Sam Kerr | Found not guilty of racially aggravated harassment

[moses]

Again, I'm acting like the bringing up of anyone's ethnicity in derogatory terms is fundamentally racist.
Of that there's no doubt.
Whatever context you may wish to paint this in, using race in a derogatory and demeaning manner is racism in its purist form.

Just no. That's an insult to a lot of people, presently and historically. But it's fine, let's not waste each others time any more.

 

[Long_Harry]

This argument ignores the historical and structural context of racism. Racism has never been just about individual insults, it has always been tied to institutional power, oppression, and structural violence. The language used in these interactions is often a reaction to that reality, not an attempt to reinforce or create a new system of racial hierarchy.

Speaking in absolutes makes the discussion simplistic and ignores the nuance of power dynamics. There is a clear defence for her actions, which has been explained to you here and upheld in court when she was found not guilty. Acting as though the mere mention of "white" is equivalent to racism is a misrepresentation of the issue and lacks historical perspective.

Again, the problem here is that attempting to get the vast majority of the public to understand complex social nuances is urinating in the proverbial wind.

What is happening is what has been happening for years now.

Historically the definition of the term racism had always been ' the inherent belief that one race is genetically or socially superior to another'.

This was slightly different to the More recent alteration to the definition which now stipulates that this generally only encompasses those who are a minority or disadvantaged within their communities.

This was never the original meaning and has created an issue in itself.

If you tell the vast majority of white people they cannot be discriminated or suffer racism against them in a white majority country, what do you think their response will be?

Do you think they are going to think ' Hmm well historically black people were ill treated and marginalised and I have an inherent power advantage therefore I'm going to completely ignore anything that might happen to me because I don't have it as bad?'

Nobody in the general public is interested in power dynamics, they simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or interest.

All they care about is being treated equally as they see it.

Now I agree that this case wasn't racially aggrivated, the racist intent just wasn't there.

Replace what she said with black and it still wouldn't be racially aggravated, it simply isn't double standards, it's just not a racist statement either way.

My concern is with other comments, specifically sarcastic ones relating to 'poor white people' and 'historical context'

You cannot and will not ever have social justice or equality by blunderingly trying to force unequal social measures through regardless of historical or social context.

This is why the social and historical context argument falls flat. Yet it's seen as the catch all argument response here.

You might understand it, I might understand it, but the majority won't and never will. It just creates further division where there was none.

Since this has become more prominent I am sure the country and West as a whole has become more racist, not less.

If something isn't working don't keep doing it.

 

[moses]

Again, the problem here is that attempting to get the vast majority of the public to understand complex social nuances is urinating in the proverbial wind.

What is happening is what has been happening for years now.

Historically the definition of the term racism had always been ' the inherent belief that one race is genetically or socially superior to another'.

This was slightly different to the More recent alteration to the definition which now stipulates that this generally only encompasses those who are a minority or disadvantaged within their communities.

This was never the original meaning and has created an issue in itself.

If you tell the vast majority of white people they cannot be discriminated or suffer racism against them in a white majority country, what do you think their response will be?

Do you think they are going to think ' Hmm well historically black people were ill treated and marginalised and I have an inherent power advantage therefore I'm going to completely ignore anything that might happen to me because I don't have it as bad?'

Nobody in the general public is interested in power dynamics, they simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or interest.

All they care about is being treated equally as they see it.

Now I agree that this case wasn't racially aggrivated, the racist intent just wasn't there.

Replace what she said with black and it still wouldn't be racially aggravated, it simply isn't double standards, it's just not a racist statement either way.

My concern is with other comments, specifically sarcastic ones relating to 'poor white people' and 'historical context'

You cannot and will not ever have social justice or equality by blunderingly trying to force unequal social measures through regardless of historical or social context.

This is why the social and historical context argument falls flat. Yet it's seen as the catch all argument response here.

You might understand it, I might understand it, but the majority won't and never will. It just creates further division where there was none.

Since this has become more prominent I am sure the country and West as a whole has become more racist, not less.

If something isn't working don't keep doing it.

Is this directed at me?

 

[stepic]

You're right, but using someone's race in a derogatory manner is racism, and that's what happened here.

The only way you could describe her usage of the word ‘white’ as a derogatory term is her using it to derogate the officer’s white privilege, evident by the fact he minimised and disbelieved her fears about safety as a mixed race woman.

You can’t call out a white privileged male without calling him a white privileged male.

 

[Long_Harry]

Is this directed at me?

Yes sorry, although sort of in general to a couple of posters. Wibble as well.

Great now I've used up an extra post with this

 

[moses]

Yes sorry, although sort of in general to a couple of posters. Wibble as well.

Great now I've used up an extra post with this .

That's why it's a bit of a puzzle so. I'm not going to try and untangle.

All I will say is that history is not an argument, it's the context for the reality we live in. And in general I'm not too keen on the narrative that trying to fix racism is making it worse. Again, see history.

The other issue with the thrust of your post is that previously racism wasn't just an ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the supposed victim, it was a physical and structural violence with no grey areas. The comparison is an insult.

 

[Cheimoon]

Again, the problem here is that attempting to get the vast majority of the public to understand complex social nuances is urinating in the proverbial wind.

What is happening is what has been happening for years now.

