Jump to content

getting woke and SL


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 661 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, L3r0yj3nk1ns said:

again, there was only one dixicrat that switched parties, Strom Thurmon...educate yourself

Good golly but ain’t you just striving to be obtuse.  No one but you commented on singular individuals who changed party affiliations.

You know darn good & well there was an attempt(s) to enlighten you that party platforms & policies slowly changed over about a 70 year span. You can holler Strom Thurman into the cosmos all day long.  Doesn’t change or invalidate what was presented to you.

Edited by Pixie Kobichenko
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

the remedy is to stop the oppression now - stop hitting me. This is about the victim. It is remedial for the victim

when the oppressor is prevented from hitting their victim then we can talk to the oppressor for as long as it takes about how they feel about not being able to hit the victim.  This conversation is remedial for the oppressor.  The conversation is not about what the oppressor feels about hitting people. Is about how they feel about being prevented from doing this. How will you, the oppressor, adjust your thinking now that you can't hit people

Basically: first you get in there and take down Nazi Germany. Then you educate the next generation to be so much better. Trying to do it the other way around basically gives you a pack of ex-hippies voting in Reagan...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

This is somewhat what the term 'White Fragility' captures.

Anytime we begin to discuss issues of racism and injustice someone from the 'majority' has to step in and either say "but I'm not like that" or "but not all white people" or "well some of [ insert oppressed group ] are also bad/racist/etc. or they step in with a person story that counter-punches the systemetic issue...

Majoritarian folks are so used to everything in existence being framed from a perspective that centers them as a character in the narrative and tells the story in a way they can relate to, that when they encounter "someone else's story" they need to 'steal it' and cast themselves as the "last samurai" in the drama...

 

yes in some ways. I tend to stay away from labels like "White Fragility" as I find that they are not helpful. It describes a defensive posture

i don't want people people to be defensive. I want people to be open to discussion about what they think. Why we think as we do. And how we can think about things differently. What a different way of thinking might result in and why that might be

people get defensive when they perceive our own conversation as an attack on them solely because (in their perception) they don't think as we do. People get less defensive when we frame our conversation in terms that they can relate too. Speak to them in their language rather than our own. When a white person says "that is not me" or "but not all white people" then my response typically is: What do you suggest can be done about the white people, who do ?"  Which changes the conversation from defensive posturing to discussion about remedies/solutions

 

a anecdotal thing about pakeha people in NZ

often such a person will embrace their inner self - get woke, get into self-reflection, examine the issues and begin their journey on the path to enlightenment.  Which is a good thing

sometimes tho, a few go off their path. They don't fall off the path by choice. They get blinded by the light so they can no longer see where they are putting their feet

anecdotally. A pakeha person, learns te reo (the language), learns the cultural nuances, idioms and forms. Becomes very supportive of native people. Works diligently to address wrongs.  Then somewhere on their journey somebody gives them an ornamental made either of stone or bone. Which they wear around their neck for all to see at public gatherings. Which is fine

But sometimes they wear it like a medal.  I am a superior pakeha, not like them other pakeha, because I got awarded this ornamental by some native person in recognition of my better person credentials. Which is not fine. Is not why you were given the taonga. You were given it because of your contribution to the commonweal.  Wearing it like a medal is prideful. In NZ we sometimes call such people "bone people". Full of pride in their enlightenment, possessing little to zero humility, and a bone medal to show it

how do we know when such a person is being prideful ?  When in a tri-party conversation involving 1) an oppressed person, 2) their oppressor and 3) this person. This prideful person will dominate the conversation.  Tells the oppressed person how they should be feeling and berates the oppressor. Trampling their feet over the other two.  Which creates defensive postures in both the oppressor and the oppressed. And when this happens, is not only really really annoying but is also destructive

is ok to have knowledgeable 3rd persons in these conversations. What's not ok is when the 3rd person stifles the conversation because they think that they know best because bone medal

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

Good golly but ain’t you just striving to be obtuse.  No one but you commented on singular individuals who changed party affiliations.

