LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination...
I don't agree. i think general reactions of revulsion to acts like the murder of Matthew Shepherd, experiences had by formerly homophobic families as friends / loved ones came out & the adoption of homosexual acceptance / education programs by public schools did more for LGBT rights than any number of pride parades (that isn't to say that pride parades aren't a positive force, but that those rallies would not have turned around laws on their own).
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
Er... In order to convince people you should be treated equally you have to get them to accept you're not being treated equally. AKA suffering discrimination.
Unlike the stated goal in removing gay marriage bans, most racist policy is not written as racist. Implicit bias during the execution of policy or other unwritten rules turns policy which is neutral on paper into forms of oppression.
Getting people to accept inplicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
Unlike the stated goal in removing gay marriage bans, most racist policy is not written as racist. Implicit bias during the execution of policy or other unwritten rules turns policy which is neutral on paper into forms of oppression.
Getting people to accept inplicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
Or institute policies and controls that limit the ability of the biased to put their fingers on the scale.
A great example of this is the way symphonies instituted blind auditions. The traditional argument for why orchestras tended to be mostly male was that there was something inherently inferior with the mentality of female musicians.
Then major symphonies began using blind auditions, with candidates literally playing for the hiring committee behind screens. Turns out that using this system, the hiring of male and female musicians evened out. Bias was running the process, and it took obscuring the candidates' identities to eliminate it.
As a side note, symphonies that used blind auditons also became noticably less white. And that's with no one advocating racist arguments publicly like they were sexist ones.
The road to marriage equality wasn't entirely defined by that goal either. As others noted there were numerous horrendous crimes and the AIDS crisis that eventually aroused public sympathy, orchestrated efforts to familiarize people with the realities of being gay in America, media inclusion of gay people and characters.
Explicit policy goals are essential, but you have to build support, and support requires recognition as a foundation. I get that racial politics can appear kind of fucking navel-gazey in contrast with the realities of black people being murdered in the streets, but you have to get something in people that changes their perspectives, and that requires some introspection and analysis. Nobody says it should stop there. It didn't stop there with attempts to win rights and acceptance of the LGBT communities, but it was absolutely a part of those campaigns.
I'd also suggest that such efforts require or at least benefit from large amounts of cash, a resource that was much more available for gay rights campaigns than attempts to force the acknowledgment and erosion of racism. I'm personally sympathetic to arguments that suggest the sheer financial power of gay white men played a large role in the frankly astonishingly fast changing of public opinion on marriage equality. That's in no way intended to suggest that the rest of those communities didn't carry more than their share of the weight, only that money buys a lot of ears and eyes.
The dynamics of changing perceptions on homophobia are also just radically different from the dynamics regarding racism. Someone with prejudices against black people (whether those prejudices have a more enthusiastic expression or a more subdued expression) is not suddenly going to discover tomorrow that their 14 year old son is actually black, forcibly bringing what they saw as an outsider trait into their home. Parents with LGBT prejudices, on the other hand, have this experience all of the time.
Is there any major cultural normalization of racial minorities going on in Western culture right now? Back in the 80s/90s we had a handful of sitcoms that helped demystify black families away from the previous blacksploitation media, but then we had a rather sharp turn in media toward gangsta junk. The presence of homosexual characters in media did a lot to demystify them, and things are at least better now.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
The road to marriage equality wasn't entirely defined by that goal either. As others noted there were numerous horrendous crimes and the AIDS crisis that eventually aroused public sympathy, orchestrated efforts to familiarize people with the realities of being gay in America, media inclusion of gay people and characters.
Explicit policy goals are essential, but you have to build support, and support requires recognition as a foundation. I get that racial politics can appear kind of fucking navel-gazey in contrast with the realities of black people being murdered in the streets, but you have to get something in people that changes their perspectives, and that requires some introspection and analysis. Nobody says it should stop there. It didn't stop there with attempts to win rights and acceptance of the LGBT communities, but it was absolutely a part of those campaigns.
I'd also suggest that such efforts require or at least benefit from large amounts of cash, a resource that was much more available for gay rights campaigns than attempts to force the acknowledgment and erosion of racism. I'm personally sympathetic to arguments that suggest the sheer financial power of gay white men played a large role in the frankly astonishingly fast changing of public opinion on marriage equality. That's in no way intended to suggest that the rest of those communities didn't carry more than their share of the weight, only that money buys a lot of ears and eyes.
You can tell this is the case based on the privileging of gay marriage instead of like, housing protections, employment protections, those same things for trans people, etc.
Money isn't everything, but it is like 80% of everything.
I think one of the big things making acceptance of homo sexuality more widespread was, that you can't simply segregate and ignore the homo sexuals.
They pop up everywhere, organically, in all areas, to all races, among all classes, and in every religion.
you can, for a time, oppress, hide and/or deny their existence, but you can't simply remove them, or stop them from appearing.
