Does racism equal hate?

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Was it though?  It was behind Zion, but was it behind American and especially wider church culture?  Real question.  I haven't studied that moment in history myself.  I mean, were black Southern Baptist pastors leading white congregations in the late 70s?  I think the entertainment industry may have been leading the pack regarding inclusion.

 

Yes, I think it was.  But I'm not expert on the matter and wasnt' alive back then to have seen it with my own eyes.  

[CV75]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

So are there times when racism is appropriate or is what Jesus did not considered racism and if not what is it? Can racism exist without hate?

I think His distinction was over timing and covenant, not race or non-Jewishness. The time of the covenant people had not been fulfilled in fulfilling His promises to them. There were many Jews who were converts and not by birth, and Jewishness is not a race. The time of the Gentiles had not yet arrived for fulfillment of His promises to them. He stayed on task.

This is why things in the Bible and Book of Mormon that are seemingly racist from our perspective are simply a matter of timing and covenant-keeping (God as well as His children).

[blarsen]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not a fan of platitudes like that. Either it means something concrete or it is hype and propaganda designed to make me feel good. While I can appreciate the latter at times I am convinced this is talking about the more concrete stuff.

But what is it that convinces you that the whole House of Israel thing means something more concrete than being just feel-good and platitudenous?  Maybe the Abrahamic covenant is important to God in ways we don't quite understand . . . maybe as simple as just keeping His promise to Abraham and his posterity.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He pointed her to some interesting articles, as we've seen them, pointing out "Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States; however, there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans suffer systemic discrimination".  As it is racism in our culture has a live context.  It's true anyone from any race can hate another from another race because of one's race, it does not really fit the context of the on-going discussion of racism to point out that some particular black person said something awful about white people.  

I think claims of reverse discrimination are typically silly and usually reflect misinformation from media (often Fox News). On the other hand if you privilege one group for hiring or admissions then that's explicit discrimination. It might not get *called* that due to the way power is indexed to groups rather than individuals. But affirmative action is explicitly discrimination. It's discrimination perhaps to counter discrimination to the privileged group, but it still is discrimination. Of course affirmative action is much less common today than in the past.

My personal suspicion is that much of the erroneous belief in reverse discrimination arises out of the way identity politics work and particularly the way power is indexed to a group neglecting differences within that group. Now of course the counterargument is that white privilege is functioning even for poor disliked low status whites. That is without white priveledge they'd be even worse off. However when you already are suffering that tends to not be how you think of it. That's perhaps why you tend to see racial animus, such as manifest in Trump rhetoric, primarily tied to class. So white college voters tend to view the issue differently from blue colar workers, especially those from less prosperous often more rural regions.

Again this gets into the individual vs. group dynamic that I don't think the current thinking about racism deals well with. It's also why I think to solve a lot of racial inequity we'd be much better off thinking in terms of class and poverty rather than race.

So I'm not saying that one person saying something mean doesn't matter. Nor am I saying such things aren't racism. I'm more just saying that the framework through which this is all being interpreted, primarily due to academic fads of the past 30 years, is perhaps not helpful and even counterproductive.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this reference.  Korean-town, it was said, was basically ignored by police (an act of racism it seems again) so they suffered greatly and were forced to take matters into their own hands.  As the violence went through Korean town and inched towards the rich white neighborhoods the police put up blockades (likely another factor of racism).

I'm saying that to the person seeing their life's work destroyed by violence due to their race, they may not look at power imbalances the way you are nor necessarily put the primary blame on the police rather than the people conducting the violence. In other words you've completely reframed the power relations to put the focus on the white people rather than the people doing the violence. That's an inherent problem with the framework itself. 

Again in saying that it doesn't mean I'm necessarily disagreeing with the point you make about the police. It does mean your repressing certain power relations in preference to just look at the ones  you want to look at. This tends to be a problem common to what one may loosely call Foucaultian approaches to power. Certain power counts and certain other power doesn't without being able to justify that focus. This isn't just a problem, I should hasten to add, with use of Foucault in race analysis but I'd argue besets his writings in general - particularly those on madness or sex.