You know darn good & well there was an attempt(s) to enlighten you that party platforms & policies slowly changed over about a 70 year span. You can holler Strom Thurman into the cosmos all day long.  Doesn’t change or invalidate what was presented to you.

the Dixicrats came from the democrat party and returned to the Democrat party after the election of 1948. Thurmond switched to republican in 1964, and was pretty much the only one who did. This is yalls big switch? Democrats kept charging forward with their vile racism, with Hillarys good old buddy Byrd being one of them. He even filibustered the Civil rights act of 1964 and was one of the ones the voting rights act of 1965. Her statement was he was a friend and mentor, lol...you cant make this crap up. When Jim Crow, segregation and the Klu Klux KLan wasnt winning them elections, elections dominated by Republicans between 1865 and the 1920s, they must have thought they needed a new plan. Maybe your talking about FDRs New Deal? You know the one where he tried to get the support of the southern Democrats, and they flatly told him that they would come on board as long as he made no effort to overturn segregation or lynching. Of course he agreed to this, the NAACP was really hoping he would jump on board with the anti lynching bills in 1922, but he would not because he needed the southern democrat racists to pass New Deal legislation.  Funny thing is his wife Eleanor support anti lynching bills and championed them. FDR even hooked those Democrat racists out by getting Hugo Black, KKK member , appointed to the Supreme court. Lets not forget the Social Security Act of 1935 which the southern democrats, whose support FDR needed, again black balled and made sure it did not apply to agricultural laborers nor domestic servants—a pool of workers that included at least 60 percent of the nation's black population. New Deal programs like the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were segregated and offered the best jobs to whites. The administration denied FHA loans to blacks seeking to move into white neighborhoods, but they did assist blacks in buying homes in black areas. Despite all of this enormous pandering to the racist Democrats in the south in complete opposition to the black community, by 1936 75% of blacks became Democrats on the promise of this "New Deal" So yeah I suppose there was "big switch" but it wasnt what you propose, where the Republican party became the racists...not by a flipping long shot

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 13th amendment only passed in the House by like 2 votes and failed the first time by 13 votes for a 2/3 majority..

Republicans were not just in the north and Democrats just the south..Just like they are not today..

Since state Representatives and Senators of seceding states left congress, only the north voted on the 13th Amendment..

Before I ever found that out when I was younger, I had the mindset of North good, South bad, as far as that time period went..

But when I really opened my eyes to the world around me, I looked at it as, it wasn't a war about racism, because the north wasn't fighting it for equality..

I think many get in the mindset that Freedom and equality are the same thing..

Both the north and the south never applied a glimmer of either of those westward.

They didn't just all of a sudden feel bad and decide to become good guys.. There is the things we are told by politicians and then there is the things they are really after..

The romance which they barf out, The Truth which they try to distract from..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

The 13th amendment only passed in the House by like 2 votes and failed the first time by 13 votes for a 2/3 majority..

Republicans were not just in the north and Democrats just the south..Just like they are not today..

Since state Representatives and Senators of seceding states left congress, only the north voted on the 13th Amendment..

Before I ever found that out when I was younger, I had the mindset of North good, South bad, as far as that time period went..

But when I really opened my eyes to the world around me, I looked at it as, it wasn't a war about racism, because the north wasn't fighting it for equality..

The event I mentioned many pages back in a 'story' about a possible history of someone - an event taken from real history... was a Northern affair.

Slavery began in the Northern colonies, and the early slavers used Northern ports and then moved people around from those landing points.

So it was that a 'church event' in Boston used to be to take the choir boys down to the docks when a new ship arrived, and have them "assault" the 'chastity' of women coming off the ship, right there in public on the dock, while a proud Protestant pastor watched over things.
(My wording is weird there because it hid the post when I used the actual term)

 

And remember that John Brown, fully justified going on a slaughter of people over slavery, was hanged in West Virginia - the part of Virginia that joined the Union. We still vilify a man who should be seen as a hero. And in fact 80 years earlier people who did the sorts of things he did to the British their Native Allies ARE seen as heroes today... but because he did it against slavers and in an attempt to start a Black Uprising we see him as a villain. Misguided ally may be correct... because he didn't coordinate with those he was rescuing ahead of time. But hero. Figures like him in Jamaica and Haiti are rightly seen as heroes and martyrs. But in the USA, fighting against White Supremacy always makes you the villain of the story... Just ask the even less violent Malcolm X and also less violent Black Panthers and also less violent A.I.M. among so many others...

These are figures the Northern states vilify just as much as the Southern ones do...

