Sociopolitical Issue thread

[hiddenwombat]

The Australian federal election was today, and they're counting the votes now. The Labor party are doing far better than expected, and the other major party, Liberals, are very not pleased. However, the Liberal-National coalition might still have enough seats to form majority government (though I hope not). We'll see.

we won't find out until Tuesday and I had to do a postal vote due to being on holiday, I hope it got there in time to make any kind of blip on the radar

[Ticia]

The Australian federal election was today, and they're counting the votes now. The Labor party are doing far better than expected, and the other major party, Liberals, are very not pleased. However, the Liberal-National coalition might still have enough seats to form majority government (though I hope not). We'll see.

we won't find out until Tuesday and I had to do a postal vote due to being on holiday, I hope it got there in time to make any kind of blip on the radar

I had no idea about the Australian elections until I went on Twitter. Which are the main objectives for each of the parties?

[adequate duck]

The Australian federal election was today, and they're counting the votes now. The Labor party are doing far better than expected, and the other major party, Liberals, are very not pleased. However, the Liberal-National coalition might still have enough seats to form majority government (though I hope not). We'll see.

we won't find out until Tuesday and I had to do a postal vote due to being on holiday, I hope it got there in time to make any kind of blip on the radar

I had no idea about the Australian elections until I went on Twitter. Which are the main objectives for each of the parties?

Confusingly, the conservative party is the Liberal Party and the progressive party is Labor. Liberal usually form a government with the even more conservative National Party.

[opendoor]

The Australian federal election was today, and they're counting the votes now. The Labor party are doing far better than expected, and the other major party, Liberals, are very not pleased. However, the Liberal-National coalition might still have enough seats to form majority government (though I hope not). We'll see.

we won't find out until Tuesday and I had to do a postal vote due to being on holiday, I hope it got there in time to make any kind of blip on the radar

I had no idea about the Australian elections until I went on Twitter. Which are the main objectives for each of the parties?

Confusingly, the conservative party is the Liberal Party and the progressive party is Labor. Liberal usually form a government with the even more conservative National Party.

Aaaaaand after literally more than a week of waiting (slowest vote-counting ever) we got a Liberal-National majority government.

[swofro]

Here's the transcript of the EU referendrum debate which is the outcome of that bit of voting to redo the voting, if anyone interested. (i also haven't read it so i don't have any opinions yet about whatever just thought I should share)

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... endumRules

[Amelie]

Does anyone on here keep up much with Australian politics? I saw a few things on here from the most boring election ever, but the current political climate has actually managed to get worse than that and I kind of need to vent Our parliament is genuinely worse than a primary school classroom with everyone yelling over each other and arguing. Also literally nothing gets done. I don't think I've heard about a single positive piece of legislation. Just scandal after scandal.

We are apparently looking at spending 170 million or something on a NON BINDING vote to legalise same sex marriage. Yep, we still haven't done that yet.

Today one of the elected parliamentarians gave a speech about how she wants to ban muslim people from immigrating to the country. She had given a similar speech 20 years before-hand wanting to ban asian people. People voted her in.

(Also I'm sorry if you do agree with some of the current Australian policies, and therefore find what I'm saying offensive. These are just my opinions and I definitely don't expect everyone to agree )

[akui]

Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.

Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.

Ignorant. Bonus unnecessary self-victimisation. Typical.

Saying that all white people are not allowed to have an opinion on something does sound racist to me. Racism does go both ways.

It's just as simple as when discussing a women issue or LGBTQ issue, men/straight people need to respect, rather than dismiss the issue.

[mio]

Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.

Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.

Ignorant. Bonus unnecessary self-victimisation. Typical.

Saying that all white people are not allowed to have an opinion on something does sound racist to me. Racism does go both ways.

It's just as simple as when discussing a women issue or LGBTQ issue, men/straight people need to respect, rather than dismiss the issue.

Exactly! I never understand the need to be all "but I don't feel offended so this can't be problematic" while literally people from the group affected express their concerns.

I've argued this so many times with people IRL, if anybody has a good way to handle discussion like this I would really appreciate it.

I also find it interesting how every slight stab at "white people" causes people to scream rascism while the same people won't listen to what oppressed folks have to say on things that are actually hurtful to them.

[Catallena]

Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.

Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.

Ignorant. Bonus unnecessary self-victimisation. Typical.

Saying that all white people are not allowed to have an opinion on something does sound racist to me. Racism does go both ways.

It's just as simple as when discussing a women issue or LGBTQ issue, men/straight people need to respect, rather than dismiss the issue.

Exactly! I never understand the need to be all "but I don't feel offended so this can't be problematic" while literally people from the group affected express their concerns.

I've argued this so many times with people IRL, if anybody has a good way to handle discussion like this I would really appreciate it.

