GC Addresses Racism in New Voted Statement

Sorry Elmer, I no longer engage in discussions on racism… :innocent:

Can you indulge for one more day? One stinking day!

This topic will automatically close in a day.

1 Like

Sorry, I made a commitment to myself a few weeks ago. When I jumped out of all/any conversation about racism. Being white, it was not advisable for me to even combat racism, which I was doing. I was still being poked by a sharp tongue anyway… :roll_eyes: So I quit for good…

I am now eagerly waiting for Spectrum to post a new/revised GC Statement including “Women Discrimination.”


It sounds more like a rhetorical question. :slight_smile:

The obvious answer is no.

The less obvious answer would be that discrimination would still exist based on other external markers that could be grouped together to achieve the same effect.

If you think about it, discrimination and oppression of women… is essentially racism, in a scope of biological classification linked to perceived inferiority by males, etc. The concept isn’t that different. It just jumps categories. There you go @GeorgeTichy , you can join in now :wink:

You could think about our approach to classifying beauty and “hotness”. There are viable parameters in which our brain works through selection of proportions in humans we find beautiful and “presentable”. But these are arguably an atavism of our evolutionary past that we should be aware of, and question utility of these presets, given that plenty of what we think of as “ugly people” are living and prospering in a system detached from direct biological parameters for success.

There was a moment when I won a bid for a biggest project of my career at the time. We hung out with exec in charge after the first few phases and got friendly. He loosened up around me a bit. And it was time to cast for one of the segments in which the client specifically wanted an Asian female reader. I asked my wife to audition. She is a great on-camera reader with journalism background. She gained some weight after our first child, but it wasn’t anything beyond any woman would. So we had some Asian agency models, and my wife for auditions taping that I brought in to review. The guy really loosened up, and started making comments about how he would take them to dinner. Or how one of them was so hot that he would need a pair of oven mints. I was hoping that my deadpan would be enough to avoid confrontation but my irritation was getting to that threshold. When he saw my wife for a few seconds, he blurted out something along the lines of…“Why would you even think this one would work. You should have sent this frumpy one home at first sight.”

… What followed wasn’t quite like that choking scene from Good Will Hunting, but it was fairly close. The guy had to escape the room :slight_smile: I had to explain the situation to the client and they apologized profusely, and swapped for a female exec… and she picked my wife as a reader, and I’m pretty sure the guy was fired. I never told her this story, but she played part in educating someone about sexism, beauty, and competence. :joy:. Maybe some day, when she would be able to laugh about it without feeling self-conscious.

These stories are rare in my experience as a blatant display of impudent sexism. But entertainment industry will quite openly discriminate based on looks… and end up feeding the standards that leave plenty of people needlessly depressed on both sides of the screen.

So, I’m not sure we can approach these subjects without considering why we are doing these things from biological perspective. And why it’s no longer viable, and why it robs us of human potential. So, a lot of “it’s just wrong” should be explained much much much better.

I’m fairly certain it’s something @Harry_Allen can agree with, and hopefully not make it about white people trying to redirect attention away from white supremacy :wink:


@Timo—and I want @elmer_cupino to hear this, too—because I take my reputation as a fair player, here, at Spectrum, seriously:

With all due and appropriate respect, this is one of the dumbest things that you’ve ever written, and it is vitally untrue.

To say I “mute” anyone, or anything, here, is to be deceitful. It is to attempt to gain—an edge—that which you cannot gain by the force of your arguments…all of which are frighteningly bad, the few times you’ve sought to make one.

The people with the least ability cry “unfair” the most. I have neither the power, not the interest in “muting” anyone. Indeed, what has happened, more, is that it has been wished on me that, ultimately, I will be the only person writing here, abandoned by all others, and, thus, be effectively muted.

What’s fascinating is that you speak this shameless untruth to @Kate, with whom I’ve had nothing but effective, respectful, not-always-in-agreement dialogue.

Ask her how much I’ve sought to “mute” her, “by any and all means, by dismissal and diatribe, anyone who dare disagree.” Ask her how “impossible to have respectful dialog with” me it is.

You write like English is your eighth language. This is not a slur against you being a foreigner; @Kate is one, also. This is against your self-indulgent unwillingness to communicate, or even to stay on topic; e.g., constantly plying the boards about sexism…in posts about racism.

I’ve actually responded to you on this topic, by the way. I say that most females are non-white. So, by speaking against racism, I am working to alleve most women of that which most weighs on them. (In fact, my first conversation with @Kate was on this very subject. She’s a woman, you’ve noticed, too. Our discussion went well.) I’ve given this response to you many times. Your reply: Goose egg.

Finally, you claim I’m garrulous. According to Oxford, this means, “excessively talkative, especially on trivial matters.”