If you're not familiar with Foucault just ignore that paragraph. More or less what I'm trying to point out is that there is an interpretive framework which only allows certain things to be looked at but neglects others - particularly the individual actions.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I do think there is some level of convenience to the term racist in our day.  That is to say it is easy to employ, sometimes hard to really convict, near impossible to retract, and definitely polarizing in our climate.  Though I hardly think that means it's all a language game.  It may be that one is acting in racism but not know it.  It's can be helpful for the naïve to learn that his/her actions affect others in the way they do.  

I'd never say it's only a language game. That said I think it frequently was used as a crudgel to cut off discussion or as a type of power expression. But I always thought it was and remains a huge issue. My problem is more with the way the discussion is framed at present. However it's also the case that I've been shocked at how much blantant racism remains in our culture. In a way Trump has shown what was only slightly below the surface. I'd hope that we can use that to fix it - but somehow I doubt that will happen.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's possible and likely that Kimball and McKay held discriminating views based on race due to their upbringing too.  They didn't seem to really take it seriously or reflect heavily until the twilight years of their lives, after "the world", as it were, showed them the error of their traditions.  

Almost certainly they did, much like Lincoln today would be viewed as a virulent racist. I'm not sure I'd say "the world" showed them the error of their traditions. That seems a bit too pat and simple. 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It was obvious as can be to me that the priesthood ban was ugly and evil, but leaders definitely had a problem dropping it.  I'm not sure Peter is any more saintly than say McKay.  Why should we expect any different?  

I think it matters the reasons why they had that problem. I think a big part of the problem was that due to the actions in the early Utah period people assumed it was inspired and that gave a burden of proof for overthrowing it. The most interesting thing I found from the recent historical research on the question is how prominent GAs memory of things like the ordination of Elijah Abel actually changed. That's certainly not unexpected - our memories are themselves theoretically motivated. But it showcases how structures can develop due to misunderstanding. Then as the original data is lost people interpet in light of thosse structures. 

In the same way Peter was a product of his time and place. It appears that in other times the Jews were far more open to conversion from gentiles into Judaism. (I'd argue that the Book of Mormon pretty well presupposes it was common in the immediate pre-exilic era) By the time of Roman occupation though conversions were rare let alone prosylatizing. Peter and Paul were people of their time and understanding. Paul was perhaps more of a reformer due his preexisting zealotry but also how his conversion made him rethink radically his Judaism. 

I do think this transition was clearly very problematic in early Christiantiy. Had the Jewish revolt not led to the destruction of the temple and partial destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD it may well be that we'd not have had the divide between Judaism and Christianity.

[blarsen]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think His distinction was over timing and covenant, not race or non-Jewishness. The time of the covenant people had not been fulfilled in fulfilling His promises to them. There were many Jews who were converts and not by birth, and Jewishness is not a race. The time of the Gentiles had not yet arrived for fulfillment of His promises to them. He stayed on task.

This is why things in the Bible and Book of Mormon that are seemingly racist from our perspective are simply a matter of timing and covenant-keeping (God as well as His children).

But there is an autosomal genetic complex most Jews, including Ashkenazim, partake of to one degree or another, which points them back to the eastern Mediterranean.Levant/Israel/Palestine location.

Edited July 24, 2019 by blarsen

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That was an odd little political jab.  How do you know the intentions and attitudes of a whole host of politicians?  Ok...politicians are easy targets sometimes.  It's odd though it's paternalistic for one political side to prefer helping people who are down by trying to give them what they don't have, hoping they grow from there, yet the other side trying to take a paternalistic tough love approach is not mentioned as being paternalistic.  My daddy was more of a try and keep me down in hopes I"d be strong one day approach.  

yeah...I know....didn't work.  