I also find it interesting how every slight stab at "white people" causes people to scream rascism while the same people won't listen to what oppressed folks have to say on things that are actually hurtful to them.

My face at 'reverse racism' tbh:



Dear fellow whities, we can be discriminated against but that ain't racism. And minorities asking you to listen to them isn't discrimination either. You tried tho

[azara]

The definition of racism is twofold: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" and also "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." (taken from the Oxford Dictionary). Nowhere in there does it say "except white people", because that in itself...would be racist...

The reason the concept of racism was invented, both in legal and social terms, was to attempt to protect people from inequality by promoting mutual respect. If your version of what 'racism' should be or does doesn't fulfil that goal, it's not actually racism anyway. So saying that minorities can be as nasty to white people as they want, while it might make you feel better, isn't really going to achieve any equality, it's literally just going to fuel antagonsim between social groups.

Personally, I will respect anything that you [you generally, not anyone specific] have to tell me. I will listen to all equally, and then weight your commentary based on how close/directly impacted you are to the issue we are discussing. If you're a minority, discussing minority issues, what you have to say is very important, and I will respect and sympathise! As soon, however, as that conversation moves from respectful discussion to an impolite and unnecessary criticism of a particular race, that is racist, as well as just being generally rude, and I will not be continuing the conversation or listening to what you have to say.

"Racism" is not a mechanism for "getting back" at whoever you think has wronged you. It's there to ensure respect. It should be used for what it was intended.

[Catallena]

I was hoping someone would go for dictionary argument Plz read this informational comic about why using a dictionary definition doesn't work. HUGE image under spoiler, last panel ain't relevant.

i genuinely look like a crazy sjw linking to everydayfeminism because talk about a website who really does see problems in everything ever but it's the best quality of the image i could wind

I'm also not saying minorities can be as nasty towards white people as they want. Like I said, minorities can still be prejudiced, discriminatory and xenophibic and all of that is never alright. But it isn't racism.

[Birdie]

The difference between racism and prejudice is power. POC being prejudiced against white people have no systematic power. White people being prejudiced against POC however do. You can't take racism out of its historical and social context. There is no instance in western history of POC systematically surpressing white people. There is no systematic power there. Of course a black person can be prejudiced against all white people. But they can't be racist because the concept of racism is based on which group has power over the other. There is prejudice, but there is no "reverse racism". There is also xenophobia, prejudice against a certain ethnicity. I hope it's okay for me to copy this from the main thread:

Racism does go both ways. Racism goes all directions. Indigenous people, black, brown, etc, all can be racist towards whites. Yes, white people came over here to North America and pretty much "took over" but back in the early days of the US whites were slaves as well up in New England. If you weren't English you weren't given the same rights/status. Mind you, back then not only were indians being persecuted but the Catholics from Canada were as well.

This is what made me want to comment on this issue more. What they're reffering to is indentured servitude in New England in the early days of the United States. You cannot however compare that to slavery. You can never do that. Indentured servants had contracts with employers. They weren't kidnapped from their homes and forced to work for free like black slaves were, they usually worked in exchance for the passage to America (like, "I'll pay for your trip to America, peasant, and then you'll work for me for free for seven years and then you're free to go") or they were convicts shipped to the US to work. Do you see the difference here between slavery and servitude? It's a big and important difference. I'm not saying indentured servitude was an okay thing to have. It was exploitive and horrible but not in the same way slavery was. You can't just compare forms of surpression like this. You can't compare the discrimination against Catholics to the murder of thousands of Native Americans and the way their land was stolen from them (and not given back until this very day).

Another thing: What you're saying is right, Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, had it hard in America in the beginning. But: This doesn't last to this day. Catholics aren't prosecuted in America any more, are they? This chapter is closed, thank god. However slavery still has consequences for how black people are treated in America today. That's the difference. Black people, Native Americans etc. are still not equal in today's America, they still suffer from the consequences of slavery and the genocide against Native Americans. Catholics and non-English white people do not. History is important but it's also important to acknowledge which parts of historical discrimination still affect people today. Slavery does still affect black people today. The discrimination against Catholics in the early days of the US does not. So unless you meet Catholic who was alive in the 19th century to actually suffer from this this argument is kind of mute, it's just not the same.

[azara]

I was hoping someone would go for dictionary argument Plz read this informational comic about why using a dictionary definition doesn't work. HUGE image under spoiler, last panel ain't relevant.

i genuinely look like a crazy sjw linking to everydayfeminism because talk about a website who really does see problems in everything ever but it's the best quality of the image i could wind

I started by quoting the dictionary definition of racism as a reminder of the basic underlying ideas behind it, because I feel that without some form of common ground, this can't go anywhere. I then moved on to talk about mutual respect - which is not mentioned in the definition - and the rest of my comments were based on that understanding of racism.

