Its amusing that you and I seem to miss each other's points.
My first line: "The problem is the scope of how you are trying to move beyond racism."
When you write about your position, it seems you're writing about the United States. You don't say it explicitly but given the incidents you site, I can implicitly assume that.
Its amusing that you and I seem to miss each other's points.
My first line: "The problem is the scope of how you are trying to move beyond racism."
When you write about your position, it seems you're writing about the United States. You don't say it explicitly but given the incidents you site, I can implicitly assume that.
My point is that you have some image of the country that is referred to as the United States and what move beyond racism would be for that entity.
I don't even refer to the country as the United States anymore. I call it the divided states. Because that is reality. There is nothing united about the divided states except the momentum that got the country to where it is. A large majority of the people in the country believe the federal government is broken and the country is broken.
Writing about moving beyond racism or how to treat everybody without respect to their colour is idealistic if your context of "move beyond" is some measure of whether the divided states has moved beyond. Its purely an intellectual exercise that has no practical implementation. Is that all you are trying to convey in your articles - purely intellectual concepts.
I'm extremely pragmatic. If an intellectual concept doesn't have a pragmatic implementation plan that can be measured, I see no point to the intellectual concept except for entertainment sake. I own my own company. It would be meaningless for me to just intellectualized about ideas about my company.
If you really are interested in "moving beyond racism" or getting to "how to treat everybody without respect to their colour" should start where you live. Has your family moved beyond racism? If you go to church, has your church? How about the community you live in? What is your community doing to move beyond racism?
I see no real person commitments from you that are pragmatic. They are all intellectual exercises.
Maybe you're right, there is no point for me to read or comment on your articles. I'm not really interested in just mental masturbation.
"A large majority of the people in the country believe the federal government is broken and the country is broken."
I still have no real idea what you're getting at, but no, I don't think this is true. And as usual, you've offered no evidence or data to back up your claim. Just a proclamation that your feelings reflect the feelings of millions of people. Most people in most countries believe their governments have issues. Because governments in almost all countries have issues. That's a far cry from being "broken." Whatever that even means.
As for moving beyond racism, America, whatever degree of flaws you ascribe to it, has come a significant way toward that goal in the past 80 years or so. This is absolutely undeniable. The vast majority of people are far less concerned about race than they were 80 years ago. Poll after poll supports this. Industry after industry supports this. A look out of your window supports this. In 80 more years, I think people will be even further.
So I don't find your pessimism on this topic to be compelling or based in reality. My goal is to make people think about these topics. I'm delighted to say I'm frequently told I succeed at that. The laws, by and large already require people to treat each other without regard to race. The hard work that remains is to change the way people, both black and white, think about these topics. And that, yes, is an intellectual, or maybe philosophical, exercise.
I have a business in SF. I have a very simple request for people who espouse idealism like you. San Fran is the most progressive (i.e. move beyond race) city in the country. Would San Franciscans hold up San Francisco as a beacon of what progressive ideals can do if implemented at a divided states level.
Your "have no real idea" statements are deflections from moving from idealism to practical reality. You deflect rather than addressing the point. Specifically address the pew poll on trust in the government.
I find it so amusing that people who've been read my writing for years think I've suddenly lost the ability to think or do research when they disagree with me. Doesn't it give you the slightest moment of pause that the poll basically reiterates what I said?
Anyway, yes, I'll happily address the poll.
The poll asked the following question: "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?"
In the latest round, 61% of people said "some of the time," 15% said "most of the time," 1% said "just about always" and 22% said "never."
If you want to argue that the 22% of people who said "never" believe the federal government is "broken," fair enough. That's not a large majority. Or even a majority.
Whereas the 77% of people who think the government is right "some of the time" or better, might well think the government has issues, as I said. But that's not nearly the same as saying the government is "broken." And says nothing about whether a large majority of people think the *country* is broken.