With the poor, or the racial minorities, you can just dump them at the edge of town, out of sight, out of mind, and anytime you hear about them is because they got shot by a cop (implying they did something wrong) or something.
But when your neighbour, friend, sibling, cousing, friend, boss, coworker, etc, you've know and liked (or tolerated) for years suddenly tells you they are gay, you are kinda forced to confront that, damn, gays exist, and are not inherently inferrior (assuming you are a rational person).
Yeah, it's a bad analogy because most people are already friends or family with someone who is gay. And since we're not mandating that every family marry into a black family the whole thing breaks down.
Is there any major cultural normalization of racial minorities going on in Western culture right now? Back in the 80s/90s we had a handful of sitcoms that helped demystify black families away from the previous blacksploitation media, but then we had a rather sharp turn in media toward gangsta junk. The presence of homosexual characters in media did a lot to demystify them, and things are at least better now.
We're in one of our every 20ish year cycles where there's a wide and diverse representation of African-Americans in media. We'll see if this one sticks.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Is there any major cultural normalization of racial minorities going on in Western culture right now? Back in the 80s/90s we had a handful of sitcoms that helped demystify black families away from the previous blacksploitation media, but then we had a rather sharp turn in media toward gangsta junk.
The fact that that gangsta junk is wildly popular shows that there is some pretty good cultural acceptance.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
The fact that you would bring up a children's book written by a member of a Presidential administration known for, among other things, thinly veiled racism and dogwhistling has me shaking my head.
I know, right? He totally mentions welfare queens and the Iranians amidst stories about Aristotle and George Washington.
So not only does he say he doesn't have the dream, but he explains exactly why he can't escape into it. Like, what is not clear here? The dream is, essentially but perhaps a bit reductive, that america doesn't and hasn't always had a huge issue with race and hasn't always shit all over the people of his race.
Then he should say it instead of saying crazy shit about children being raised white and black people not having Memorial Day cookouts.
We crush the poor and we crush the blacks, which is super not fun for the blacks.
Outside of the criminal justice system I don't see any special ways in which our society crushes blacks outside of "they're poor and we crush the poor". Sanchez down at the taco stand or Bill down at the Walmart has about as much chance of getting a mortgage for a house in a rich neighborhood as Tyrone.
I think all else being equal a majority individual has a higher chance of achieving the American dream than a minority individual.
I'd agree, because the criminal justice system is terrible. Outside of the equality bit the chance shoots way up because we've made it extraordinarily hard to move up classes and all too easy to move down.
Because minority poverty is fundamentally different from white poverty. There are different roots, different driving forces. As I pointed out in the Sanders thread, a $15/hr minimum wage does nothing to deal with black individuals having a much harder time getting hired in the first place.
Then you have a well-funded hotline for people to call in if they think they're being discriminated against, and then you implement your anti-poverty programs. You speak of different roots but that 15 bucks an hour is the one holding up the tree- if more people are better off there's less crime, which results in less stereotyping, which results in less arrests, which means stabler families and they're better off etc.
What's your plan, Hedgie? Quotas? That'd produce more racism than it solves- not just from whites, but from everyone who wasn't black.
Is there any major cultural normalization of racial minorities going on in Western culture right now? Back in the 80s/90s we had a handful of sitcoms that helped demystify black families away from the previous blacksploitation media, but then we had a rather sharp turn in media toward gangsta junk.
The fact that that gangsta junk is wildly popular shows that there is some pretty good cultural acceptance.
Is it?
I'm not so sure on that.
If anything, i'd expect it to reinforce the negative stereotypes people have.
"Gangsta junk" is wildly popular because imitating it is a "safe" form of racism where you get the thrill of saying/doing/referencing something that'd be considered racist (or at the very least insensitive) except for the fact you're doing it against a subculture of that race that's easier to mark as being criminal so it's "okay". It's the center of a venn diagram between "things it's okay to do regarding black people" and "things it's okay to do regarding criminals." That thrill has its roots in the same place of the brain that parroting Chappelle's Show jokes does. To these kids it's just a game, they'd never want to actually live like those people, they just pretend for the thrill.
"Gangsta junk" is wildly popular because imitating it is a "safe" form of racism where you get the thrill of saying/doing/referencing something that'd be considered racist (or at the very least insensitive) except for the fact you're doing it against a subculture of that race that's easier to mark as being criminal so it's "okay". It's the center of a venn diagram between "things it's okay to do regarding black people" and "things it's okay to do regarding criminals." That thrill has its roots in the same place of the brain that parroting Chappelle's Show jokes does. To these kids it's just a game, they'd never want to actually live like those people, they just pretend for the thrill.
Gangster rap was big because hip hop is huge on a global level, and that was the dominant form for awhile. Nowadays, the Kendrick Lamar club/party shit is bigger. In a few years, it might swing back to Public Enemy style political shit or go on to something new.