I'm also not saying minorities can be as nasty towards white people as they want. Like I said, minorities can still be prejudiced, discriminatory and xenophibic and all of that is never alright. But it isn't racism.

Do you accept that the purpose of the concept of "racism" is to ensure mutual respect between groups? If not, what is racism supposed to do? How is it supposed to be used? If you agree with me, that we talk about and condemn racism to maintain respect and dignity, and to preserve the dignity of others, then absolutely anybody can be racist towards anybody else. After all, we are all worthy of the same respect and treatment, by virtue of being human. The racism concept preserves this human right.

Whatever the dictionary definition.

[Catallena]

In theory that sounds all nice and yes we're all worthy of the same respect but racism is more than disrespect for another group of people. Racism is a system that benefits white people and oppresses PoC. PoC don't benefit from that system, so they can not be racist. We don't live in a world where every race has equal opportunities, status or power. If we lived in a world like that, then yes racism could be what you say it is. But high numbers of PoC struggle with poor education, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, police brutality etc. And while white people can struggle with all of those things, it's usually not because of their skin color or heritage and it's on a far smaller scale. And that is racism; a systematic disadvantage based on race.

[daphenaxa]

In theory that sounds all nice and yes we're all worthy of the same respect but racism is more than disrespect for another group of people. Racism is a system that benefits white people and oppresses PoC. PoC don't benefit from that system, so they can not be racist. We don't live in a world where every race has equal opportunities, status or power. If we lived in a world like that, then yes racism could be what you say it is. But high numbers of PoC struggle with poor education, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, police brutality etc. And while white people can struggle with all of those things, it's usually not because of their skin color or heritage and it's on a far smaller scale. And that is racism; a systematic disadvantage based on race.

honestly I don't think your definition is complete. The system you describe seems to me: discrimination based on racism and not racism.

from google racism is
1.the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"
2.prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a programme to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance;

so I guess your definition is the n°2 but you completely disregard one sense of the definition.

imo racism is definitely something that someone from any "race" can direct to someone of any other race. And not just a white people thing against POC.
Discrimination based on racism is however targeting minority groups so POC in the western societies or in other societies that have partially assimilated those western racist ideas.

[mio]

imo racism is definitely something that someone from any "race" can direct to someone of any other race. And not just a white people thing against POC.
Discrimination based on racism is however targeting minority groups so POC in the western societies or in other societies that have partially assimilated those western racist ideas.

Agreed that it isn't inherently white people being rascist against POC.
But the definitions you posted are incomplete (for reasons explained in the comic Catallena posted). Serious sociology won't look at any phenomenon without it's context. So here's another definition from http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm

Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. But despite its form, at its core, racism exists when essentialist racial categories (Black, white, Asian, Latino) are used to turn human beings into stereotyped objects which justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.

By this sociological definition, racism is about much more than race-based prejudice--it exists when race is used to create an imbalance in power and social status.

Rascism always builds on existing power imbalances. That's why in western europe or the US, POC can't be rascist against whites because they have no structural power to oppress white people.
At the same time, in other places POC can be rascist, like e.g. in China there is rascism against black people and people from south-east asia, who are being discriminated against and exploited as cheap labor.

No "race" is inherently more rascist or not, it all depends on the very real material (historical, social, economical) conditions under which we live. And anybody from a priviledged group needs to reflect how they benefit from rascist structures and listen when people from a oppressed group call them out.

[daphenaxa]

I don't get how in US or Western Europe POC can't be racist because they are the ones usually structurally discriminated and oppressed. I just disagree that people from an oppressed group can't be racist. For me it is a bit like saying women can't be sexist or LGBT people can't be prejudiced on sexuality issues. I have also read articles about very dark skinned Black women feeling discrimination and racism from their own race.
What you are describing is true, there is a power imbalance rooted in racist ideas against POC in general. But looking at each actions/interactions from each person separately, those actions have their own structure and power imbalance as well as the general power imbalance of that specific culture/climate.

Personal example here but I am mixed Romani and some relatives from my Romani side are extremely racist against White Serbs. They own a restaurant and have systematically refused to hire White Serbs just because of their ethnicity. Even though Romani people are extremely oppressed and discriminated in the society in general, I believe that what they are doing here is racist and in that particular interaction the power imbalance is in their favour. No? I personally don't think that being part of the structurally oppressed people absolves them of their own racism and prejudice against other ethnic groups.
I also grew up in Asia and witnessed that racism and racist discrimination really was from both sides (Ethnic Chinese against White or rather Western people and Western people against Chinese) for example depending on the situation and interlocutor, I have been treated like I was more "worthy" than local Chinese kids or on the contrary that I was less worthy.