Yes, San Francisco is very progressive. But no, progressive doesn't mean move beyond race. Quite the contrary. Progressive means "antiracist" in the Kendi, DiAngelo sense of the word. Which is actually an obsessive and essentialist focus on race that is barely any different in flavour to the KKK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg). It's just that progressives think they're the good guys while they do it. You can pretty much pick a "progressive" policy at random, look at the mess and division it's invariably created, and use it as an argument for the colourblind approach I'm advocating for.
So no, "you have no real idea" statements, at least when used honestly, are not deflections. They point out that the speaker is allowing themselves to be guided by their feelings instead of an actual understanding of the subject matter. That they're making un- or poorly evidenced claims, and using straw man arguments because they want to "win" instead of think.
I love your positive spin on trust in the government. I don't believe its going to change anything. I think its clear we live in a divided country. Republicans hate the government when Democrats control. Democrats hate the government when Republicans control. Trying to create initiatives to move beyond race (which I'm totally on board with) are problematic because there is zero empathy for the other. That's what I see.
I'm not trying to "win" anything. As I said, I'm 99% pragmatic. I look for reality in implementation. After four years of DEI, Kendi produced nothing with all the millions he spent. Business that have implemented DEI have very little value to show for it. Biden has further divided the country with his emphasis on DEI.
Affirmative Action was making progress and the right focus. Harvard didn't stay true to affirmative action. They started changing what "qualification" meant to change the "race based" balance.
Am I guided by my feelings? I don't believe you have any argument to make that statement. All indications are the country is divided. No one respects congress. Trust in the federal government is at an all time low. The federal government controls the biggest pot of money in the world. All politics is about who gets to control that bucket of money. The only real answer (from my perspective) is to break up the bucket of money. Move power to states and communities and let communities figure it out. San Francisco hasn't figured it out. What community would you point to in the country that is succeeding on "moving beyond race". I would posit that after all the race based legislation and discussions over the last 60 years, if no community is there, maybe the concept is idealistic and race is just part of the human condition. People feel more comfortable with people who are like them - culturally and how they look. Its likely genetically based. There is evidence to suggest that the pension for being religious was promoted as a genetic advantage by evolution.
Maybe its just that you and I see the world through totally different lenses. That you have no ability to see my point of view speaks to the truth of my perspective. Its more than just putting out idealistic concepts. They need to be ground in the genetics and culture of the human condition.
If it helps and you see value in Meyers-Briggs. I'm an ENTJ.
“I love your positive spin on trust in the government.”
😅“Positive spin.” Is that what we’re calling “accurate reading of a poll” now?
It’s not that I can’t see your point of view, I see it all the time online. A lot of people have given into cynicism and fatalism and describe anything upstream of that as idealism and naivety. This perspective has been around since MLK (and long before of course). White *and* black people told him it was impossible to achieve the progress he and others achieved. Even as they achieved it.
So yes, it’s not that I don’t see your perspective, it’s just think it’s based on a narrow and half-hearted attempt to understand the world. And the data that I’ve spent the past few years poring over, including the data you cited, bears this out.
But regardless, a person’s ability to see a perspective says absolutely nothing about how true it is. This is an absolutely bizarre thing to say.
I don’t consider myself to be particularly idealistic. I certainly don’t have a rose-tinted view of human nature. But whatever optimism I have is born precisely from the fact that if you travelled back in time 80 years and described the present day to someone living in segregated America, they’d have said you were idealistic and foolish for not seeing the world as they did. I’m glad they were wrong.
Have race based relations in the country significantly improved since the 60s.
I would suggest that awareness has gone up. Integration has gone up. Those who were aware of their race based biases are acting with less bias. But I don't believe that skin color will ever not be relevant.
I believe humans are conditioned to create communities. Those communities result in like minded culture around people who are like them (including in looks). Can the concept of color eventually evolve to where everyone is some shade of brown. Who knows? I'm not sure why we would even want it to. Its a feel good idealistic concept but is it the best for the human condition. Evolution will sort that out.
