are all these liberals who don't believe in this? Joe Biden, in his heart, doesn't really buy any of this, because this is nothing like civil rights as it was known in the sixties and seventies, but he'll mouth along the words, and establish these organizations and push this ideology in the schools. So the liberals who don't buy this are behaving and saying exactly what they would say if they did buy it.

So as a liberal, are you too afraid to speak out or do you think it's simply a useful hammer to destroy your political enemies? I kind of think it's one or the other (perhaps both).

 

Could you be more specific about "DIE organizations." I am not sure if you're using a standard acronym. Google just tries to get me help for suicide when I try to look it up. Edit: Maybe you meant DEI? I've had diversity training at liberal places. It does not say anything conservatives are concerned about.

I've honestly not seen the things conservatives are afraid of in a mainstream way except cancel culture. I've seen crazy people who can sell books as in the example. I've seen diversity promoted and celebrated. I've seen people ostracized for having anti-diversity views, which is the only thing I find concerning at all from the left. NOT concerned about teaching white kids they have some privileges due to race. And from the right I've seen exaggeration, misunderstanding, and mischaracterization of liberal viewpoints on race.

As far as fear... I guess it would be an issue if I were a public figure, because I definitely hold some views that are unacceptable to the mainstream, but far from it I don't even have a public social media presence, so that's not it. And I don't really love cancel culture or anti-racism as a weapon against the right. I just believe some level of systemic racism exists, just as there are disadvantages for poor people as well in our society.

 

OK if I understand your comments, you're not seeing it, so...conservatives are overreacting?

I can't speak to your own diversity training, however this entire thread is based on comments which, as a public statement, seem highly radical by one of the major contributors to diversity training. Or...maybe you just don't think it's radical. We could go round and round on that but I'll give you my view of DiAngelo's statements: She is advocating racial segregation in much the same words that Scott Adams did a few weeks ago. However Adams got his career destroyed and DiAngelo is cruising along just fine, giving talks for 15 or 20 thousand dollars a pop.

So do you think that's radical and a position that major institutions should not be adding into their training or are you OK with it?

 

You sure? Seems a University in Michigan believes otherwise.

https://news.yahoo.com/michigan-college-set-host-graduation-205504391.html

 

I prefer the Webster's definition from their 1984 New Riverside dictionary: The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others. Or the converse, that other ethnic stocks are inferior to one's own.

Their more current online definition you offer is incomplete and misleading. That is, being racially aware is NOT racism, just awareness. And in fact common sense and science show that there ARE physical differences among races, ethnic stocks, besides the color of skin. Blacks, for example, are sometimes afflicted with sickle cell anemia, while whites are not. Blacks are generally superior to whites in athletic ability, and white men can't jump to put a bit o' humor into it.

Racism is believing one's own race is superior to others. Being racially aware is not racism.

 

segregation is bad, I did not say some did not support it, I said I do not

white racists and black racists support segregation

 

You got no clue. Kendi coined the term Antiracist. King died before he was born.

 

It's over used on this forum yes, but in the real world no, whites don't cry racism in the straight because they'll be clowned.

 

You some trippy views. Thought you were a bit harsh on the thread about the Queen, but upon just a little consideration, decided that you offered fully fair points. What is this interesting phrase you've dropped here in white folk PFlandia? in the straight = in real life? clowned = ridiculed, maybe even punched? A good ass whipping is beneficial for some folks, no doubt about it,

 

Lol I meant in the street, corrective text issues. Clowned/ridiculed yes.

Thanks. I'm very much against the royal family and aristocracy due to their colonial endeavours.

 

Maybe because people, like water, will find their own level.

 

Yes, there are even educational institutions supportive of anti-American principles such as that.

I wonder what they teach in civics. Is our constitution a pile of crap to them?