Teaching self-reliance is paternalistic? You have an odd way of defining that term. 

And who said teaching self-reliance is “tough love”? That’s your own cynical supposition. 

And isn’t teaching independence to people “who are down” trying “to give them what they don’t have”?

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Well, bless your heart.

Thank you grandma.  

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think claims of reverse discrimination are typically silly and usually reflect misinformation from media (often Fox News). On the other hand if you privilege one group for hiring or admissions then that's explicit discrimination. It might not get *called* that due to the way power is indexed to groups rather than individuals. But affirmative action is explicitly discrimination. It's discrimination perhaps to counter discrimination to the privileged group, but it still is discrimination. Of course affirmative action is much less common today than in the past.

My personal suspicion is that much of the erroneous belief in reverse discrimination arises out of the way identity politics work and particularly the way power is indexed to a group neglecting differences within that group. Now of course the counterargument is that white privilege is functioning even for poor disliked low status whites. That is without white priveledge they'd be even worse off. However when you already are suffering that tends to not be how you think of it. That's perhaps why you tend to see racial animus, such as manifest in Trump rhetoric, primarily tied to class. So white college voters tend to view the issue differently from blue colar workers, especially those from less prosperous often more rural regions.

Again this gets into the individual vs. group dynamic that I don't think the current thinking about racism deals well with. It's also why I think to solve a lot of racial inequity we'd be much better off thinking in terms of class and poverty rather than race.

So I'm not saying that one person saying something mean doesn't matter. Nor am I saying such things aren't racism. I'm more just saying that the framework through which this is all being interpreted, primarily due to academic fads of the past 30 years, is perhaps not helpful and even counterproductive.

Well, I'm guessing we're not really seeing eye to eye, even if we have plenty to agree on.  Indeed, much of what you say here feels unresponsive to what I've said and has limited the term racism to the term discrimination.  But, in my mind the context of our day's culture shows our racism carries with it a certain definition that expands beyond discriminating based on race.  

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm saying that to the person seeing their life's work destroyed by violence due to their race, they may not look at power imbalances the way you are nor necessarily put the primary blame on the police rather than the people conducting the violence.

This feels like more unresponsiveness.  I'm not suggesting the only blame is on police.  I'm saying the element that the police favored white and rich was problematic.  The violent riots were not some passive unaggressive act perpetrated by innocent people, per se.  But I don't think the violence target race so much as targeted a bit of chaos.  As it moved toward the favored race though, well, things seemed to get more serious.  

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In other words you've completely reframed the power relations to put the focus on the white people rather than the people doing the violence. That's an inherent problem with the framework itself. 

I disagree with your assessment of course.  I did not completely reframe the power relations.  I'm pointing out the problem we have with race relations.  Indeed, this little example of the LA riots helps in some measure as I've tried to explain.  It seemed to me you were trying to say the destruction in Korean-town had some element of racism by the aggressors.  I think they were moving their chaos and would have moved it right through Korea town into the rich white neighborhoods if they could have.  It was about destruction, and thievery at some point, even if it started by a mistreated race.  

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again in saying that it doesn't mean I'm necessarily disagreeing with the point you make about the police. It does mean your repressing certain power relations in preference to just look at the ones  you want to look at. This tends to be a problem common to what one may loosely call Foucaultian approaches to power. Certain power counts and certain other power doesn't without being able to justify that focus. This isn't just a problem, I should hasten to add, with use of Foucault in race analysis but I'd argue besets his writings in general - particularly those on madness or sex.

If you're not familiar with Foucault just ignore that paragraph. More or less what I'm trying to point out is that there is an interpretive framework which only allows certain things to be looked at but neglects others - particularly the individual actions.

Well it seems we had some level of talking past each other, which happens around here.  I wasn't really thinking of power relations so much as race relations.  