On which trivial matters have I been “excessively talkative”? RACISM?

I want you to hear me when I say this: Only a racist would call racism 'trivial.'

And, to be clear, I am not calling you a racist. But I am saying, “Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”



No, don’t. This is hilarious.

Do “anti-semitism,” now, and add in some holocaust denial.

This should be a riot.


1 Like

There is no biological basis that one race is better than the other. Racism is an ideology. It is one of many heads. The foundation of racism also anchors religions, nations, “oppression of women,” (Are you listening GC?) clubs and teams among many. There are a number of adaptive defense mechanism to relieve its core tension such as humor, reaction formation, intellectualization and rationalization. I would surmise the apple core to racism is the same core that ate Cain and drove him to murder his brother. Envy.

There are biological, cultural and psychological factors that foster racism and unless all three are considered in its resolution, its ugly head will constantly pop up.

It is thus possible to have racism without a race or a racist since the psychodynamics involved and used are similar across the board. The names and facades are different. A Ford is still a Ford, whether it be a Mustang or Pinto.


Why would I do that?

In other words, if white people are re-directing the attention from white supremacy to something else—this being a frequent racist function—give me an excellent reason why I shouldn’t point it out.


Thanks, @elmer_cupino.

It’s like asking, “Could you have pollution without a polluter?”

A: Not at first. But, with enough of it, of the right kind, you might.



Well, no, that’s false, GeorgeTichy.

Being white, you’re in the best position to both combat and, even more importantly, eliminate racism.

However, your refusal was to engage with the best arguments about racism. You were apparently embarrassed by their propositions. This left you unenthusiastic, it appears, for more rigorous engagement. This is typical of what white people frequently do.

It’s like you’re Richard Dawkins, and I’m William Lane Craig:


Just how would you propose to eliminate racism? God failed to convince Cain. Everyone knows how that story ended. Can you do better than God?

Just for your information, the success of racism depends on how efficient one can dehumanize the victim. You are headed in the wrong direction with your assumption of our friend George @GeorgeTichy


I think you should have some idea that I’m not making fun of racism, but rather fringe efforts of certain people to see racism in places and statements which have no connection to it, or to piggyback certain social and political agendas… or even to merely having a click-bate article that many people consume and think that it’s a viable scope of racism.

These things can drown out viable racism.

Likewise, I was satirizing our denominational tendency to address important issues with statements that have very little denominational directives behind these, and rather end up being used as yet another sign that the end is very near.

My goal wasn’t to make fun of racism. If you have read it that way, then I apologize.

Largely because I’m hoping that racism isn’t the only scope of human suffering you care about.


[quote=“Arkdrey, post:74, topic:20770”]
hopefully not make it about white people trying to redirect attention away from white supremacy :wink:[/quote] *
(I’m adding, or about black people trying to pinwhite supremacy on all white people)*

Best quote du jour! 2 ladles of supremacy stew for you!
If this thing called systemic white supremacy is a thing, then male supremacy cannot be denied or dismissed.

Your other nugget discrimination and oppression of women… is essentially racism
is something that I’ve suggested for a year. Since male privilege in a many millenia patriarchy has resulted in indelible “racism” against women, no man can avoid the “male supremacist” moniker. Must be male fragility that this point is completely ignored.

With the logic and reasoning proposed, no male can help his condition

1 Like

A danger I see after all these discussions: The bar shouldn’t be so high that people think they can’t influence their sphere. These anti racist actions can include small steps, in each area of influence, also empathy. For example, you medical professionals (also @GeorgeTichy and @cincerity) do a good job here telling us when and what subtle strategies are used to dehumanize other people. You fight racism in your own way and in many more ways that we can’t see here.

The second danger that I see: I don’t want to make all white people feel guilty all the time just because they exist and because they have a privileged position in the system; feeling responsible yes, because with privilege comes responsibility. There is a difference between guilt for your very existence and responsibility. I know that this probably sounds very offensive to victims of racism because they are the ones suffering. I don’t know how to address this more sensitively. Now it’s about white people and what they want again? Partly, it’s about all of us, because we have a historic chance to include all that don’t want to dehumanize others and who thus change societies. Togetherness (the very heart of living out the gospel) instead of distancing. However, not at the price of lowering the goal.

(And, of course, there are more dangers that could be addressed.)


This is a very accurate statement.


Kate @Kate is proving to be a fast learner. I dare not say “typical of what white people frequently do” lest I get in trouble with our friend Harry @Harry_Allen :wink:


Not used to you being all unemotional and cognitive (kind of: “It’s a freakin fact, kid.”). :smile:


George, would you surmise that Kate is a millennial? She even speaks their language.


Astonishing, astonishing indeed.