As someone who really likes hip hop, some of the analyses of why people like gangster comes off, at best, as clueless outsiderism and often seems pretty racist. Also worth noting that the whole police brutality thing isn't a shock to anyone who was listening to gangster rap in the 90s. It and hip hop culture films were pretty much the only pop culture venue where that discussion was happening on a sustained basis for many years.
I feel like the assumption the majority of hip-hop is gangsta can come off as pretty racist itself. Hip-hop is both mainstream and very diverse nowadays, and while you have some songs about getting rich on drug money, you also have a ton of party and/or socially conscious songs as well.
I feel like the assumption the majority of hip-hop is gangsta can come off as pretty racist itself. Hip-hop is both mainstream and very diverse nowadays, and while you have some songs about getting rich on drug money, you also have a ton of party and/or socially conscious songs as well.
Did anyone assume the majority of hip hop is gangsta?
The point made was purely about "gangsta junk", not about hip hop in general.
Frankly, i don't think it has any big effect on overall racism.
Those who are already predisposed to seeing certain stereotypes will see it as an example, those who aren't, will see it just as another form of entertainment no different than country or western songs, or ballet or whatever.
Sure, it can reinforce stereotypes (like i said earlier), but it's such a minority of music out there, that it's not a significant influence.
I feel like the assumption the majority of hip-hop is gangsta can come off as pretty racist itself. Hip-hop is both mainstream and very diverse nowadays, and while you have some songs about getting rich on drug money, you also have a ton of party and/or socially conscious songs as well.
Hell, even gangster rap is a wide and diverse genre. The Geto Boys, NWA, Biggie, Jay Z and 50 Cent are all extremely different in terms of intent and message.
Even gangsta rap is inoffensive when it sounds like an autotuned alvin and the chipmunks.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the idea that rap music and the whole inner city culture is "black culture" is really harmful to black people as a whole. It implies that wealthy black families in the suburbs have some sort of inherent connection to the poor inner cities and the crime that occurs (and is glorified) within that culture. I wouldn't say that is a major factor in why black people don't get the full advantage of their SES, but it can't help.
I think the idea that rap music and the whole inner city culture is "black culture" is really harmful to black people as a whole. It implies that wealthy black families in the suburbs have some sort of inherent connection to the poor inner cities and the crime that occurs (and is glorified) within that culture. I wouldn't say that is a major factor in why black people don't get the full advantage of their SES, but it can't help.
Dude, the "black culture" argument? That is one weaksauce argument. And don't think I didn't notice the "" either.
You want to know why there is a "Black Culture"? Cause they don't get to be a part of white culture(or mainstream culture if you will). Their culture has developed in isolation and is a reflection of the lack of opening afforded to them. Rap music glorifying violence and drugs, reflect the reality that violence and drugs are a fact of life in the Ghetto.
Blaming rap music as a(minor) cause for black disadvantage tends to ignore that millions of white kids listen to rap music without consequence. Same with clothes, Black kid in a hoddie is a thug, white kid in the same outfit is just a kid.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Unlike the stated goal in removing gay marriage bans, most racist policy is not written as racist. Implicit bias during the execution of policy or other unwritten rules turns policy which is neutral on paper into forms of oppression.
Getting people to accept implicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
You can obviously sell Americans on equality before the law (with fair bit of kicking and screaming) and even equality of opportunity but you will never sell them on equality of outcomes. I think Coates knows this but also believes the only way to attack the problem is at the outcomes level and so he despairs.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Unlike the stated goal in removing gay marriage bans, most racist policy is not written as racist. Implicit bias during the execution of policy or other unwritten rules turns policy which is neutral on paper into forms of oppression.
Getting people to accept implicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
You can obviously sell Americans on equality before the law (with fair bit of kicking and screaming) and even equality of opportunity but you will never sell them on equality of outcomes. I think Coates knows this but also believes the only way to attack the problem is at the outcomes level and so he despairs.
You can sell people in the US on equality of opportunity in the abstract, but the moment they actually have to let other people have equal opportunity, they balk, because for the white christian majority, it means less opportunity on the whole.
Unlike the stated goal in removing gay marriage bans, most racist policy is not written as racist. Implicit bias during the execution of policy or other unwritten rules turns policy which is neutral on paper into forms of oppression.
Getting people to accept implicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
You can obviously sell Americans on equality before the law (with fair bit of kicking and screaming) and even equality of opportunity but you will never sell them on equality of outcomes. I think Coates knows this but also believes the only way to attack the problem is at the outcomes level and so he despairs.
You can sell people in the US on equality of opportunity in the abstract, but the moment they actually have to let other people have equal opportunity, they balk, because for the white christian majority, it means less opportunity on the whole.