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd never say it's only a language game. That said I think it frequently was used as a crudgel to cut off discussion or as a type of power expression. But I always thought it was and remains a huge issue. My problem is more with the way the discussion is framed at present. However it's also the case that I've been shocked at how much blantant racism remains in our culture. In a way Trump has shown what was only slightly below the surface. I'd hope that we can use that to fix it - but somehow I doubt that will happen.

I'm fine with most of that.  

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Almost certainly they did, much like Lincoln today would be viewed as a virulent racist. I'm not sure I'd say "the world" showed them the error of their traditions. That seems a bit too pat and simple. 

I think it matters the reasons why they had that problem. I think a big part of the problem was that due to the actions in the early Utah period people assumed it was inspired and that gave a burden of proof for overthrowing it. The most interesting thing I found from the recent historical research on the question is how prominent GAs memory of things like the ordination of Elijah Abel actually changed. That's certainly not unexpected - our memories are themselves theoretically motivated. But it showcases how structures can develop due to misunderstanding. Then as the original data is lost people interpet in light of thosse structures. 

In the same way Peter was a product of his time and place. It appears that in other times the Jews were far more open to conversion from gentiles into Judaism. (I'd argue that the Book of Mormon pretty well presupposes it was common in the immediate pre-exilic era) By the time of Roman occupation though conversions were rare let alone prosylatizing. Peter and Paul were people of their time and understanding. Paul was perhaps more of a reformer due his preexisting zealotry but also how his conversion made him rethink radically his Judaism. 

I do think this transition was clearly very problematic in early Christiantiy. Had the Jewish revolt not led to the destruction of the temple and partial destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD it may well be that we'd not have had the divide between Judaism and Christianity.

Sounds good.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Racism doesn’t necessarily amount to hatred. 

For example, I don’t believe leftist politicians necessarily hate ethnic minorities. However, they harbor paternalistic attitudes toward them that would keep them dependent upon handouts and social programs instead of guiding them in and fostering among them self-help and self-reliance. 

Candace Owens, a brilliant, young African American activist, is sharply critical of such an approach and characterized it as keeping them on the plantation. 

True, and I think Neo-Nazis and white supremacists and those who support them do hate ethnic minorities. A controversial stance in this day and age but I stand by it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

It's been a useless descriptor for decades now.  If I evict someone with an Hispanic surname for engaging in law-breaking conduct, the anti-discrimination division in Utah contacts me with accusations of discrimination because  ...  all non-hispanic caucasoids are racist, and running a meth lab in a rental is no reason to evict anybody.

/End Personal Account

Is your anecdote supposed to prove that racism is dead and we need never discuss it again? That seems to be what you are saying.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think claims of reverse discrimination are typically silly and usually reflect misinformation from media (often Fox News). On the other hand if you privilege one group for hiring or admissions then that's explicit discrimination. It might not get *called* that due to the way power is indexed to groups rather than individuals. But affirmative action is explicitly discrimination. It's discrimination perhaps to counter discrimination to the privileged group, but it still is discrimination. Of course affirmative action is much less common today than in the past.

My personal suspicion is that much of the erroneous belief in reverse discrimination arises out of the way identity politics work and particularly the way power is indexed to a group neglecting differences within that group. Now of course the counterargument is that white privilege is functioning even for poor disliked low status whites. That is without white priveledge they'd be even worse off. However when you already are suffering that tends to not be how you think of it. That's perhaps why you tend to see racial animus, such as manifest in Trump rhetoric, primarily tied to class. So white college voters tend to view the issue differently from blue colar workers, especially those from less prosperous often more rural regions.

Again this gets into the individual vs. group dynamic that I don't think the current thinking about racism deals well with. It's also why I think to solve a lot of racial inequity we'd be much better off thinking in terms of class and poverty rather than race.

So I'm not saying that one person saying something mean doesn't matter. Nor am I saying such things aren't racism. I'm more just saying that the framework through which this is all being interpreted, primarily due to academic fads of the past 30 years, is perhaps not helpful and even counterproductive.

