Very Liberal Workplace

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4gospels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“White Privilege” is a toxic term straight out of the Marxist ideological textbook. As a Catholic you have to stand against communism and affiliated ideologies. Has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
 
I dont really agree with your reasoning here. You believe that:

a) all groups can be racist

b) white people make up 60% of the population (more like 70 when you dont arbitrarily exclude white people with names like Rodriguez).

The two beliefs above support the idea that racist beliefs/behaviors among whites are the most common. Why wouldnt you want to understand them?
 
njlisa said:
And African priests have come to the U.S. because of the shortage of vocations among Americans.

Yes, racism pervades our society. But the teachings of Christ can and should bring us together.
Click to expand...
I can’t say enough how positively the Nigerian priests who have come to my town have influenced myself and my family. My son LOVES one at another parish so we go there from time to time. And the Priest’s we’ve had at our Parish… Holy Brilliant Batman; and given that at home they are fighting Boko Haram’s influence they are tough minded men. They’ve been a huge boost to my faith. I don’t mean this in a demeaning way of our home grown Priests, but these guys have just brought something extra.
 
To the OP:

Reading all the posts which talked down to you made me sad.

I’m so tired of being bullied by talking points instead of having human discussions.

:pray:t3: for you.
 
Last edited:
Because if a person from one race is experiencing racism it doesn’t matter to that person if there are more members of that person’s group and thus more racism from that person’s group. It’s not about ideologically driven academic studies or numbers and counting what race has more racists, it’s about the reality faced by each individual in the modern multi racial society where power relations cut across all race lines and where power is mostly local.
 
Zach said:
To single out one group is one or a combination of the following: disengenuous, not informed, naive, pandering, virtue singalling, politically correct, guilt ridden, brainwashed, ideologically driven.
Click to expand...
Okay, that is quite an accusation. Perhaps a “I do not believe your life experiences as conveyed here are true” would be a better way to phrase it.

For the record, I am well informed, free of guilt, and my ideology is the teaching of Holy Mother Church.
 
I disagree. I think it obviously matters to person experiencing racism whether there are larger numbers of any group. Even if we accepted the idea that racism is both uncommon and equally distributed (I dont), if 1% of people of all races are racist you are going to run into racism directed toward you if you arent white more often than you will if you are.
 
Last edited:
I’ll go with that. But then it follows that it depends on where one lives. Not all towns and cities are majority white.
 
CoffeeCatholic said:
of the job description you agreed to when you accepted your position? If it’s not part of your job description, and you are uncomfortable leading others in topics that are his own personal values but not part of your actual job… I’d say no thank you. (I’d consider his personality and such when deciding the best way to SAY my ‘no thank you’ but…) I wouldn’t start to go down the path of being roped into giving book studies and other events on social issues that are a personal passion rather than sticking to the job descripti
Click to expand...
I hope this is sarcasm.This test is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Am I reading your post wrong or are you in favor of racism?
 
Zach said:
I’ll go with that. But then it follows that it depends on where one lives. Not all towns and cities are majority white.
Click to expand...
Yeah but there’s two aspects. There’s the individual level where a person experiences biased treatment, racial slurs, etc. Then there’s the societal level, when you consider all those experiences in aggregate and the cumulative affect they can have; combined with systems in place that intentionally or not advantage some groups over another. E.g. if a state selectively had late polling hours for voting but in looking at the aggregate the areas with larger percentages of non-white residents were less likely to have late polling that would be a disproportionate effect on those voters. The reason for that setup may be overtly racist, someone deliberately trying to suppress non-white votes, or it can be basically ‘racism by omission’, that is using other criteria without consideration on the undue burden it would place on such a group.

While racist behavior exists to some degree in all humans (hopefully for most of us very little, and we try to never act on it), systemic racism is often what’s being discused, and it’s hard to study except via statistics since it manifests at larger scales.
 
Pretty sure Marxist ideology didn’t stop developing after the death of Karl Marx.
 
When one uses “developing” to mean “growing to include any political sentiment I don’t like which could conceivably be associated with the left” one covers ones bases pretty well but perhaps loses sight of the way in which “Marxist” is a meaningful term.
 
I personally believe that things that are categorized as systemic “racism” are just as likely “classism”, when people are disadvantaged due to poverty, rather than race (although obviously there may be a correlation).
 
Last edited:
What would really worry me here if I were in this person’s position, is that a book talking about white fragility and making those assertions is a pretty radical sociological idea. It sounds like the intersectional theories that are tearing us apart. I, as you might have guessed, disagree with it. But the book seems to set up an argument you can’t escape.

In the Politically correct groups I’ve seen, saying things like ‘The author asserts…’ would itself be considered to be racist and/or proving white fragility. You can’t say ‘I am 100% committed to racial equality, but I disagree with the idea that individual rights were created by white’s to supress others as asserted here’.

To me, given the folks I knew in college, leading this is a trap. You can either agree or be outed as someone who is ‘fragile’.

I wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole. And honestly, I’d start touching up your resume.
 
Yes but the sad thing is that this is a new job for the original poster. And most other jobs (in the same field) may have the same intersectionality stuff to deal with.
 
Last edited:
Jen95 said:
I personally believe that things that are categorized as systemic “racism” are just as likely “classism”, when people are disadvantaged due to poverty, rather than race (although obviously there may be a correlation).
Click to expand...
A correlation and an overlap yeah. Someone may be in a bad school due to poverty but they may be more prone to poverty from earning less statistically than someone of another race. I do agree class is often left out of the conversation. I think America would rather avoid discussing class because it suggests not everyone has equal opportunity or access to tools they need for self-improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top