Its amusing that you and I seem to miss each other's points.
My first line: "The problem is the scope of how you are trying to move beyond racism."
When you write about your position, it seems you're writing about the United States. You don't say it explicitly but given the incidents you site, I can implicitly assume that.
My point is that you have some image of the country that is referred to as the United States and what move beyond racism would be for that entity.
I don't even refer to the country as the United States anymore. I call it the divided states. Because that is reality. There is nothing united about the divided states except the momentum that got the country to where it is. A large majority of the people in the country believe the federal government is broken and the country is broken.
Writing about moving beyond racism or how to treat everybody without respect to their colour is idealistic if your context of "move beyond" is some measure of whether the divided states has moved beyond. Its purely an intellectual exercise that has no practical implementation. Is that all you are trying to convey in your articles - purely intellectual concepts.
I'm extremely pragmatic. If an intellectual concept doesn't have a pragmatic implementation plan that can be measured, I see no point to the intellectual concept except for entertainment sake. I own my own company. It would be meaningless for me to just intellectualized about ideas about my company.
If you really are interested in "moving beyond racism" or getting to "how to treat everybody without respect to their colour" should start where you live. Has your family moved beyond racism? If you go to church, has your church? How about the community you live in? What is your community doing to move beyond racism?
I see no real person commitments from you that are pragmatic. They are all intellectual exercises.
Maybe you're right, there is no point for me to read or comment on your articles. I'm not really interested in just mental masturbation.
"A large majority of the people in the country believe the federal government is broken and the country is broken."
I still have no real idea what you're getting at, but no, I don't think this is true. And as usual, you've offered no evidence or data to back up your claim. Just a proclamation that your feelings reflect the feelings of millions of people. Most people in most countries believe their governments have issues. Because governments in almost all countries have issues. That's a far cry from being "broken." Whatever that even means.
As for moving beyond racism, America, whatever degree of flaws you ascribe to it, has come a significant way toward that goal in the past 80 years or so. This is absolutely undeniable. The vast majority of people are far less concerned about race than they were 80 years ago. Poll after poll supports this. Industry after industry supports this. A look out of your window supports this. In 80 more years, I think people will be even further.
So I don't find your pessimism on this topic to be compelling or based in reality. My goal is to make people think about these topics. I'm delighted to say I'm frequently told I succeed at that. The laws, by and large already require people to treat each other without regard to race. The hard work that remains is to change the way people, both black and white, think about these topics. And that, yes, is an intellectual, or maybe philosophical, exercise.
You must live in a cave.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/#:~:text=Public%20trust%20in%20the%20federal,the%20time”%20(15%25).
I have a business in SF. I have a very simple request for people who espouse idealism like you. San Fran is the most progressive (i.e. move beyond race) city in the country. Would San Franciscans hold up San Francisco as a beacon of what progressive ideals can do if implemented at a divided states level.
Your "have no real idea" statements are deflections from moving from idealism to practical reality. You deflect rather than addressing the point. Specifically address the pew poll on trust in the government.
"You must live in a cave."
I find it so amusing that people who've been read my writing for years think I've suddenly lost the ability to think or do research when they disagree with me. Doesn't it give you the slightest moment of pause that the poll basically reiterates what I said?
Anyway, yes, I'll happily address the poll.
The poll asked the following question: "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?"
In the latest round, 61% of people said "some of the time," 15% said "most of the time," 1% said "just about always" and 22% said "never."
If you want to argue that the 22% of people who said "never" believe the federal government is "broken," fair enough. That's not a large majority. Or even a majority.
Whereas the 77% of people who think the government is right "some of the time" or better, might well think the government has issues, as I said. But that's not nearly the same as saying the government is "broken." And says nothing about whether a large majority of people think the *country* is broken.
