NYC Hate Crimes hit Jews harder than other groups combined in 2018

[Yukaphile]

Nah, not really. Just commenting on the original topic.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you mean specifically then. I personally try to treat each individual the same despite identity. That's I think pretty standard for plenty of people even on the progressive side.

I think you and I don't communicate well. I may be too literal-minded for you to understand.

Look at the BBC. They opened hiring for positions where whites need not apply. They do this because of reasons that would usually be called progressive. To me, that is simply wrong. I suspect that for most progressives, it isn't.

You may be tempted to tell me why the BBC is doing this, but why doesn't matter to me. They are doing it. That they have reasons doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you mean specifically then. I personally try to treat each individual the same despite identity. That's I think pretty standard for plenty of people even on the progressive side.

I think you and I don't communicate well. I may be too literal-minded for you to understand.

Look at the BBC. They opened hiring for positions where whites need not apply. They do this because of reasons that would usually be called progressive. To me, that is simply wrong. I suspect that for most progressives, it isn't.

You may be tempted to tell me why the BBC is doing this, but why doesn't matter to me. They are doing it. That they have reasons doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.

I don't believe so. I was following our conversation and when I asked for context of your statement regarding unfair treatment for specifics, you declined. I don't feel that's a matter of speaking literally, and your position on racism isn't particularly elusive or anything.

I've never really said anything that denotes that I think people should be treated differently, so when you say that that's the difference between your and my positions, I just don't think that's really fair.

I was thinking about where our sentiments are at odds a day or two ago, and I didn't want to unsolicitedly bring it back up especially in a cross-purposed argumentation. Though just to disclose, what racism specifically is was a focus I'm fairly certain. And to be clear, interpersonal treatment between individuals or organizations like the BBC can definitely constitute as racially motivated... or racist, or discriminatory etc... However, systemic forms of racism allllso qualify, consisting of dynamics beyond interpersonal treatment and involving more subtle but considerably insidious conditions such as marginalization among others. (edit: As an aside, this stuff is an arguably different circumstance in my opinion, and from what I can tell tends to be the most controversial aspect as far as addressing racism overall).

So really I don't think it'd be fair for me to say that the BBC's internship program didn't violate standards of anti-discriminatory policy under the former condition, even if trying to tackle issues of the latter. I totally get your consideration of how progressives would treat the matter, and I'd personally imagine their articulations or justifications might come off as inconcise. That's all I'll really say as far as my opinion on the BBC issue unless anybody cares for me to unpack the dynamic a bit more, but I'll spare people for now.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Nah, not really. Just commenting on the original topic.

What? In the News Forum? What a novel idea! =o

[Darth Wedgius]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you mean specifically then. I personally try to treat each individual the same despite identity. That's I think pretty standard for plenty of people even on the progressive side.

I think you and I don't communicate well. I may be too literal-minded for you to understand.

Look at the BBC. They opened hiring for positions where whites need not apply. They do this because of reasons that would usually be called progressive. To me, that is simply wrong. I suspect that for most progressives, it isn't.

You may be tempted to tell me why the BBC is doing this, but why doesn't matter to me. They are doing it. That they have reasons doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.

I don't believe so. I was following our conversation and when I asked for context of your statement regarding unfair treatment for specifics, you declined. I don't feel that's a matter of speaking literally, and your position on racism isn't particularly elusive or anything.

I've never really said anything that denotes that I think people should be treated differently, so when you say that that's the difference between your and my positions, I just don't think that's really fair.

I was thinking about where our sentiments are at odds a day or two ago, and I didn't want to unsolicitedly bring it back up especially in a cross-purposed argumentation. Though just to disclose, what racism specifically is was a focus I'm fairly certain. And to be clear, interpersonal treatment between individuals or organizations like the BBC can definitely constitute as racially motivated... or racist, or discriminatory etc... However, systemic forms of racism allllso qualify, consisting of dynamics beyond interpersonal treatment and involving more subtle but considerably insidious conditions such as marginalization among others. (edit: As an aside, this stuff is an arguably different circumstance in my opinion, and from what I can tell tends to be the most controversial aspect as far as addressing racism overall).