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, L3r0yj3nk1ns said:

the Dixicrats came from the democrat party and returned to the Democrat party after the election of 1948. Thurmond switched to republican in 1964, and was pretty much the only one who did. This is yalls big switch? Democrats kept charging forward with their vile racism, with Hillarys good old buddy Byrd being one of them. He even filibustered the Civil rights act of 1964 and was one of the ones the voting rights act of 1965. Her statement was he was a friend and mentor, lol...you cant make this crap up. When Jim Crow, segregation and the Klu Klux KLan wasnt winning them elections, elections dominated by Republicans between 1865 and the 1920s, they must have thought they needed a new plan. Maybe your talking about FDRs New Deal? You know the one where he tried to get the support of the southern Democrats, and they flatly told him that they would come on board as long as he made no effort to overturn segregation or lynching. Of course he agreed to this, the NAACP was really hoping he would jump on board with the anti lynching bills in 1922, but he would not because he needed the southern democrat racists to pass New Deal legislation.  Funny thing is his wife Eleanor support anti lynching bills and championed them. FDR even hooked those Democrat racists out by getting Hugo Black, KKK member , appointed to the Supreme court. Lets not forget the Social Security Act of 1935 which the southern democrats, whose support FDR needed, again black balled and made sure it did not apply to agricultural laborers nor domestic servants—a pool of workers that included at least 60 percent of the nation's black population. New Deal programs like the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were segregated and offered the best jobs to whites. The administration denied FHA loans to blacks seeking to move into white neighborhoods, but they did assist blacks in buying homes in black areas. Despite all of this enormous pandering to the racist Democrats in the south in complete opposition to the black community, by 1936 75% of blacks became Democrats on the promise of this "New Deal" So yeah I suppose there was "big switch" but it wasnt what you propose, where the Republican party became the racists...not by a flipping long shot

How do you put so much balderdash in one paragraph? Do you use a special text editor? I can't tell, but maybe it's 2 sentences also. (Ok, 17)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

  

The event I mentioned many pages back in a 'story' about a possible history of someone - an event taken from real history... was a Northern affair.

Slavery began in the Northern colonies, and the early slavers used Northern ports and then moved people around from those landing points.

So it was that a 'church event' in Boston used to be to take the choir boys down to the docks when a new ship arrived, and have them "assault" the 'chastity' of women coming off the ship, right there in public on the dock, while a proud Protestant pastor watched over things.
(My wording is weird there because it hid the post when I used the actual term)

 

And remember that John Brown, fully justified going on a slaughter of people over slavery, was hanged in West Virginia - the part of Virginia that joined the Union. We still vilify a man who should be seen as a hero. And in fact 80 years earlier people who did the sorts of things he did to the British their Native Allies ARE seen as heroes today... but because he did it against slavers and in an attempt to start a Black Uprising we see him as a villain. Misguided ally may be correct... because he didn't coordinate with those he was rescuing ahead of time. But hero. Figures like him in Jamaica and Haiti are rightly seen as heroes and martyrs. But in the USA, fighting against White Supremacy always makes you the villain of the story... Just ask the even less violent Malcolm X and also less violent Black Panthers and also less violent A.I.M. among so many others...

These are figures the Northern states vilify just as much as the Southern ones do...

 

Here is something wild..

I remember one time we were driving back up to Chicago and we decided to really just take in the sites and history on the way up.. We had two weeks off of work so we took our time..

The first place we went to was a place in southern Illinois called, Garden of the Gods which was a beautiful park with really amazing rock formations.. But just north of that was a place called The Old Slave House, where you could take a tour through it..

they say it's haunted and all that, if you believe in that kind of thing..but the really creepy thing about it was they had all these cells in there with chains inside the cells..

We came to find out it was the house had a really huge history.. The original owner was the only resident in Illinois to be allowed to have slaves, because he owned the salt mines..

Illinois was a free state and all but this guy couldn't have slaves.. He used the slaves in the salt mines..

Then later the house was a station for the reverse underground railroad.. where they would recaptured freed slaves or captures people and put them into slavery in the south..

 

I just thought we were going to see a plantation that had slaves, but didn't realize what we were actually going to be finding out..

They had the original chains and the shackles..  Those had to just wear out the skin and flesh..

It was a really and eye opening experience just to be in that place.. I mean it was like going back in time..

