I dont really see how acknowledging there has been a historical problem and vestiges of it still remain in our societal institutions is a bad thing. And i think it is a long reach to say it is at all likely to lead to some kind of dystopian future. To me, it seems like you are only looking at a very unlikely worst case scenario. Also, as more info comes out, and becomes available, our opinions can and should change. As of yet, alarm bells arent ringing for me.
Thats the thing, no one knows what this will actually look like in practice because there havent been concrete program proposals that i am aware of. It could be as innocent as instituting a ârooney ruleâ for hiring where you must interview at least 1 minority, or having the equity board offer input/review of major policy decisions. It could be identifying the instances in which decisions are being made by an unrepresentatively white group and offering input from the equity board.
I really do not think that extreme, over the top changes will be seriously considered let alone implemented. But, we wont know until concrete policies start being put together.
I dont see the point in trying to nip this movement in the bud because of looking at only worst case scenarios. Iâm sitting back and seeing what concrete actions/policies/programs get proposed before I get behind, or infront of them. I think there could be a lot of good that comes from this⊠and we should all remember that in any negotiation (which is everything in life), you always put forth your most extreme demands first with the knowledge that everything gets negotiated and compromised down.
Itâs interesting how only a few weeks ago you were talking about some sky is falling slippery slope when some of us pointed out the wokeness by coercion in academia and in the platform of BLM (but who really knows all of that when they say they support BLM, right?), Well now you have wokeness by coercion via the state government.
If you read it youâll note something that should trouble you: racism is a construct of white supremacy. This is objectively not true. But we have to accept it as true. We canât even question the existence of white supremacy, not white supremacists who do exist, but the idea that there is a belief among ALL white people everywhere and for most of human history in their supremacy as a race. Again, this is factually not true. It is taught that this is inherent in white people and not a learned behavior. But we have to accept what is untrue as orthodoxy.
âCultural humility for white people.â What does that even mean? Itâs just another weaponized term: cultural humility. But itâs ok to raise a fist and say black power? And what is white culture? It does not exist. Can you say you are proud to be Irish? Spanish? Greek? French? What if you are a black Spaniard, Frenchman, German, Brit or Greek? They do exist.
You might want to think about who you are talking to; he has already lived through this.
Itâs not your fault because, as an American, your knowledge of history is limited to last week. Itâs the United States of Amnesia. We have seen this all before. Orwell wrote about it. Isaiah Berlin wrote about it. Gaetano Mosca wrote about it. Karl Popper wrote about it.
Racism by white folks against POC is not a construct of white supremacy? I think thats a pretty accurate statement. The rest of your paragraph is you passing off your interpretation as fact.
I think you are also forgetting something here- that these are the guidelines for the Office of Equity, not for WA state employees. These are not guidelines for any other department, or group. Do we have any idea what power or role this new dept will have? If you look at the guidelines and mission statement for the Agg board, or dept of ecology they will have similar language elevating their goals above all else and as the only right way to do things.
If this is taught, all a white person has to do is say that they do not think these things, and it instantly debunks their argument. I donât see this one holding up to any rational person.
I am vaguely aware of lopparâs history, and historical knowledge. I think that might bias him against anything that has even a sliver of turning into the CFs he lived through and/or saw. And i think that there is a great expanse between where we are now and that scenario he (we) does not want to happen again.
Thatâs not what they wrote. Racism is a construct of white supremacy because only white can be racist.
Thereâs your slope.
You miss the point. The fact that the language and thought being used is straight from a sociology class taught by some post-modernist Marxist who believes in critical race theory is the point.
If you were to say that, you would have affirmed you are a racist. The rules have changed. Being a non-racist is the same as being a racist. What? Yes, that is the thinking now. You have to be anti-racist, not non-racist, which means actively fighting racism. This racism you are fighting is also the racism that is inherently within you and that requires constant vigilance on your part.
You canât even say the biologically true statement that there is only the human race and thus reject all of the arguments based on racial differences.
Had you asked a Jewish person in 1900 if there was going to be a Holocaust, in which country did he think it would happen. He would have said France before saying Germany.
If you disregard any and all context, then yes you are correct in your interpretation.
Its not mandating beliefs, its a draft document stating office priorities and general values⊠for that particular office. Are you also arguing that the WA dept of health is forcing its employees to believe in and support abortion, and all other programs the dept offers? No. That would be a stupid argument.
Well you could claim that you are anti-racist, and always was anti-racist. That would defeat their claim as well. I donât think these ideas will have staying power as they are not logically sound and so easily defeated.
I also donât think the new definition of racism will stick around other than in select groups.
I find it ironic (and incredibly stupid) that you would equate a historically oppressed people fighting for equality to being Nazis in germany where a historically oppressed people were murdered on an industrial scale. But then again, youll stop at nothing to argue against anything BLMish.
Seeing as how they are based on ideas that are over 100 years old, I disagree.
Itâs the definition taught in schools. And it was first explicitly stated in 1970. I wonder if anyone 50 years ago was laughed at for his silly slippery slope.