I guess that I believe that power dynamic/imbalance is not only a general thing depending on the culture you are from it is also an interpersonal process?

[Catallena]

imo racism is definitely something that someone from any "race" can direct to someone of any other race. And not just a white people thing against POC.
Discrimination based on racism is however targeting minority groups so POC in the western societies or in other societies that have partially assimilated those western racist ideas.

Agreed that it isn't inherently white people being rascist against POC.
But the definitions you posted are incomplete (for reasons explained in the comic Catallena posted). Serious sociology won't look at any phenomenon without it's context. So here's another definition from http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm

Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. But despite its form, at its core, racism exists when essentialist racial categories (Black, white, Asian, Latino) are used to turn human beings into stereotyped objects which justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.

By this sociological definition, racism is about much more than race-based prejudice--it exists when race is used to create an imbalance in power and social status.

Rascism always builds on existing power imbalances. That's why in western europe or the US, POC can't be rascist against whites because they have no structural power to oppress white people.
At the same time, in other places POC can be rascist, like e.g. in China there is rascism against black people and people from south-east asia, who are being discriminated against and exploited as cheap labor.

No "race" is inherently more rascist or not, it all depends on the very real material (historical, social, economical) conditions under which we live. And anybody from a priviledged group needs to reflect how they benefit from rascist structures and listen when people from a oppressed group call them out.

I didn't make it clear and that's my fault but yeah my post was specifically on racism in white western countries so I do agree with this but there are a few things I wanna expand on.

Power imbalances are more than numbers, just like you said historical, economical and social context are very important. White history is filled with the invading of other countries around the world, creating the power imbalances that make racism. And those still exist today. Like even in countries where white people are a minority they often still don't deal with as much race based discrimination as other groups, especially black people. In South Africa, due to a history of colonization and apartheid, whites might be a minority but on average they have access to better education, make more money, have better houses etc. in comparison to the Black African majority. And even in countries that weren't colonized those imbalances exist, but in different ways. In certain Asian countries you'll definitely get less dirty looks as a white (passing) immigrant than a black immigrant or even someone from South East Asia. That doesn't mean people there won't be prejudiced against a white person because they are, but even their systematic racism will work more in the favor of a white person than for somebody else.

daphenxa I do get what you're saying, and I definitely think it's discrimination (which to be clear I don't think is any better or worse than racism just different things hence why I separate the two) but I can't see it as racism. As far as I know, Romani are heavily discriminated against in the entirety of Europe (because we suck) so to me they're not in any position of power. Your family has (personal) prejudices towards White Serbs and they discriminate against them which is bad, but there's no system in place that keeps White Serbs disadvantaged like Romani. You are Romani though, so I really have no place to speak over you.

So imo (personal) prejudice and discrimination =/= racism, though discrimination is obviously still bad.

[flarequake]

So, the result's all but sealed. I went to bed at a reasonable time hoping to sleep, did for a while, but been up and retweeting since 1.30am, tried to sleep again, also tried watching news streams on YouTube, but hearing discuss it seemed pointless.

A friend of mine into politics has been predicting Hillary to win, and how since he knows his beans, and he's pretty surprised. These kinda work

[ccgs]

We're all (people who live in america) fucked. This is gonna be a horrible 4 years.

Thanks america for electing someone who was endorsed by the KKK.

[azara]

Bloody hell, America, what have you sentenced us all to for the next four years.

Cheers, Australia (and literally the rest of the world).

Putin's probably having a party right now

[trashqueen]

We're all (people who live in america) fucked. This is gonna be a horrible 4 years.

Thanks america for electing someone who was endorsed by the KKK.

nah, dw mate, we're ALL fucked, because thankfully (sarcasm) the us looooves interfering with literally anything any other country in the world tries to do when they feel like it doesn't benefit them (there are countless examples, but i'm gonna go with the one that hits close to home, literally every south american dictatorship was supported financially and by other means by the us government, because clearly we were dirty socialists that needed to be stopped)

that being said, what i originally wanted to say is that i feel very sorry for all of you usamericans out there, you're obviously the ones that are without a doubt going to be affected, you don't deserve this and i really hope this doesn't end up being as bad as it looks right now

[daphenaxa]

Catallena: I don't think you are speaking over me. You sound very knowledgeable about the subject and I enjoy your posts. I think i got the distinction that you are making with racism being a systemic prejudice towards some people/a group whereas discrimination is an interpersonal prejudice.

Also to everyone on this forum and elsewhere :

[SquishPhan]

Well that was disappointing news to wake up to (putting it mildly).

[DryCereal]

"I will be president for all Americans."

Just the white, male, straight, cis, rich ones presumably...