 

We have some spots on our land where that happens to me also.. I've found slave walls and routes that the north and the south took, just all kinds of things just out riding on my horse.. Now that i know what they are, it's really easy to put yourself back in time in that environment.

I didn't know what they were at first until I looked them up..but they are called slave walls  and they look like this and go for a good ways..

Lugging rocks the size they were in the mountains, that just sends it right home as to how hard the work was just doing those..

stone_walls_4.jpg

 

I just looked on youtube to see if I could find any videos about The Old Slave House and there isn't much other than some really long ones over an hour long and some not too informative ones..

But this one gives a little information on it..

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

lol cool...leave it to SF  :)

Here's a story with a great ending. A 'Karen' was making trouble for a Black couple who simply wanted to build a patio in their own yard, and she called the police on them.  In the end the neighbors attempted to support the Black couple via a protest against the annoying 'karen'.

 

 

That happened in my neck of the woods. In the town I live in actually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Janet Voxel said:

That happened in my neck of the woods. In the town I live in actually.

I love it how we now have phones to capture all this abuse, kind of a saving grace these phones are really...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

 

He was an amazing man. All the pain he went through yet he transcended it to help others to such a great degree. I remember years ago I thought he was a bad, violent man until I researched him. And I think he's still judged unfairly in some circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mollymews said:

 This argument pre-supposes that thinking ourselves superior to others is a disease, when it isn't. The drive to be superior is hardwired into people - the drive to be competitive.

the remedy is to stop the oppression now - stop hitting me. This is about the victim. It is remedial for the victim

Is about how they feel about being prevented from doing this. How will you, the oppressor, adjust your thinking now that you can't hit people

You've  touched on two very complicated subjects -- the nature of evolution and how this dynamic affects us today in terms of racial prejudice, and the ways in which we can enable human changes in behavior to solve the problem of racial injustice.

Newer studies of evolution point to the dynamic of cooperation being equally important to the dynamic of competing or winning over others when an organism attempts to survive, even in the earliest 'goo' present in the beginning of evolution.
The key for human health is to keep a balance between these two forces -- our drive to both compete AND cooperate with others in the quest for survival -- and when the balance of these two forces is upset and there is too much competition one has developed a selfish, hoarding state of consciousness tantamount to a disease, where one thinks only of the self and ignores the needs of others.

I think this imbalance occurs when we feel too separate from our surrounding world of nature and other people and lack a sense of community, creating a kind of delusion where we feel far more powerful than we actually are, going on a quest for endless growth as we conquer the natural world and rule over it, culminating in the belief we can overcome death - presently evidenced primarily in the Western World. We lack connection to the greater community and place too much emphasis on competition instead of cooperation with others, and competition of course naturally creates winners and losers and ends up shoving the losers into lower classes.

You've presented a good example of tribal laws which might mitigate unbalanced evolutionary forces in your description of tribal procedures possibly giving members a 'bop on the head' via a bit of social disapproval when their ego gets a little too strong wearing a coveted necklace. However I would not go so far as to say the nature of humankind is for an individual to feel superior to others and become racist, and that this state bears no relation to a diseased state -- I'd more say that the nature of humankind is to be part of a community and nature, and separation from the larger whole makes humanity sick. In other words, it's the imbalance which creates the problem, not the fact that selfishness would prevail if one is detached from community, and most certainly this detached state should not be seen as the natural one.

Of course it would be infinitely more complicated to apply tribal practices designed for ego containment to a Western society, or a larger one, plus I'm afraid circumstances have occurred which would prevent 'the law' fixing a 'runaway ego', and so in the end I don't think the law solution you present will work.

The root cause of POC oppression is the unconscious bias Whites hold which causes them to treat POC in an unfair manner. This unconscious bias affects outcomes for POC in employment, housing, college admittance, the judicial system, and the racial profiling resulting in police brutality. Sure, we do make and can create more laws which disallow discrimination in employment, housing, college admittance, and prejudice in the judicial system. But success and positive outcome for POC in these areas is affected by such systems as the 'old boy network' (who you know) in employment and scholastic environments, or faculty who have the ultimate say in who they admit to college, or all sorts of loopholes regarding housing and bank loans that prejudiced people can levy against those they wish to keep under them on the social ladder, or a system of biased judges who give longer sentences to Blacks and assume they are more likely criminals. It's all under the oppressors control as they are in the power positions of authority, and it's their unconscious minds harboring the bias.  And so the only real solution is to change people's minds, to make them aware of their prejudice so they don't make choices based on unconscious bias. Laws may help some, but they only go so far.