I think it depends what one means by opportunity. You can win a political argument to fund inner city schools beyond what the local tax base would support but you will have a harder time equalizing funding to take into account rich school things like parental involvement and bake sales.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I feel like the assumption the majority of hip-hop is gangsta can come off as pretty racist itself. Hip-hop is both mainstream and very diverse nowadays, and while you have some songs about getting rich on drug money, you also have a ton of party and/or socially conscious songs as well.
Did anyone assume the majority of hip hop is gangsta?
The point made was purely about "gangsta junk", not about hip hop in general.
I think the problem is that that "gangsta junk" is part of the package. It's just another facet of the culture, the issues it deals with being also an important aspect of many black lives. The idea that it's popularity indicates a turn away from cultural normalization of black culture is ridiculous, as it is simply deepening and widening the cultural exploration.
I met a critic, I made her shit her draws
She said she thought Hip Hop was only guns and alcohol
I said "Oh hell naw!", but yet it's that too
You can't discrima-hate cause you done read a book or two
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
"Gangsta junk" is wildly popular because imitating it is a "safe" form of racism where you get the thrill of saying/doing/referencing something that'd be considered racist (or at the very least insensitive) except for the fact you're doing it against a subculture of that race that's easier to mark as being criminal so it's "okay". It's the center of a venn diagram between "things it's okay to do regarding black people" and "things it's okay to do regarding criminals." That thrill has its roots in the same place of the brain that parroting Chappelle's Show jokes does. To these kids it's just a game, they'd never want to actually live like those people, they just pretend for the thrill.
Nah, rap is popular because teens like to rebel against shit and that's what rap does, teens want to talk about sex and rap makes it easy, and teens want bullshit material things and rap glorifies getting them. It's not about racism - that's just silly to suggest.
I think the idea that rap music and the whole inner city culture is "black culture" is really harmful to black people as a whole. It implies that wealthy black families in the suburbs have some sort of inherent connection to the poor inner cities and the crime that occurs (and is glorified) within that culture. I wouldn't say that is a major factor in why black people don't get the full advantage of their SES, but it can't help.
Dude, the "black culture" argument? That is one weaksauce argument. And don't think I didn't notice the "" either.
You want to know why there is a "Black Culture"? Cause they don't get to be a part of white culture(or mainstream culture if you will). Their culture has developed in isolation and is a reflection of the lack of opening afforded to them. Rap music glorifying violence and drugs, reflect the reality that violence and drugs are a fact of life in the Ghetto.
Blaming rap music as a(minor) cause for black disadvantage tends to ignore that millions of white kids listen to rap music without consequence. Same with clothes, Black kid in a hoddie is a thug, white kid in the same outfit is just a kid.
hahaha
calm down! You read his post backwards. He's saying that calling rap and the inner city culture "black culture" is wrong, because it doesn't represent the black experience very broadly and it adversely labels middle class suburban black folks in the eyes of the wider society. He is decrying the very thing you think is wrong.
spool32 on
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the idea that rap music and the whole inner city culture is "black culture" is really harmful to black people as a whole. It implies that wealthy black families in the suburbs have some sort of inherent connection to the poor inner cities and the crime that occurs (and is glorified) within that culture. I wouldn't say that is a major factor in why black people don't get the full advantage of their SES, but it can't help.
Dude, the "black culture" argument? That is one weaksauce argument. And don't think I didn't notice the "" either.
You want to know why there is a "Black Culture"? Cause they don't get to be a part of white culture(or mainstream culture if you will). Their culture has developed in isolation and is a reflection of the lack of opening afforded to them. Rap music glorifying violence and drugs, reflect the reality that violence and drugs are a fact of life in the Ghetto.
Blaming rap music as a(minor) cause for black disadvantage tends to ignore that millions of white kids listen to rap music without consequence. Same with clothes, Black kid in a hoddie is a thug, white kid in the same outfit is just a kid.
What Spool said is right. The problem I was talking about is the de facto association of all black people with poor inner city culture. A white kid listens to rap and dresses like art of that culture but we don't say he is part of it. A black kid in the suburbs doesn't listen to rap or dress in that style and we say that he is part of that culture. It's terrible, makes no sense, and is harmful to black people who are not part of the culture. It takes away their ability to make choices about what cultures and values they actually support.
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I think the idea that rap music and the whole inner city culture is "black culture" is really harmful to black people as a whole. It implies that wealthy black families in the suburbs have some sort of inherent connection to the poor inner cities and the crime that occurs (and is glorified) within that culture. I wouldn't say that is a major factor in why black people don't get the full advantage of their SES, but it can't help.
Dude, the "black culture" argument? That is one weaksauce argument. And don't think I didn't notice the "" either.
You want to know why there is a "Black Culture"? Cause they don't get to be a part of white culture(or mainstream culture if you will). Their culture has developed in isolation and is a reflection of the lack of opening afforded to them. Rap music glorifying violence and drugs, reflect the reality that violence and drugs are a fact of life in the Ghetto.