I'm saying that to the person seeing their life's work destroyed by violence due to their race, they may not look at power imbalances the way you are nor necessarily put the primary blame on the police rather than the people conducting the violence. In other words you've completely reframed the power relations to put the focus on the white people rather than the people doing the violence. That's an inherent problem with the framework itself. 

Again in saying that it doesn't mean I'm necessarily disagreeing with the point you make about the police. It does mean your repressing certain power relations in preference to just look at the ones  you want to look at. This tends to be a problem common to what one may loosely call Foucaultian approaches to power. Certain power counts and certain other power doesn't without being able to justify that focus. This isn't just a problem, I should hasten to add, with use of Foucault in race analysis but I'd argue besets his writings in general - particularly those on madness or sex.

If you're not familiar with Foucault just ignore that paragraph. More or less what I'm trying to point out is that there is an interpretive framework which only allows certain things to be looked at but neglects others - particularly the individual actions.

I'd never say it's only a language game. That said I think it frequently was used as a crudgel to cut off discussion or as a type of power expression. But I always thought it was and remains a huge issue. My problem is more with the way the discussion is framed at present. However it's also the case that I've been shocked at how much blantant racism remains in our culture. In a way Trump has shown what was only slightly below the surface. I'd hope that we can use that to fix it - but somehow I doubt that will happen.

Almost certainly they did, much like Lincoln today would be viewed as a virulent racist. I'm not sure I'd say "the world" showed them the error of their traditions. That seems a bit too pat and simple. 

I think it matters the reasons why they had that problem. I think a big part of the problem was that due to the actions in the early Utah period people assumed it was inspired and that gave a burden of proof for overthrowing it. The most interesting thing I found from the recent historical research on the question is how prominent GAs memory of things like the ordination of Elijah Abel actually changed. That's certainly not unexpected - our memories are themselves theoretically motivated. But it showcases how structures can develop due to misunderstanding. Then as the original data is lost people interpet in light of thosse structures. 

In the same way Peter was a product of his time and place. It appears that in other times the Jews were far more open to conversion from gentiles into Judaism. (I'd argue that the Book of Mormon pretty well presupposes it was common in the immediate pre-exilic era) By the time of Roman occupation though conversions were rare let alone prosylatizing. Peter and Paul were people of their time and understanding. Paul was perhaps more of a reformer due his preexisting zealotry but also how his conversion made him rethink radically his Judaism. 

I do think this transition was clearly very problematic in early Christiantiy. Had the Jewish revolt not led to the destruction of the temple and partial destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD it may well be that we'd not have had the divide between Judaism and Christianity.

If "racism" can only be attributed to white folks' behaviors and attitudes, but not black folks', then the term is a lie, and legislation on the subject a cynical scam.

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think His distinction was over timing and covenant, not race or non-Jewishness. The time of the covenant people had not been fulfilled in fulfilling His promises to them. There were many Jews who were converts and not by birth, and Jewishness is not a race. The time of the Gentiles had not yet arrived for fulfillment of His promises to them. He stayed on task.

This is why things in the Bible and Book of Mormon that are seemingly racist from our perspective are simply a matter of timing and covenant-keeping (God as well as His children).

I don't think that applies since the issue is conversion to Judaism. We don't know the status of proselytes in the pre-exilic period beyond the Book of Mormon. There are interesting texts that discuss it such as the famous Joseph and Aseneth narrative which dates somewhere from 200 BC to 200 AD. There Aseneth, an Egyptian, seeks to marry Joseph with various problems imposing themselves. We know during parts of the Second Temple period there were conversions and in a few cases forced conversions. (High Priest John Hyrcanus’s conversion of the Edomites around 125 BC - although sources other that Josephus suggest it was voluntary) There appears to be a fair number of proselytes in the early Second Temple period although I think things became complex under the Hellenistic era (when the pressure was adopting Hellenism) It's still a place of scholarly disagreement. However by the time of Christ it simply was fairly uncommon. That was because of a change, perhaps somewhat after the time of Nehemiah, which promoted a religious ideal of extreme separation. By the time of the Maccabean revolt against Hellenistic control it seemed like separation became more important than conversion. Part of that debate is also the problem of circumcision and whether it was required for conversion. (Needless to say a process that might make male conversions more difficult) There's also the problem that "Jewishness" was viewed as coming through the mother and a long history of intermarriage of foreign women as problematic. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is your anecdote supposed to prove that racism is dead and we need never discuss it again? That seems to be what you are saying.