'Wokeness' is the way, Molly -- our unconscious minds must change as we change consciousness and develop more awareness. Sometimes when we're hit on the head hard enough the ruts of socialization give way and new grooves occur in the brain. Aside from the KKK types I believe the majority of people believe in justice and want fairness to prevail. The problem is many are unaware they have been socialized from the getgo to be prejudiced against POC, to think of them as bad or inferior -- they don't know they are harboring unconscious bias. So for the most part this really has nothing to do with notions of competing to survive, at least not for most people, and not presently.  These ideas of Blacks as bad or inferior may have been created long ago by colonists who designed a system to place certain people at the bottom of the rung to increase their profits or survive, but in the modern mind it's mostly the unconscious processes produced by socialization via parents and society which keep racial bias in place.
Fortunately, our minds already have improved over the years, but at this point in time we're getting a big dose of 'wokeness' regarding Black oppression, which will have positive results for POC in the future.

Even if one thinks they're the most accepting person in the world and without bias it can be shocking to discover one does indeed have bias. It's a bit disconcerting to discover we aren't as much in control of our minds and decisions as we formerly believed, and instead unconscious forces are controlling us to a degree.

I like how this experimental Psychologist, Mahzarin R. Banaji, describes the unconscious bias in our minds -- as mind bugs. In the 2nd video she gives links to all sorts of tests one can take to discover their implicit bias. Becoming aware of our own personal bias can change how we respond in real life situations so that we can begin to treat POC fairly. The first step is awareness -- knowing what our bias actually is -- because we can't fix a problem we don't know we have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK_G-rkXenM (talk by Mahzarin R. Banaji on implicit bias)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABSeKU2qJoI  (description of the implicit association test by Mahzarin R. Banaji)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8G7MtRNlk (talk by Melanie Funchess, describing specific cases of implicit bias relating to Black people, and practical solutions to minimze it)

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KanryDrago said:

sorry why would anyone who isn't woke, and disagrees with blm due to their marxist manifesto attend this exaclty?

I can not answer that question. I can offer that there are those with opposing views that may want to attend. We feel that Second Life can be a very good tool as everyone is able to type/chat what they would not necessarily wish to do in that Real Life. With that said we will not tolerate any type of conversation that is hate filled... on ether side of the isle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, comitose said:

I can not answer that question. I can offer that there are those with opposing views that may want to attend. We feel that Second Life can be a very good tool as everyone is able to type/chat what they would not necessarily wish to do in that Real Life. With that said we will not tolerate any type of conversation that is hate filled... on ether side of the isle. 

You might want to post an actual LM to the place... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it is pretty simple.

I fully agree with the first amendment: You shouldn't risk jail, torture or execution from your government for voicing your opinion.

 

But that's the government.

No one, whether it is a company, association, or individual, should be legally required to give a voice to someone whose message essentially boils down to "this group of law abiding citizens should have less rights than my group,, because I don't like the color of their skin."

And I fully expect a well oiled society to "fix" that botched parenting job, be it with the carrot or the stick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I just thought we were going to see a plantation that had slaves, but didn't realize what we were actually going to be finding out..

They had the original chains and the shackles..  Those had to just wear out the skin and flesh..

It was a really and eye opening experience just to be in that place.. I mean it was like going back in time..

Non-Black folks in this country really really do not understand the absolute sheer level of brutality that was slavery. They think it was 'Gone with the wind' and a bunch of folks with giant red lips doing a happy dance and saying "Massa sho be nice to us"... (actually... this is kind of still a thing... watch TV commercials some time, notice how almost every time there's some black people in there, they're smiling and dancing... like... WT-actual-F..)

 

One our two and actually intertwined genocide. The other being the massacre of Indigenous folks - which also gets an extreme level of denial-ism... a sort tale almost as bad as trying to say "well actually there were only 3 guys here when we landed at the rock, and 2 of them just randomly got colds, so dunno what'cha all complaining about".

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

For me it is pretty simple.

I fully agree with the first amendment: You shouldn't risk jail, torture or execution from your government for voicing your opinion.