Yes, San Francisco is very progressive. But no, progressive doesn't mean move beyond race. Quite the contrary. Progressive means "antiracist" in the Kendi, DiAngelo sense of the word. Which is actually an obsessive and essentialist focus on race that is barely any different in flavour to the KKK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg). It's just that progressives think they're the good guys while they do it. You can pretty much pick a "progressive" policy at random, look at the mess and division it's invariably created, and use it as an argument for the colourblind approach I'm advocating for.
So no, "you have no real idea" statements, at least when used honestly, are not deflections. They point out that the speaker is allowing themselves to be guided by their feelings instead of an actual understanding of the subject matter. That they're making un- or poorly evidenced claims, and using straw man arguments because they want to "win" instead of think.
I love your positive spin on trust in the government. I don't believe its going to change anything. I think its clear we live in a divided country. Republicans hate the government when Democrats control. Democrats hate the government when Republicans control. Trying to create initiatives to move beyond race (which I'm totally on board with) are problematic because there is zero empathy for the other. That's what I see.
I'm not trying to "win" anything. As I said, I'm 99% pragmatic. I look for reality in implementation. After four years of DEI, Kendi produced nothing with all the millions he spent. Business that have implemented DEI have very little value to show for it. Biden has further divided the country with his emphasis on DEI.
Affirmative Action was making progress and the right focus. Harvard didn't stay true to affirmative action. They started changing what "qualification" meant to change the "race based" balance.
Am I guided by my feelings? I don't believe you have any argument to make that statement. All indications are the country is divided. No one respects congress. Trust in the federal government is at an all time low. The federal government controls the biggest pot of money in the world. All politics is about who gets to control that bucket of money. The only real answer (from my perspective) is to break up the bucket of money. Move power to states and communities and let communities figure it out. San Francisco hasn't figured it out. What community would you point to in the country that is succeeding on "moving beyond race". I would posit that after all the race based legislation and discussions over the last 60 years, if no community is there, maybe the concept is idealistic and race is just part of the human condition. People feel more comfortable with people who are like them - culturally and how they look. Its likely genetically based. There is evidence to suggest that the pension for being religious was promoted as a genetic advantage by evolution.
Maybe its just that you and I see the world through totally different lenses. That you have no ability to see my point of view speaks to the truth of my perspective. Its more than just putting out idealistic concepts. They need to be ground in the genetics and culture of the human condition.
If it helps and you see value in Meyers-Briggs. I'm an ENTJ.
“I love your positive spin on trust in the government.”
😅“Positive spin.” Is that what we’re calling “accurate reading of a poll” now?
It’s not that I can’t see your point of view, I see it all the time online. A lot of people have given into cynicism and fatalism and describe anything upstream of that as idealism and naivety. This perspective has been around since MLK (and long before of course). White *and* black people told him it was impossible to achieve the progress he and others achieved. Even as they achieved it.
So yes, it’s not that I don’t see your perspective, it’s just think it’s based on a narrow and half-hearted attempt to understand the world. And the data that I’ve spent the past few years poring over, including the data you cited, bears this out.
But regardless, a person’s ability to see a perspective says absolutely nothing about how true it is. This is an absolutely bizarre thing to say.
I don’t consider myself to be particularly idealistic. I certainly don’t have a rose-tinted view of human nature. But whatever optimism I have is born precisely from the fact that if you travelled back in time 80 years and described the present day to someone living in segregated America, they’d have said you were idealistic and foolish for not seeing the world as they did. I’m glad they were wrong.
Its a great perspective.
Have race based relations in the country significantly improved since the 60s.
I would suggest that awareness has gone up. Integration has gone up. Those who were aware of their race based biases are acting with less bias. But I don't believe that skin color will ever not be relevant.
I believe humans are conditioned to create communities. Those communities result in like minded culture around people who are like them (including in looks). Can the concept of color eventually evolve to where everyone is some shade of brown. Who knows? I'm not sure why we would even want it to. Its a feel good idealistic concept but is it the best for the human condition. Evolution will sort that out.