This was 15-20 years ago in Utah. "Racism" is meaningless, other than as an ad hominem attack word.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think I've explained myself.  I'm not saying all is symbolic.  

What you think I seem to think is not what I think.  I did say a couple times it's best, in my opinion, to read those passages that way because the other way just makes the stories stupid.  But I've also suggested, I don't know what Jesus thought or what he did, nor what his disciples thought or did.  What I am saying in all this is, don't use the scriptures as you do,  Loosen up and take the good and leave the bad.  

Nope.  It's like taking a story from a book and getting out of it what you find valuable and leaving the bad.  

Oh jeez..blustering the Nehor again.  Fine.  I'll do what I think is appropriate, you go ahead and get all stuck up in silliness and then complain about people who don't get so stuck.  Cool.  Do what floats it, i guess.  

No need to be offended, even if it appears God gets easily offended.  Are you saying that McKay wasn't influenced by racist teaching and culture, coupled up with the belief that God was directing the church?  and are you saying if the ban was not lifted and it was still in place today the Church would be more than it was in '78 in terms of numbers, influence and all of that?  I'd suggest if the ban was not lifted the Church would be more of a laughing stock perhaps so much so it'd be next to impossible to keep it alive.  

Are you suggesting that if we battle each other asking stupid and inept leading questions to try to force answers from each other this discussion will come to a profitable end?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

Yes, and probably these very same passages are what has yielded my point of view, but I hear you.  Even delving into 1 Nephi recently I was simply brought short by Nephi's insistence of speaking of the Jews--when after all, he himself is not a Jew, if referring to bloodline.  So it causes me to ask, 'what does he mean'?  Because the Book of Mormon has a HUGE House of Israel theme.

Well, if you are so inclined, you can PM me, I love insights of all kinds, even if I don't settle on them myself, they still might open something up for me. (No worries if not.)  I'm all about ludicrous 🙂.  You could hardly out-ludicrous me, now could you? 😜 Ha ha.

Thanks for the invite but I am not sure even I believe it yet. It is just an odd thought. I do have a spiritual itch about the whole House of Israel thing. There is something I am missing.

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Extremes very often illuminate the spectrum of which they are a part.  There are many abuses of the use of the epithets:  'racist or hateful' that aren't as stupid but still widely miss the mark and are even abhorent.

There are but that still does not mean we throw up our hands and give up because some abuse the cry for egalitarianism. 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teaching self-reliance is paternalistic? You have an odd way of defining that term. 

And who said teaching self-reliance is “tough love”? That’s your own cynical supposition. 

Well now we're going to get stuck in a game of semantics, it feels like.  Helping those who have been mistreated is not really opposing self-reliance--it's not keeping them dependent upon handouts.  It's promoting self-reliance too--give them help so they can have a foundation on which to build just like the rest of society has inherently.  My point in mentioning tough love is, if we frame each other's position in terms they don't favor, as you did with liberal politicians, then we'll just be arguing terms.  We'll get stuck at the very surface of the discussion.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

Have you had a chance to read and ponder the blessings given to each of the twelve tribes, located somewhere in the OT, not sure where, but likely Genesis?

Yes, there were two blessing: One from Jacob/Israel and another from Moses. Still do not get it. I know from elsewhere that I have to stop envying Judah as well but I am not sure how to do that.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you suggesting that if we battle each other asking stupid and inept leading questions to try to force answers from each other this discussion will come to a profitable end?