 

But that's the government.

No one, whether it is a company, association, or individual, should be legally required to give a voice to someone whose message essentially boils down to "this group of law abiding citizens should have less rights than my group,, because I don't like the color of their skin."

And I fully expect a well oiled society to "fix" that botched parenting job, be it with the carrot or the stick.

 

That's going to take a willow switch to the bare legs. Never get g'grama mad. Yeowie! It only takes once. << >> >.<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

The root cause of POC oppression is the unconscious bias Whites hold which causes them to treat POC in an unfair manner. This unconscious bias affects outcomes for POC in employment, housing, college admittance, the judicial system, and the racial profiling resulting in police brutality. Sure, we do make and can create more laws which disallow discrimination in employment, housing, college admittance, and prejudice in the judicial system. But success and positive outcome for POC in these areas is affected by such systems as the 'old boy network' (who you know) in employment and scholastic environments, or faculty who have the ultimate say in who they admit to college, or all sorts of loopholes regarding housing and bank loans that prejudiced people can levy against those they wish to keep under them on the social ladder, or a system of biased judges who give longer sentences to Blacks and assume they are more likely criminals. It's all under the oppressors control as they are in the power positions of authority, and it's their unconscious minds harboring the bias.  And so the only real solution is to change people's minds, to make them aware of their prejudice so they don't make choices based on unconscious bias. Laws may help some, but they only go so far.

'Wokeness' is the way, Molly -- our unconscious minds must change as we change consciousness and develop more awareness. Sometimes when we're hit on the head hard enough the ruts of socialization give way and new grooves occur in the brain. Aside from the KKK types I believe the majority of people believe in justice and want fairness to prevail. The problem is many are unaware they have been socialized from the getgo to be prejudiced against POC, to think of them as bad or inferior -- they don't know they are harboring unconscious bias. So for the most part this really has nothing to do with notions of competing to survive, at least not for most people, and not presently.  These ideas of Blacks as bad or inferior may have been created long ago by colonists who designed a system to place certain people at the bottom of the rung to increase their profits or survive, but in the modern mind it's mostly the unconscious processes produced by socialization via parents and society which keep racial bias in place.
Fortunately, our minds already have improved over the years, but at this point in time we're getting a big dose of 'wokeness' regarding Black oppression, which will have positive results for POC in the future.

Even if one thinks they're the most accepting person in the world and without bias it can be shocking to discover one does indeed have bias. It's a bit disconcerting to discover we aren't as much in control of our minds and decisions as we formerly believed, and instead unconscious forces are controlling us to a degree.

I like how this experimental Psychologist, Mahzarin R. Banaji, describes the unconscious bias in our minds -- as mind bugs. In the 2nd video she gives links to all sorts of tests one can take to discover their implicit bias. Becoming aware of our own personal bias can change how we respond in real life situations so that we can begin to treat POC fairly. The first step is awareness -- knowing what our bias actually is -- because we can't fix a problem we don't know we have.

again this is all about the oppressor

and couching oppression in nice words like "unconscious bias". A term which deflects the causation of our discriminatory actions away from our rational self

i have a more direct take on this. Sometimes we phrase our words to avoid or soften the reality of who and what we are

 

argument: I discriminate against others because I have unconscious bias. I can only stop discriminating against others when I change my unconscious self

counter argument: We are not unconscious when we discriminate. We are conscious, discriminatory, wilfully ignorant and our discriminatory behaviour is habitual. Habits that we are aware of and choose not to address

 

i get why it is difficult sometimes for people to confront their own reality. Like when we say: Oh! I didn't know this about myself. o.m.g! and shift it onto our unconscious self. In an adult person this is a cop out

copping out. A person does some discriminatory thing and gets called on it. Then while crying buckets of tears says: This is not who I really am. I dunno why I did this. But I would never do this normally

well. They did do this normally. It is who they really are. That they dunno why they are really like this is because of their wilful ignorance. Children are ignorant. Adults are wilfully ignorant

as adults we don't get a pass on being wilfully ignorant. And we don't get a pass by blaming our discriminatory actions on something we get to tell ourselves that we consciously didn't know about

why no pass ?  That we might assign this to our unconscious self doesn't change the reality of our actions on the oppressed victim