Blaming rap music as a(minor) cause for black disadvantage tends to ignore that millions of white kids listen to rap music without consequence. Same with clothes, Black kid in a hoddie is a thug, white kid in the same outfit is just a kid.
What Spool said is right. The problem I was talking about is the de facto association of all black people with poor inner city culture. A white kid listens to rap and dresses like art of that culture but we don't say he is part of it. A black kid in the suburbs doesn't listen to rap or dress in that style and we say that he is part of that culture. It's terrible, makes no sense, and is harmful to black people who are not part of the culture. It takes away their ability to make choices about what cultures and values they actually support.
Well yeah it's pretty racist to assume black people are a monolith. I don't understand the issue you have here.
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
What I'm saying is that it's easier to make the argument that "Hey society, gay people should be able to get married and here's why" than it is to say "hey society, gay people are discriminated against by you, and you need to change! Here is one of many ways you should do that."
It's absolutely true that a segment of gay marriage supporters (or not-opposers) are still homophobic. I'm certain that there are plenty of racist people who still think black folks should be able to vote and own property and not be slaves. We make progress on these issues by putting the solution front and center, rather than the inequity.
Except how do you disassociate black people from poor inner city culture when its foisted upon them.
Anywhere they live automatically becomes the ghetto, with white flight a quick followup.
Any music or culture they create will reflect their economic circumstances.
The only way to disassociate black people from "black culture" is to assimilate them into white culture. I.E. stop discriminating against them. Which people wont do, since they don't want to be contaminated by "black culture".
Black culture is as much creation of white culture as it is native to blacks. If blacks had been assimilated into mainstream, there wouldn't have been any black culture to begin with.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
What I'm saying is that it's easier to make the argument that "Hey society, gay people should be able to get married and here's why" than it is to say "hey society, gay people are discriminated against by you, and you need to change! Here is one of many ways you should do that."
It's absolutely true that a segment of gay marriage supporters (or not-opposers) are still homophobic. I'm certain that there are plenty of racist people who still think black folks should be able to vote and own property and not be slaves. We make progress on these issues by putting the solution front and center, rather than the inequity.
I would agree with you that doing it that way is the most effective strategy, but that presupposes that there is only one opportunity to attack the problem. As in, if there was only one way one was allowed to argue for the cause then obviously we need to pick the most effective way, but that is not the case and arguing in a different way can also have an effect. The best strategy is a multi-level approach, arguing first this and then that.
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
What I'm saying is that it's easier to make the argument that "Hey society, gay people should be able to get married and here's why" than it is to say "hey society, gay people are discriminated against by you, and you need to change! Here is one of many ways you should do that."
It's absolutely true that a segment of gay marriage supporters (or not-opposers) are still homophobic. I'm certain that there are plenty of racist people who still think black folks should be able to vote and own property and not be slaves. We make progress on these issues by putting the solution front and center, rather than the inequity.
Except the reason why is because they're being discriminated against.
You can't get people to stop discriminating against another group without first getting them to admit they're doing so. Loads of people think denying homosexuals the right to marriage isn't discriminatory at all. A routine argument against gay marriage is the asinine idea that gay people are equally free to marry anyone of the opposite gender and therefore there is no discrimination. If people don't accept that something is discriminatory for bad reasons then they often don't accept that anything needs to change.
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
What I'm saying is that it's easier to make the argument that "Hey society, gay people should be able to get married and here's why" than it is to say "hey society, gay people are discriminated against by you, and you need to change! Here is one of many ways you should do that."
It's absolutely true that a segment of gay marriage supporters (or not-opposers) are still homophobic. I'm certain that there are plenty of racist people who still think black folks should be able to vote and own property and not be slaves. We make progress on these issues by putting the solution front and center, rather than the inequity.
Except the reason why is because they're being discriminated against.
You can't get people to stop discriminating against another group without first getting them to admit they're doing so. Loads of people think denying homosexuals the right to marriage isn't discriminatory at all. A routine argument against gay marriage is the asinine idea that gay people are equally free to marry anyone of the opposite gender and therefore there is no discrimination. If people don't accept that something is discriminatory for bad reasons then they often don't accept that anything needs to change.
1) Sure you can, we just did that.
2) It doesn't matter in the beginning because ending the discriminatory THING is better than no action at all. Tie this back to our original poverty / racism discussion... if you can end discriminatory lending specifically it helps minority families AND it attacks issues driving continued racism. If you can end mass incarceration (or even better, just end the drug war), you make a big difference to black families AND you also whittle away at reasons for continued discrimination.