Profitable end?  No, you nixed that as soon as you chimed in.  😁

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, and I think Neo-Nazis and white supremacists and those who support them do hate ethnic minorities. A controversial stance in this day and age but I stand by it.

True, but what’s controversial about such a stance? 

I do think those terms are thrown around these days with reckless abandon, and <that> can be controversial. Anytime Candace Owens (a black) is called a white supremacist or Ben Shapiro a Neo-Nazi (he’s an Orthodox Jew who wears a Yarmulke), you know there is lunacy involved in the accusations. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, blarsen said:

But what is it that convinces you that the whole House of Israel thing means something more concrete than being just feel-good and platitudenous?  Maybe the Abrahamic covenant is important to God in ways we don't quite understand . . . maybe as simple as just keeping His promise to Abraham and his posterity.

That God spends so much time on it. It is not just keeping the promise, it is that God made the promise at all. He certainly did not have to. Why? What does it entail that I am missing? Why does the Book of Mormon written for our day spend so much time on it? The promises are offered to all on the earth who will repent so why the emphasis on the blood of Israel?

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teaching self-reliance is paternalistic? You have an odd way of defining that term. 

And who said teaching self-reliance is “tough love”? That’s your own cynical supposition. 

And isn’t teaching independence to people “who are down” trying “to give them what they don’t have”?

 

The fight against racism is not primarily about welfare or affirmative action or whatever. It is about actual equality. Fighting over those peripheral issues is a good way to stir everyone up to anger and hatred so the problem is dismissed or turned into a weapon so of course politicians go there.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If "racism" can only be attributed to white folks' behaviors and attitudes, but not black folks', then the term is a lie, and legislation on the subject a cynical scam.

One of my favorite dramas is “Twelve Angry Men.” It’s about a panel of jurors struggling to render a verdict in a murder case. 

I’ve seen both the original television drama presented in the 1950s and the motion picture production released a few years later. 

Very recently I had occasion to see a later production presented as a TV movie in the 1990s. One of the characters is an unabashed racist who is convinced the defendant, a young Latino, is guilty because he is “one of <them>.” In the past, this character has been portrayed as white, but in this latter production, he is black, an adherent of the Nation of Islam (Louis Farakhan’s group). 

Strikingly, the lines in the script originally written for a white racist character match this black racist character to a T. I found it fascinating. 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If "racism" can only be attributed to white folks' behaviors and attitudes, but not black folks', then the term is a lie, and legislation on the subject a cynical scam.

No one said that.

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

This was 15-20 years ago in Utah. "Racism" is meaningless, other than as an ad hominem attack word.

I hope this is just blind ignorance.

Racism is real. Parents have to teach their children how to cope with it and survive it. Black kids and adults are harassed more. There is an assumption of guilt or suspicion. A friend of mine, a little older then me, who is black and has a wealthy father would make business trips in his late teens and early twenties around the south (he lived in Florida) driving the company car (expensive luxury car). He was pulled over at least once every trip (he was not speeding) and more often multiple times by cops who harassed him and would always check to see if the car was stolen and he would often get grilled and asked leading questions suggesting the car was stolen and they would always ask for permission to search it. He is a tough guy but it is humiliating to be in that position of disadvantage. I know criminal lawyers and they will outright tell you being black or Hispanic means harsher sentencing from a judge. A white friend of mine got busted for fraud at 15. His lawyer outright told him he was lucky he was white and clean-cut and that he would probably get off with just some community service.

Racism is real. It is not dead. It is not something made up for political gain or to make you feel guilty. It stands for real pain and real suffering and real disadvantages. I encourage you to read real accounts of what it puts people through. We are nowhere near equality and people pretending we are is part of the problem.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Profitable end?  No, you nixed that as soon as you chimed in.  😁

I disagree. I got a good laugh out of it and that is profit.