Not sure that we can totally afford to ignore the misdirection that emphasis racial identities. That card has been played hard and often in an attempt to make it the focal point. To turn the other cheek and not respond is tantamount to endorsing the inflammed rantings of the extremists. Old cliche still applies - silence gives consent.
I think that such human qualities of individual identity are simply qualities of my fellow man - they are cosmetic. Any attempt to turn these qualities into a point of contention, especially for nefarious purposes, is deplorable - such cannot be tolerated.
Yes, but that misdirection is carefully framed -- and the intended audience is manipulated to be receptive to this -- so that any attempt to counter with explicitly race-based counterarguments can be decried as racist. I've spent enough times "on both sides of the fence", or around people of both types, to see this with my very eyes.
And remember, there is little point to convincing those with whom you are already in full agreement. Otherwise you've got nothing more than an echo-chamber, a choir preaching to itself.
I've noticed a particular tendency for that echo-chamber effect to manifest itself on gun forums when the topic of conversation turns to race. Folks start going off on increasingly Limbaughian rants, become more irrational (mind you, I didn't say racist) and, more importantly, socially polarizing. That turns much of the rest of the membership who'd rather not touch it to clearer waters, and POOF, echo chamber.
It is made all the more interesting in that, for instance, on this forum there has long been an established intent to present the material in as broadly-accesible a fashion as possible. (Look at the site's banner, fer cryin' out loud!
) The site's rules are, although largely self-moderated, pretty much tailored-made to encourage presenting open carry in the light of a nonpartisan Civil Right, rather than an issue of mudslinging partisanship.
This site seeks broad appeal.
And broad appeal means arguments need to be made with some thought to how the unconvinced might see them. I know I do that every time I make a post, even when I advance some of my more "radical" notions. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I'd like for as many folks as possible to recognize my position as derived from careful, rational thought. Sometimes I am lazy in this regard, but I am always happy for others to say it better than I did, or to nudge me in the right direction.
On this issue of race, it must be remembered that gun forums tend to be probably something like 95% white, 4.5% Asian/Hispanic, and .5% black. I pulled those numbers out of my posterior, but I'd say they're not too far off. With all of us being white, it's easy to start sounding like an echo chamber of Socially Established/Entrenched White Guys. Which is fine, because that's basically what we are.
But when we're trying to counter the arguments of those who want to make everything about race, we need to realize that most of the Unconvinced are not Socially Entrenched White Guys, but pretty much everybody else. Therefore, it's sensible to think about the best way to frame the arguments. Mind you, I'm not talking about PC. I'm just talking about knowing your audience.
It's clear to me that it's
very difficult to counter race-based arguments explicitly without falling into their trap, and turning off most of the unconvinced. It can be done, but it
can't be done by saying, "well, look at all this black crime here!" or, "look at all this 'ethnic cleansing' (omg!) over there"! It can be done by always shifting the focus back to issues of actual effect.
Don't
ignore the race card, simply point out how race is
not the issue, using facts which race cannot effect. Here, for instance, there is never a need to point out the "reverse" racism of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It isn't necessary to insinuate race war being fomented by the media. Simply point out their inaccuracies and omissions.
I'm going to cite a post of Stanley's, simply to demonstrate that there are those who share much of our perspective, but will see such arguments in an unconvincing light. I'd furthermore like to point out that it seems Stanley has become a least a little bit convinced by the arguments strictly based in fact and law (if not convinced, then understanding of). But it would be easy for him to be turned off by much of the rest of the discussion.
When the ghetto thugs cry race all the other people, and as unfortunate as it is, especially white people need to stay the heck out of it. Nothing you say can or will bring people on your side.
In fact, the MORE you protest the worse it gets and the more the normal black people will choose to err on the side of ghetto thugs and distance themselves from you.
Crying race-baiting or reverse racism is the probably WORST thing you can do. Because frankly, it's disingenuous. This country has a history that justifies crying race on black people's part and you KNOW it.
It will only stop when that cry keeps being shown to have been false. You can't expect a population that actually has been subject to racism for centuries (present day included) to stop assuming it's racist.
You'd be better off letting the stats show it isn't and let them come to the conclusion on their own.
I'm not going to argue whether his perspective is "right" or "wrong", fair or unfair. I'm just pointing out that it is what it is. And it's a very common perspective amongst those who aren't part of the White Guy Echo Chamber.
You think you're not being cowed by proudly making the arguments in the terms you think they ought to be made in, but it's my opinion that you're only preaching to the choir, and at the same time falling victim to an intentionally discrediting trap. That's
not fair and it
isn't right, but I'll tell you what: that's fine, because
race really doesn't matter and we're better of taking the high road and sticking to the pertinent
anyway. Let them stay stuck in the excrement of ignorance of decades past. No need to let them drag us down with them.
Remember, the primary purpose of this site is to advocate Open Carry and self defense, and this is a critical time to defend its merits in terms all can appreciate, rather than succumbing to diversionary, partisan rhetoric and arguments bound to be misconstrued by the unconvinced.
(I highly doubt I'm going to convince anybody of anything based on my abysmal failure last time, but that's the best I've got.)