Of course the reason why is because they're being discriminated against. I feel like you're just not thinking about this in terms of making an actual argument. When you begin with a concrete position, you frame the discussion around it. it's far easier to argue about discrimination within the context of legalizing gay marriage because it divorces personal feelings from the matter and aims at making things better for gay people in a concrete way. Even if you never get a person to admit that discrimination exists in the broader society, you can still get them to stop opposing or even support gay marriage and that is a win.
We can make a fucking airtight case for police body cameras without ever mentioning race a single time, and it will massively help eliminate racist behavior among the police. Why start that argument by saying that the police are racist, and try to get body cameras as a solution? You'll never win the first half of the discussion either individually or as a society. But you can clearly win the body camera argument on its own merits, and toss "also it'll stop the racist bad apples" in there as a reason while all the anti-government conservatives nod their heads in agreement. Winning the body camera policy discussion will help cut down on racist behavior and on racist attitudes, even if you never mention racism during the discussion.
Begin the discussion with a policy change, rather than with a social accusation, and you change more policy!
No you didn't.
People admitted that gays were discriminated against, so rules were changed.
Not everyone admitted to it, but those who acted to change the rules, did.
Zakkiel: can you give an example of a non-cowardly reaction?
Doesn't street level activism require that you first acknowledge the problem and accept shared responsibility for fixing it?
No! It requires that you identify a specific goal (like making gay marriage legal) and start making a case for why it should be different, then building as people start to agree. Street level activism starts with the people who already agree and filters through as your cause is proved just. LGBT folks didn't get gay marriage legalized by convincing people that gays suffered from discrimination... they did it by demanding to be treated equally in a specific context and arguing the more general case (gays should be equal everywher) as one of a number of reasons why we should do that specific thing.
How did you just first say that that something is not needed, and then give an example where it was needed?
How?
Anyone trying to fix a given problem, must first accept the problem exists.
Like gay marriage.
Are we equal? No.
This is a problem? Yes.
How to fix this? Advocate for equality.
Ergo: fight for gay marriage (among other things).
You can't try to fix or change an issue, if you do not recognice that issue needs fixing or changing.
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
Sure you can.
Lots of people think that being gay is immoral but also think that the ban was unpractical or unconstitutional or just wanted everyone to shut up about it.
Or if you are just talking about morality lots of people think that it would be immoral to make all immoral things illegal for whatever reason.
Posts
I don't agree. i think general reactions of revulsion to acts like the murder of Matthew Shepherd, experiences had by formerly homophobic families as friends / loved ones came out & the adoption of homosexual acceptance / education programs by public schools did more for LGBT rights than any number of pride parades (that isn't to say that pride parades aren't a positive force, but that those rallies would not have turned around laws on their own).
Er... In order to convince people you should be treated equally you have to get them to accept you're not being treated equally. AKA suffering discrimination.
Getting people to accept inplicit bias is not easy and is necessary to convince them something is wrong and needs changing.
Or institute policies and controls that limit the ability of the biased to put their fingers on the scale.
A great example of this is the way symphonies instituted blind auditions. The traditional argument for why orchestras tended to be mostly male was that there was something inherently inferior with the mentality of female musicians.
Then major symphonies began using blind auditions, with candidates literally playing for the hiring committee behind screens. Turns out that using this system, the hiring of male and female musicians evened out. Bias was running the process, and it took obscuring the candidates' identities to eliminate it.
As a side note, symphonies that used blind auditons also became noticably less white. And that's with no one advocating racist arguments publicly like they were sexist ones.
Explicit policy goals are essential, but you have to build support, and support requires recognition as a foundation. I get that racial politics can appear kind of fucking navel-gazey in contrast with the realities of black people being murdered in the streets, but you have to get something in people that changes their perspectives, and that requires some introspection and analysis. Nobody says it should stop there. It didn't stop there with attempts to win rights and acceptance of the LGBT communities, but it was absolutely a part of those campaigns.
I'd also suggest that such efforts require or at least benefit from large amounts of cash, a resource that was much more available for gay rights campaigns than attempts to force the acknowledgment and erosion of racism. I'm personally sympathetic to arguments that suggest the sheer financial power of gay white men played a large role in the frankly astonishingly fast changing of public opinion on marriage equality. That's in no way intended to suggest that the rest of those communities didn't carry more than their share of the weight, only that money buys a lot of ears and eyes.
You can tell this is the case based on the privileging of gay marriage instead of like, housing protections, employment protections, those same things for trans people, etc.
Money isn't everything, but it is like 80% of everything.
They pop up everywhere, organically, in all areas, to all races, among all classes, and in every religion.
you can, for a time, oppress, hide and/or deny their existence, but you can't simply remove them, or stop them from appearing.
With the poor, or the racial minorities, you can just dump them at the edge of town, out of sight, out of mind, and anytime you hear about them is because they got shot by a cop (implying they did something wrong) or something.
