> Even if one's "guy" is in office, I don't think we feel the same about it the way we did even as recent as Obama, and his administration was when we really began to see the social cracks forming.
I really don't see it that way - this isn't at all a new phenomenon. What feels different to me is the intensity and pervasiveness of division, but then again that could be attributed to being more generally aware of things thanks to the Internet.
I'm 39 and have lived in America all my life. In my childhood, I dimly recall bitter rows over whatever Regan was doing - my parents lost friends over their opposition to him. In the 90s, Clinton scandals were all people could talk about for a good while. George W, of course, took social division to new heights - or, at least, I was finally old enough to appreciate just how far-ranging the dividing effects of ideology can be.
I remember in my first job in the mid-2000s, my team was already socially-clustered based on political/religious identity - "Libs" weren't invited to some parties, and vice-versa.
Of course, Obama's election really triggered a certain section of society, there's no denying that, but all that is to say that none of this is really new. In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps, and the different geographic targets of migration from different parts of England and Europe. (I highly recommend the book Albion's Seed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed), which explores the influence of regional cultures of 18th-century Britain on American cultures).
> In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps
Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest.
I’m certainly not pro-slavery, and agree people can be racist, but there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.
The debate wasn't about that fact, it was about rather a white man would have died resisting or if him resisting in the way he did justified his death. The data shows that minorities are killed by cops at much higher rate[1]. He was accused of writing bad checks, that doesn't carry a death sentence nor should it. The reason people that express that opinion are often called racist is that it seems obtuse to bring up in the discussion. I'm NOT calling you of racist, I don't think people that state that are by default. Many are just siding with the police for various reasons.
Yes but there really wasn’t a debate. You either agreed or were racist, and that’s the issue in a nutshell.
Even just scratching the surface of this point, the data you shared fails to include details of whether the victims resisted arrest or not.
There have been dire national consequences of how the public views enforcing the law since Floyd. And claiming racism when a point seems obtuse to you is hardly productive
Yes this is quite simple. Cops can use deadly force to defend themselves and the public. If you’re threatening a cop or the public you’re increasing your own odds of getting hurt.
> there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.
There are things that are true and impactful and worth talking about, and some of those conversations get shut down because they make people feel uncomfortable. Your statement is not in that group.
There are statements that, while technically true, are misleading. They do not illuminate. They are so _obviously_ cherry-picked from the range of all possible statements that they reveal the bias of the person presenting them. Your statement is in this group.
Personally, I’m fine with people who reveal themselves to be racists to be labelled as racists. I’m fine with this category of statements being utterly dismissed. I’m fine with these statements being “censored”, as in people choosing not to publish them.
I flat out dislike most of current "black" culture, especially the american one, and think it's detrimental to black people and anyone that follows it. Racist or not?
My statement is admittedly terse but you’re wrong to dismiss it.
The unwillingness to even consider other opinions and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
What opinions? You labelled something a fact. Do you have an opinion to share? How much of my finite time on Earth do I have to spend on this opinion before I can dismiss it?
> and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
No. Definitely not. This is just detached from reality. Think of “our issues”. Whatever that list means to you. Society’s problems, our culture’s conundrums. Now, think of the list of things perpetuating those issues. If you put “the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur)” anywhere near the top of that list, you are caught up in a delusion. I would sincerely suggest taking action to reground yourself.
It’s not detached from reality in the slightest. This is the crux of the debate on censorship. Biden just created a Ministry of Truth surrounding this issue.
You’re just stubbornly attached to your own beliefs. Most people are like this—they don’t like admitting when they were wrong. In general, the reason ‘why’ (above) is because it could benefit you to find a better conclusion if one exists. Do what you want, but very dangerous to burden society with the same handicap
Is the debate on censorship what you meant by “our issues”? I just think there’s much more important stuff going on. Maybe we disagree on this and that’s why your claim seemed ridiculous to me.
I'm not certain how that bears on what I wrote, and won't comment on it except to say that the American "pro-slavery camp" is not merely a synonym for "racially bigoted" - there's a whole world-view there in which groups of humans are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and in which might makes right, to a certain degree.
On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.
I’m trying to illustrate that using racism as a baseline to divide camps of thought is the root cause of the fracturing of society.
For example, I don’t understand how you expect a civil and good faith discussion by first labeling the opposing viewpoint as ‘pro slavery’ at the onset.
Politics was literally divided into pro-slavery and anti-slavery during a pivotal moment in american history. We can't really discuss american political and cultural history without referencing this. The impact from this event directly comes up in politics to this day and it is weird to ignore it.
I really don't see it that way - this isn't at all a new phenomenon. What feels different to me is the intensity and pervasiveness of division, but then again that could be attributed to being more generally aware of things thanks to the Internet.
I'm 39 and have lived in America all my life. In my childhood, I dimly recall bitter rows over whatever Regan was doing - my parents lost friends over their opposition to him. In the 90s, Clinton scandals were all people could talk about for a good while. George W, of course, took social division to new heights - or, at least, I was finally old enough to appreciate just how far-ranging the dividing effects of ideology can be.
I remember in my first job in the mid-2000s, my team was already socially-clustered based on political/religious identity - "Libs" weren't invited to some parties, and vice-versa.
Of course, Obama's election really triggered a certain section of society, there's no denying that, but all that is to say that none of this is really new. In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps, and the different geographic targets of migration from different parts of England and Europe. (I highly recommend the book Albion's Seed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed), which explores the influence of regional cultures of 18th-century Britain on American cultures).