479
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
479 points (96.7% liked)
News
23388 readers
1749 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My first reaction was to wonder why anyone would care what her race is. It is the least interesting or important thing about her
Racial Colorblindness is still racism. Kamala Harris, like anyone mixed race or nonwhite, has had a measurably different experience living in America than her white peers.
Fixating on her race the way Trump and Republicans are doing is absolutely racist.
But hand waving her racial identity away like it is irrelevant is also quite a racist thing to do.
In what ways is it relevant to judging someone's capability to be president?
Having certain experiences means intimately knowing the problems affecting others in a similar situation, and that puts you in a better position to fix them.
She might know a little bit of the struggles the non-white community in the US have to go through, possibly experienced it first hand one way or the other. That might lead to a more inclusive presidency than what Trump would do.
Yeah, but can that same logic be applied to say black conservatives? Some people see struggles, including their own, as something they should work to help others avoid. Some see struggles as a membership fee or filter to make a better way of life more exclusive and are glad they are there, even if it was hard to go through them.
Plus, not all experiences are equal. While dealing with some racism might be universal for minority races, specific experiences can vary wildly. Think like fresh Prince of Belair where social status and wealth meant Will's family had a very different environment that was shielded from some of the worst aspects of systemic racism like being stuck in a ghetto with many others but not many resources per person and not much to do.
That's why I think skin colour alone isn't a useful consideration, just like it's not useful to determine if a specific individual is trustworthy or a criminal.
Yeah that's intersectionality.
Not that it's a competition, but having a little more diversity along any axis (like skin colour) is probably preferable, all things being equal.
What the hell does "racial colorblindness is still racism" mean?
it's mostly a problem in the situation where a person goes "Racism is over, you shouldn't complain"
You can't dismiss the power that race has in people's lives to this day because institutional racism still exists, and the consequences of the more overt institutional racism of the past are still in effect.
When you say something like "I don't see color" or "I don't see race", you're actively dismissing an immutable part of a person's identity, which is insulting. You can acknowledge and appreciate someone's race without treating them differently because of it.
No that's ridiculous. Not seeing something is in No Way actively doing anything. It is by definition passive.
The colour blindness of children is what you're thinking of. They're the only ones untainted by the racism they will inevitably be exposed to later in life.
You'd have to be incredibly innocent, ignorant, or obtuse, if you got to adulthood without being aware that a person's visible race will affect how others (like racists) will treat them.
It's easy to be aware of a fact in a moment and lose sight of it in practice it a complex scenario. As I said, I'm neuro divergent, and my closest friends who know me well would liken the naive or innocent way I view things to be similar to childlike naivete. Maybe their not the only ones as untainted as you think. I've grown up experiencing very little racism while being brown skinned, so I just don't think about it in my day to day view.
If there's two different forms of racial colorblindness, and it's ok for kids to be one and adults can't be the other one, I don't know it just sounds like dumb nonsense labels purposefully designed to start arguments. Almost sounds like troll language.
No it's not, it's actively dismissing someone's race. The passive thing is to say nothing about it.
So I'm neuro divergent and I don't see people in terms of race. I guess I'm racist now. Who knew. You freaking people are why the right thinks we're insane. Blind people are racist too?
Here is me actively dismissing. I see your skin color and I make a conscious decision to omit that fact.
You are saying if someone doesn't actually notice the color of people when we see them we are racist. That's exactly like saying people who are deaf are rude for ignoring you when you speak. Ridiculous.
We're not expecting you to see people in terms of race. That would be profiling. You're being far too literal and not making a point in good faith by trying to equate visual impairment in this context.
Please look up the difference between equality and equity, and why equality isn't sufficient and can in fact still be exclusionary in today's reality. That's the point we're trying to make here.
Forgive me for thinking words mean what they say. This is part of the problem the left has in general. You guys are too lazy to have long discussions so you keep making up labels and words that no one knows what they mean then you go around calling people who aren't even fighting you racist. The entire tone of this thread has been beyond stupid. Don't get me started on how many letters have been added to LGBTQBBQWTF when the Q was supposed to be the end of it as a catch-all. It's like you guys WANT to be misunderstood.
Rasicm =/= ignorance