Historically the definition of the term racism had always been ' the inherent belief that one race is genetically or socially superior to another'.

This was slightly different to the More recent alteration to the definition which now stipulates that this generally only encompasses those who are a minority or disadvantaged within their communities.

This was never the original meaning and has created an issue in itself.

If you tell the vast majority of white people they cannot be discriminated or suffer racism against them in a white majority country, what do you think their response will be?

Do you think they are going to think ' Hmm well historically black people were ill treated and marginalised and I have an inherent power advantage therefore I'm going to completely ignore anything that might happen to me because I don't have it as bad?'

Nobody in the general public is interested in power dynamics, they simply don't have the time, mental capacity, or interest.

All they care about is being treated equally as they see it.

Now I agree that this case wasn't racially aggrivated, the racist intent just wasn't there.

Replace what she said with black and it still wouldn't be racially aggravated, it simply isn't double standards, it's just not a racist statement either way.

My concern is with other comments, specifically sarcastic ones relating to 'poor white people' and 'historical context'

You cannot and will not ever have social justice or equality by blunderingly trying to force unequal social measures through regardless of historical or social context.

This is why the social and historical context argument falls flat. Yet it's seen as the catch all argument response here.

You might understand it, I might understand it, but the majority won't and never will. It just creates further division where there was none.

Since this has become more prominent I am sure the country and West as a whole has become more racist, not less.

If something isn't working don't keep doing it.

Now it looks like you're both saying that we shouldn't dismiss people and their concerns, but take them seriously and try to have a real conversation; but that in that conservation, we have to simplify things and pretend important context isn't there if we think people won't be perceptive to it or wouldn't have the patience for it.

But you can't discuss racism if you're not understanding it the same way. And historically based power dynamics are the key factor for what it and isn't racism. (Which is why equal opportunity/EDI initiatives aren't racist.)

It seem like your suggestion, then, is that we have to have serious conversations - on other people's terms that we don't agree with. I don't see how this can work to actually improve things.

(Also, to situation this properly: we're on a forum here where people are already engaging in conversation. This isn't like addressing a random stranger on the street.)

 

[Long_Harry]

Now it looks like you're both saying that we shouldn't dismiss people and their concerns, but take them seriously and try to have a real conversation; but that in that conservation, we have to simplify things and pretend important context isn't there if we think people won't be perceptive to it or wouldn't have the patience for it.

But you can't discuss racism if you're not understanding it the same way. And historically based power dynamics are the key factor for what it and isn't racism. (Which is why equal opportunity/EDI initiatives aren't racist.)

It seem like your suggestion, then, is that we have to have serious conversations - on other people's terms that we don't agree with. I don't see how this can work to actually improve things.

(Also, to situation this properly: we're on a forum here where people are already engaging in conversation. This isn't like addressing a random stranger on the street.)

Yes I speak generally rather than just in relation to the forum.

I think firstly historical context cannot be taken into account where actual law is concerned... Although to be fair I am not claiming that anyone here has actually said that, but that they may have or may be insinuating it should be.

If both a black and a white person make identical insults with the races reversed then both must be treated the same. This should be obvious in a legal setting. Again I'm not saying anyone has claimed otherwise for sure but that seemed to be the gist of a few posters.

Secondly I appreciate on a more social level the two arent identical and won't be treated the same - for historical reasons.

Regarding other people's terms. I do think there's a massive disconnect between people online and people in reality.

You do have to engage on their terms to some extent because these are the people who need to understand the context the most.

Are you going to get through to them? Probably not, but the alternative is worse.

I'm going to pick on stepics comment again because it was perhaps the most obvious comment of them all.

won’t people think of the poor white people living in a predominantly white country! oh the horrors we face!'

Who does this comment benefit and what is the point in it other than to rile up tension? Over the past decade I have seen countless similar comments online on social media. It became a very common style of post in the late 10s and early 20s.

When people suffer poverty and struggle they don't think of others, they don't think 'oh well at least I am not suffering the same level of disadvantage as a black person' - they just see their struggle.

Being told that their feelings and struggles are less relevant due to race has had a huge impact on the public perception of social justice equal opportunities and dei initiatives because it is far too ham fisted for them to understand the context. That and the comments themselves are generally toned in a malicious and condescending manner which also doesn't go down well and puts people on the defensive.

Apologies for the long posts but I only get 3 so I need to try and get most in one.








'

 

[moses]

When people suffer poverty and struggle they don't think of others, they don't think 'oh well at least I am not suffering the same level of disadvantage as a black person' - they just see their struggle.

Being told that their feelings and struggles are less relevant due to race has had a huge impact on the public perception of social justice equal opportunities and dei initiatives because it is far too ham fisted for them to understand the context. That and the comments themselves are generally toned in a malicious and condescending manner which also doesn't go down well and puts people on the defensive.

Like I said before racism is not real just because people don't understand why it's not present.

Your logic is an utter dismissal of actual racism and it's associated oppression and violence.

And nobody is dismissing anybody's struggles. The thing is that anybody I know who is pro DEI are also the ones who care about social and economic struggles across the board.

 

[jojojo]

As the court case is over (Kerr was found not guilty) and the thread has entered the ever decreasing circles phase, I'm locking it.