So really I don't think it'd be fair for me to say that the BBC's internship program didn't violate standards of anti-discriminatory policy under the former condition, even if trying to tackle issues of the latter. I totally get your consideration of how progressives would treat the matter, and I'd personally imagine their articulations or justifications might come off as inconcise. That's all I'll really say as far as my opinion on the BBC issue unless anybody cares for me to unpack the dynamic a bit more, but I'll spare people for now.

My apologies if I assumed your position, though I'm still no clear about it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well that depends on what you mean by being treated differently. I get that it's by race, but what injustices do you see incurring from there? I mean, just that you said it's inherently racist and what not, if that's consistent with what you're saying here. As far as individual actions, I suppose yeah you can call people racist.

I think the term gets thrown around a lot and inflated personally.

Sorry, going to keep the question pretty much exactly as it is, but I'll hint that I mean the question at its most literal. Treated differently = treated differently in any way except for medical purposes.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you mean specifically then. I personally try to treat each individual the same despite identity. That's I think pretty standard for plenty of people even on the progressive side.

I think you and I don't communicate well. I may be too literal-minded for you to understand.

Look at the BBC. They opened hiring for positions where whites need not apply. They do this because of reasons that would usually be called progressive. To me, that is simply wrong. I suspect that for most progressives, it isn't.

You may be tempted to tell me why the BBC is doing this, but why doesn't matter to me. They are doing it. That they have reasons doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.

I don't believe so. I was following our conversation and when I asked for context of your statement regarding unfair treatment for specifics, you declined. I don't feel that's a matter of speaking literally, and your position on racism isn't particularly elusive or anything.

I've never really said anything that denotes that I think people should be treated differently, so when you say that that's the difference between your and my positions, I just don't think that's really fair.

I was thinking about where our sentiments are at odds a day or two ago, and I didn't want to unsolicitedly bring it back up especially in a cross-purposed argumentation. Though just to disclose, what racism specifically is was a focus I'm fairly certain. And to be clear, interpersonal treatment between individuals or organizations like the BBC can definitely constitute as racially motivated... or racist, or discriminatory etc... However, systemic forms of racism allllso qualify, consisting of dynamics beyond interpersonal treatment and involving more subtle but considerably insidious conditions such as marginalization among others. (edit: As an aside, this stuff is an arguably different circumstance in my opinion, and from what I can tell tends to be the most controversial aspect as far as addressing racism overall).

So really I don't think it'd be fair for me to say that the BBC's internship program didn't violate standards of anti-discriminatory policy under the former condition, even if trying to tackle issues of the latter. I totally get your consideration of how progressives would treat the matter, and I'd personally imagine their articulations or justifications might come off as inconcise. That's all I'll really say as far as my opinion on the BBC issue unless anybody cares for me to unpack the dynamic a bit more, but I'll spare people for now.

My apologies if I assumed your position, though I'm still no clear about it.

I feel that the position I stand comes off as limp to various sides, whether progressive or conservative and to varying degrees each. So I mean I appreciate your discretion right there.

The progressives that I have followed throughout my recent days will often take to Twitter and actively or passively engage in disputes arguing for awareness of institutional racism. Now honestly these people don't come off as square or anything, but their emphasis and weight on this focus of racism (which I think might more be considered part of the legacy of racism (and I could be wrong)) can come off as treating racism as an exclusively one-way street. Specifically, one might not retweet stories of a black person calling a white person a cracker, but will talk about events with respect to institutional racism (also known as systemic racism). Not to say that those two circumstances really overlap in reality, but hypothetically it's kinda valid when you consider the weight that's put on interpersonal treatment between an individual of the dominant class to someone of a minority/marginalized.

Sorry if I still lose you here. My position is that I'm receptive to the recognition of systemic racism as a serious matter, but feel that the approach to it can get complicated. From there, while I think what you're saying about the BBC for example is valid, though I generally try not to get hung up on casual instances (even official ones) either way, save for when they are pretty bad, but will also try to honestly set a good example myself even if I've already put myself at odds with staunch progressives when saying that.