But when your neighbour, friend, sibling, cousing, friend, boss, coworker, etc, you've know and liked (or tolerated) for years suddenly tells you they are gay, you are kinda forced to confront that, damn, gays exist, and are not inherently inferrior (assuming you are a rational person).
We're in one of our every 20ish year cycles where there's a wide and diverse representation of African-Americans in media. We'll see if this one sticks.
The fact that that gangsta junk is wildly popular shows that there is some pretty good cultural acceptance.
Then he should say it instead of saying crazy shit about children being raised white and black people not having Memorial Day cookouts. Outside of the criminal justice system I don't see any special ways in which our society crushes blacks outside of "they're poor and we crush the poor". Sanchez down at the taco stand or Bill down at the Walmart has about as much chance of getting a mortgage for a house in a rich neighborhood as Tyrone.
I'd agree, because the criminal justice system is terrible. Outside of the equality bit the chance shoots way up because we've made it extraordinarily hard to move up classes and all too easy to move down.
Then you have a well-funded hotline for people to call in if they think they're being discriminated against, and then you implement your anti-poverty programs. You speak of different roots but that 15 bucks an hour is the one holding up the tree- if more people are better off there's less crime, which results in less stereotyping, which results in less arrests, which means stabler families and they're better off etc.
What's your plan, Hedgie? Quotas? That'd produce more racism than it solves- not just from whites, but from everyone who wasn't black.
I'm not so sure on that.
If anything, i'd expect it to reinforce the negative stereotypes people have.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Gangster rap was big because hip hop is huge on a global level, and that was the dominant form for awhile. Nowadays, the Kendrick Lamar club/party shit is bigger. In a few years, it might swing back to Public Enemy style political shit or go on to something new.
As someone who really likes hip hop, some of the analyses of why people like gangster comes off, at best, as clueless outsiderism and often seems pretty racist. Also worth noting that the whole police brutality thing isn't a shock to anyone who was listening to gangster rap in the 90s. It and hip hop culture films were pretty much the only pop culture venue where that discussion was happening on a sustained basis for many years.
Did anyone assume the majority of hip hop is gangsta?
The point made was purely about "gangsta junk", not about hip hop in general.
Frankly, i don't think it has any big effect on overall racism.
Those who are already predisposed to seeing certain stereotypes will see it as an example, those who aren't, will see it just as another form of entertainment no different than country or western songs, or ballet or whatever.
Sure, it can reinforce stereotypes (like i said earlier), but it's such a minority of music out there, that it's not a significant influence.
Hell, even gangster rap is a wide and diverse genre. The Geto Boys, NWA, Biggie, Jay Z and 50 Cent are all extremely different in terms of intent and message.
Even gangsta rap is inoffensive when it sounds like an autotuned alvin and the chipmunks.
Dude, the "black culture" argument? That is one weaksauce argument. And don't think I didn't notice the "" either.
You want to know why there is a "Black Culture"? Cause they don't get to be a part of white culture(or mainstream culture if you will). Their culture has developed in isolation and is a reflection of the lack of opening afforded to them. Rap music glorifying violence and drugs, reflect the reality that violence and drugs are a fact of life in the Ghetto.
Blaming rap music as a(minor) cause for black disadvantage tends to ignore that millions of white kids listen to rap music without consequence. Same with clothes, Black kid in a hoddie is a thug, white kid in the same outfit is just a kid.
You can obviously sell Americans on equality before the law (with fair bit of kicking and screaming) and even equality of opportunity but you will never sell them on equality of outcomes. I think Coates knows this but also believes the only way to attack the problem is at the outcomes level and so he despairs.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
You can sell people in the US on equality of opportunity in the abstract, but the moment they actually have to let other people have equal opportunity, they balk, because for the white christian majority, it means less opportunity on the whole.
I think it depends what one means by opportunity. You can win a political argument to fund inner city schools beyond what the local tax base would support but you will have a harder time equalizing funding to take into account rich school things like parental involvement and bake sales.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I think the problem is that that "gangsta junk" is part of the package. It's just another facet of the culture, the issues it deals with being also an important aspect of many black lives. The idea that it's popularity indicates a turn away from cultural normalization of black culture is ridiculous, as it is simply deepening and widening the cultural exploration.
Or
We're talking past each other because of general / specific pronouns. Certainly some individuals need to recognize a problem before they can fix it - that's obvious. Society, however, does not need to begin with recognition of a general problem (discrimination) and then seek out specific ways the problem creates inequity (no gay marriage). Rather, some individuals need to tell society that an inequity exists (no gay marriage) and then explain why we should fix it (discrimination is wrong).
Do that and society eventually comes around to the explanation, in the course of fixing the specific problems.
Nah, rap is popular because teens like to rebel against shit and that's what rap does, teens want to talk about sex and rap makes it easy, and teens want bullshit material things and rap glorifies getting them. It's not about racism - that's just silly to suggest.
calm down! You read his post backwards. He's saying that calling rap and the inner city culture "black culture" is wrong, because it doesn't represent the black experience very broadly and it adversely labels middle class suburban black folks in the eyes of the wider society. He is decrying the very thing you think is wrong.
