6 ms·

"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." -- Bernie Sanders

throwanem 10y ago
A viable candidate.
splawn 10y ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.
- throwanem 10y ago
  ...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.
  - splawn 10y ago
    So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion. Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.
      - splawn 10y ago
        The Sanders' quote wasn't oppressively racist, given that his whole platform was centered around equality. Im not claiming that its impossible to say something racist and oppressive about white people. Saying something like "All white people are NASCAR loving, mountain dew sucking, Trump supporting, racist, wal-mart grade white trash" would be considered racist for example.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Racism is bad to begin with because it reduces the vast complexity of human experience, character, circumstance and rights to single, largely meaningless in the context, genetic/ethnic characteristic. Now tell me, how Sanders is not doing the same, at least partially, but substantially, saying white people can't really experience poverty?
  - splawn 10y ago
    Imo, racism isn't bad because it oversimplifies the complexity of human experience. It is bad because it degrades in a very direct way the human experience of the group that it is targeting. I don't see how that statement does this. Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. Its the opposite because it is highlighting inequality not causing it... or at least that is how it looks to me.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. If you mean that this statement does not directly harm anyone, many racist statements don't. In fact, there are a lot of racists that never harmed anyone - not because they didn't want to, but because they were inconsequential and never had the opportunity. I think it's pretty strange definition of racism to measure it by whether it causes any immediate direct harm to anybody. Very small number of statements are immediately harmful as such. > Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.
      - splawn 10y ago
        >Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism. Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version. "So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car. And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."
outlace 10y ago
Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.) Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots? (And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum. If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset. I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well. Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.
H0n3sty 10y ago
To hold the belief that all people of a particular race are incapable of doing something that another race does is the definition of racism.

A viable candidate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.

throwanem 10y ago
...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.
- splawn 10y ago
  So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion. Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.
    - splawn 10y ago
      The Sanders' quote wasn't oppressively racist, given that his whole platform was centered around equality. Im not claiming that its impossible to say something racist and oppressive about white people. Saying something like "All white people are NASCAR loving, mountain dew sucking, Trump supporting, racist, wal-mart grade white trash" would be considered racist for example.
smsm42 10y ago
Racism is bad to begin with because it reduces the vast complexity of human experience, character, circumstance and rights to single, largely meaningless in the context, genetic/ethnic characteristic. Now tell me, how Sanders is not doing the same, at least partially, but substantially, saying white people can't really experience poverty?
- splawn 10y ago
  Imo, racism isn't bad because it oversimplifies the complexity of human experience. It is bad because it degrades in a very direct way the human experience of the group that it is targeting. I don't see how that statement does this. Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. Its the opposite because it is highlighting inequality not causing it... or at least that is how it looks to me.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. If you mean that this statement does not directly harm anyone, many racist statements don't. In fact, there are a lot of racists that never harmed anyone - not because they didn't want to, but because they were inconsequential and never had the opportunity. I think it's pretty strange definition of racism to measure it by whether it causes any immediate direct harm to anybody. Very small number of statements are immediately harmful as such. > Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.
    - splawn 10y ago
      >Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism. Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version. "So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car. And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."

outlace 10y ago

Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

throwanem 10y ago
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.) Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots? (And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)
- kbenson 10y ago
  > I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum. If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset. I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well. Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.

H0n3sty 10y ago

To hold the belief that all people of a particular race are incapable of doing something that another race does is the definition of racism.