a thing about the role of judicial law in a society. Judicial law is about preventing harm, and restoration when harm does occurs. Prevention thru deterrence. Restoration includes restitution and rehabilitation. Restoration can also include detention to facilitate rehabilitation

don't stop hitting your victim then society by judicial law will stop you.  After which, a person can then spend as much time as needed on addressing their wilful ignorance

as you say, yes there are lots of tools we can use in the addressing. And lots of studies which help to inform the development of the tools and their applications. But these tools, as you have highlighted, are for the oppressors, not the oppressed

there are other tools to help the oppressed deal with the aftermath and recovery when the hitting stops. Not the same tho as the above

judicial prevention thru deterrence creates time. Time in which an oppressor can do all the things voluntarily that you Luna have mentioned to address themselves, before they end up being detained for their actions

i get that an oppression free society is a good thing. I would like this. Were we to reach this then we could pretty much chuck all of our law books into the bin.  But I think that the more we soften and deflect from who and what we actually are, then the oppression free society recedes further and further into the distance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mollymews said:

and couching oppression in nice words like "unconscious bias". A term which deflects the causation of our discriminatory actions away from our rational self

i have a more direct take on this. Sometimes we phrase our words to avoid or soften the reality of who and what we are

argument: I discriminate against others because I have unconscious bias. I can only stop discriminating against others when I change my unconscious self

counter argument: We are not unconscious when we discriminate. We are conscious, discriminatory, wilfully ignorant and our discriminatory behaviour is habitual. Habits that we are aware of and choose not to address

i get why it is difficult sometimes for people to confront their own reality. Like when we say: Oh! I didn't know this about myself. o.m.g! and shift it onto our unconscious self. In an adult person this is a cop out

copping out. A person does some discriminatory thing and gets called on it. Then while crying buckets of tears says: This is not who I really am. I dunno why I did this. But I would never do this normally

well. They did do this normally. It is who they really are. That they dunno why they are really like this is because of their wilful ignorance. Children are ignorant. Adults are wilfully ignorant

as adults we don't get a pass on being wilfully ignorant. And we don't get a pass by blaming our discriminatory actions on something we get to tell ourselves that we consciously didn't know about

why no pass ?  That we might assign this to our unconscious self doesn't change the reality of our actions on the oppressed victim

There are people who consciously discriminate -- they will out-and-out proclaim Whites are better than People Of Color -- but they are in the minority in the US and can more easily be dealt with due to their visibility as well as the support of the public who generally feel disgust toward these types of people. We can support laws which keep these obvious types of people in check as much as possible.

What I am far more concerned with, as they are greater in number, and also less visible so more difficult to 'grab' and deter, is the majority who discriminate yet are unaware they are doing so. Via their implicit (unconscious) bias they are more likely to affect Blacks in a negative way.

Understanding that unconscious processes exist which influence behavior (the fact of which has been proven over and over by Science) is not making excuses, "softening", or absolving discriminatory behavior whatsoever when applying this knowledge to the situation at hand -- it is simply accepting the reality of the nature of the human mind -- and that reality is that our rational minds control far less of our behavior than what we imagine they do. The goal is to make what is unconscious more conscious (to become 'woke') so that the individual harboring unconscious bias will become aware of behavior and use their rational mind to choose a better course of action. You simply can't solve a problem if you don't know it is there, and the goal of wokeness is to enable people to see they have a problem so that they behave in ways which don't harm Blacks.

Let's take a concrete example. There has been discussion in these threads regarding studies which demonstrate those with a 'Black sounding' name get less callbacks for job interviews. It's possible that an employer saw the issue discussed on a news site (maybe even here! :)) and were previously unaware of the problem. Perhaps they will now question their choices when hiring an employee -- question why they might less often choose a 'Jamal" or "Lakeesha' for a callback when seeking a new employee. They might wonder if they too have been harboring a bias toward Blacks and believing the stereotypes (evidenced by numerous Scientific studies) that Blacks are more likely to be criminal or not as intelligent as Whites.
In other words, that employer got woke! They just might use this knowledge to hire more Blacks now and help alleviate the poverty Blacks disproportionately experience.

You see, all the laws in the world would do no good in these types of situations. In fact, we have laws which disallow job discrimination based on race already. But they don't reach the unconscious bias of those in power with the ability to harm POC through all the numerous little daily interactions no law can ever touch.
 

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 661 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...