But the general problem here is not discrimination but inequity. Lack of gay marriage is just a specific example of that inequity. You still need to show why the inequity is wrong in general before you convince someone that the specific example of inequity is wrong.
The case where discrimination was the general problem were/are things like lack of protection from being fired for being gay and such. People first needed to accept that discrimination based on sexual orientation was wrong before agreeing that protections were needed.
Like, you're saying that people need only recognize that a specific thing is wrong to fix it, but how can they think the specific thing is wrong without thinking a more general case is wrong?
Surely a person can't hold both:
- A ban on gay marriage is wrong.
- Inequity in general is not wrong.
as true?
What Spool said is right. The problem I was talking about is the de facto association of all black people with poor inner city culture. A white kid listens to rap and dresses like art of that culture but we don't say he is part of it. A black kid in the suburbs doesn't listen to rap or dress in that style and we say that he is part of that culture. It's terrible, makes no sense, and is harmful to black people who are not part of the culture. It takes away their ability to make choices about what cultures and values they actually support.
Well yeah it's pretty racist to assume black people are a monolith. I don't understand the issue you have here.
What I'm saying is that it's easier to make the argument that "Hey society, gay people should be able to get married and here's why" than it is to say "hey society, gay people are discriminated against by you, and you need to change! Here is one of many ways you should do that."
It's absolutely true that a segment of gay marriage supporters (or not-opposers) are still homophobic. I'm certain that there are plenty of racist people who still think black folks should be able to vote and own property and not be slaves. We make progress on these issues by putting the solution front and center, rather than the inequity.
Anywhere they live automatically becomes the ghetto, with white flight a quick followup.
Any music or culture they create will reflect their economic circumstances.
The only way to disassociate black people from "black culture" is to assimilate them into white culture. I.E. stop discriminating against them. Which people wont do, since they don't want to be contaminated by "black culture".
Black culture is as much creation of white culture as it is native to blacks. If blacks had been assimilated into mainstream, there wouldn't have been any black culture to begin with.
I would agree with you that doing it that way is the most effective strategy, but that presupposes that there is only one opportunity to attack the problem. As in, if there was only one way one was allowed to argue for the cause then obviously we need to pick the most effective way, but that is not the case and arguing in a different way can also have an effect. The best strategy is a multi-level approach, arguing first this and then that.
Except the reason why is because they're being discriminated against.
You can't get people to stop discriminating against another group without first getting them to admit they're doing so. Loads of people think denying homosexuals the right to marriage isn't discriminatory at all. A routine argument against gay marriage is the asinine idea that gay people are equally free to marry anyone of the opposite gender and therefore there is no discrimination. If people don't accept that something is discriminatory for bad reasons then they often don't accept that anything needs to change.
1) Sure you can, we just did that.
2) It doesn't matter in the beginning because ending the discriminatory THING is better than no action at all. Tie this back to our original poverty / racism discussion... if you can end discriminatory lending specifically it helps minority families AND it attacks issues driving continued racism. If you can end mass incarceration (or even better, just end the drug war), you make a big difference to black families AND you also whittle away at reasons for continued discrimination.
Of course the reason why is because they're being discriminated against. I feel like you're just not thinking about this in terms of making an actual argument. When you begin with a concrete position, you frame the discussion around it. it's far easier to argue about discrimination within the context of legalizing gay marriage because it divorces personal feelings from the matter and aims at making things better for gay people in a concrete way. Even if you never get a person to admit that discrimination exists in the broader society, you can still get them to stop opposing or even support gay marriage and that is a win.
We can make a fucking airtight case for police body cameras without ever mentioning race a single time, and it will massively help eliminate racist behavior among the police. Why start that argument by saying that the police are racist, and try to get body cameras as a solution? You'll never win the first half of the discussion either individually or as a society. But you can clearly win the body camera argument on its own merits, and toss "also it'll stop the racist bad apples" in there as a reason while all the anti-government conservatives nod their heads in agreement. Winning the body camera policy discussion will help cut down on racist behavior and on racist attitudes, even if you never mention racism during the discussion.
Begin the discussion with a policy change, rather than with a social accusation, and you change more policy!
No you didn't.
People admitted that gays were discriminated against, so rules were changed.
Not everyone admitted to it, but those who acted to change the rules, did.
Sure you can.
Lots of people think that being gay is immoral but also think that the ban was unpractical or unconstitutional or just wanted everyone to shut up about it.
Or if you are just talking about morality lots of people think that it would be immoral to make all immoral things illegal for whatever reason.
Please try and engage with the whole idea, not just the bit you can cut out and say "nuh-uhh" to.