Skinheads with plot for killing Obama

There is nothing wrong with that. It's all very commendable.

My only beef with you is that at every mention of something systemic, institutional, or macro --- you take it personally and on a narrow moralistic perspective.

That is a way of negating the problem. By saying, "I'm not guilty" when no accusation was leveled against you personally, you're by implication saying "I'm free to ignore the reality of a larger racial problem." You point to the straw man in order to ignore the existence of the real man.

That kind of denial may not be habitual racism. But it's certainly habitual apathy in face of racism. And in a way, not defending racism per se; but defending the institutions that maintain racism as a practice.

It's ok to say, "Even though I don't engage in racism personally; the social institutions that I'm a part of do." That would be honest.

 

but what if relations of power aren't at the heart of human interaction, and the real characteristics of a social entity are in line with an ethical system of feminism?

and even if they are defeated as such, why is one play any worse than the other. ultimately i'd demand to know why you over her and me.

 

I am talking about bad faith.

I have complete respect for a Caesar who knocks on my door and says, "I have come to kill you."

The moralist who knocks on my door to say, "I have come to save you." - not so much.

Bad faith is feminism.

 

it's ok. but you can't really tell if you hit it until you actually go and look for holes. eventually i realized that if you fill them with water before shooting them, they will explode nicely on impact.

of course, i'm talking about low caliber rifles here; with a shotgun or something big it's obvious right away, but in that case it's funner shooting at a pumpkin or a paper target or something that you can really tear apart.

 

i'm still not wrapping my head around this.

 

what IS the point of endlessly discussing the macro when there's no personal responsibility or action? i'm completely lost as to why my belief that each person should be treated as an individual and act as such is a "beef." after all, isn't the macro a bunch of micros? so far as i can tell thus far, treating people as a faceless mass doesn't do anyone any good at all and leads to lovely little incidents like some poor guy being stabbed with a flag.

 

What if I said, "I am, personally, not an employer who pays women less than men for the same job; therefore there is no larger gender injustice in my society." ?

 

bullshit go to idaho

that place has some of the most violent racists i have ever met

(they will attack a white for hanging with a black)

 

if you said "i'm not personally an employer who pays women less than men for the same job, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR TO BLAME for the larger problem" i'd agree with you wholeheartedly. one person at a time, man.

 

You're just really caught up in this individualistic way of thinking. No wonder elections are all about personality.

As if there were not real estate companies, investment banks, interest groups, lobbying groups, county police foces, watchdogs, hedge-funds, churches, think-tanks, counterintelligence agencies, public infra-structure managers, multi-national corporations, institutions of learning, prisons, courts, media conglomerates, firearm distributors, manufacturing companies, legal firms, etc.

 

all of them made up of individuals. i don't imagine you do much more for people than i do. but you don't get called apathetic because you can coffee-house stump endlessly.

 

I am not asking that you do anything other than to acknowlege there is a systemic problem.

Pretending Obama could be assassinated by deranged individuals without the support of larger institutions is the height of denial.

Not everything is about your tiny little ego or mine, kc.

 

jeezus. i already DID acknowledge the systemic problem. it. but I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. i'm not a part of the vast "larger institution" that would allow him to be killed, nor should I BE PUNISHED FOR IT. i wouldn't ask you to be okay with it, i don't know how on earth you can expect me to or deride me for not just assuming the mantle of guilt.

 

NOBODY HAS DERIDED YOU OR ACCUSED YOU OF ANYTHING!

 

i wouldn't want this system without its problems

 

really? so i wasn't called apathetic and shallow (personality driven elections my ASS) by yourself? gosh, how COULD i have misunderstood?

 

Because every time there is mention of racism you refer to the personal problem. You say, "Those individuals are arseholes. I am not." That is a way of ignoring the systemic. It's a deflection tactic.

After pages and pages of you responding to a personal accusation that was not made, you finally acknowledge there is a systemic problem in fine print as a by-line as if that was secondary. There is obvious resistance there. Look into that next time someone mentions racism.

I much rather people do away with all the garbled ideology about equality if only they hold their real estate companies, banks, local police forces, and so on responsible.

 

Skinheads, any racist for that matter, are really just insecure.

 

and HOW, pray tell, does the observation of the utmost OBVIOUS change anything at all? HOW does taking personal responsibility and going step by step by step on YOUR OWN reflect apathy? SYSTEMS are all made of small people doing small things daily. you may like to prose on and on about the systemic problem, but you forget that it's small people doing what they can day by day. i am not part of the problem, but you wish to lump me in EVERY TIME because i don't bow down and accept that what i do, what i teach my children are worthy of guilt because of a group of people i only have a minute amount of control over. no one person deserves to take the flack for the actions of someone else. it's unjust.

 

That's not what I said reflects apathy. I said that is commendable.

What you claim is obvious is not obvious at all-

The guy who runs credit checks for the local real estate firm may be a spoke on the wheel of systemic racism. His boss, following the recommendation of his associates in New York, insists that he lower the rating of applicants who have lived in certain zip codes. He has an uneasy feeling there is something wrong with that because (as he found out later) those zip codes have a lot of black people living in it. But he doesn't own the firm after all, and he has to pay the kids' tuition.

He may be extremely competent, tall, charismatic with the neighbors' children, a reponsible parent, and he may keep in touch with a black friend from the good old college days. At dinner, he teaches his children that everyone is made equal.

Yet, he does more to reinforce racism than some powerless teenaged neo-nazi ever could. Is he to blame? Is he not? The guy has to put food on the table and earn a living! It's not a matter of slapping people with simplistic moralistic labels from a distance at all. It's not obvious. It's complex.