No women allowed In this guys BJJ class

[jobo]

I feel like I've articulated the argument, along with evidence to support my argument in the form of articles written by various scientific organizations such as the NIH. If you find my lucid argument uncompelling, we just disagree. And I'm good with that. I'm not trying to change your position. I'm just trying to explain mine. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to whether my opinion is lucid (or cogent, if you're looking for the actual right word).

And for what it's worth, the onus is on you to provide a cogent counter argument. Making bold declarations like, "No it's not," or "Yes it is," is not a cogent argument. At this point, you need to bring something better to the table than your dazzling smile and sparkling personality.

ive just provieded a counter argument, its now your turn to rebut it or accept it

 

[Steve]

The request was for black doctors that would only treat black patients.

For Pete's sake. This is just factually incorrect. Here's the actual language (THE DEMANDS OF THE COLLECTIVE BLACK VOICES AT FREE CAPITOL HILL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SEATTLE…):

We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.

And here's an article from Newsweek on the topic that gets into some of the things I've mentioned in this thread.

https://www.newsweek.com/seattles-a...d-race-based-health-carewould-it-work-1511163

 

[Steve]

The problem is that they are competent....just less so when treating certain people.

Where folks are dying from preventable illness and injury, due to negligence (whether individual or institutional), I'd characterize that as incompetence.

 

[drop bear]

This would be a shame, though I think it's important that we recognize that the reaction to racism is a reaction to racism, and not itself racism. Black people requesting black doctors because they don't trust white doctors (for good reason) is not racism. It's a pragmatic response to racism.

It is a racist response to racism. Which seems to be the most intuitive response for some reason.

And it is racism caused by a failure to provide medical treatment that is any good.

I mean I am pretty sure if we looked at the doctors from say the Fred Hollows foundation we wouldn't have the same issue.

And this seems to be consistent with institutional racism in that we are already dealing with junk institutions. And instead of fixing that institution to a professional standard. We quick fix it by making black people see black doctors or by dumping women from BJJ.

And it acknowledges that racism or rapeyness is an inherent and unfixable part of society. Which justifies it.

I have gone toe to toe with people who make the same comments regarding women in the military. Because you know alpha males are gonna screw. So we just have to keep them separated.

And it is not born out as we move away from localised culture.

I suppose we would test this by looking at elective surgery rather than primary care and see if the issue persists. If once people are paying serious money for doctors suddenly this racism issue disappears. Then it was never a racism issue.

 

[skribs]

For Pete's sake. This is just factually incorrect. Here's the actual language (THE DEMANDS OF THE COLLECTIVE BLACK VOICES AT FREE CAPITOL HILL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SEATTLE…):


And here's an article from Newsweek on the topic that gets into some of the things I've mentioned in this thread.

https://www.newsweek.com/seattles-a...d-race-based-health-carewould-it-work-1511163

"We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients."

What does "specifically" mean to you? That means their job is to treat black patients. They are specifically assigned to treating black patients. That means exactly what I said.

 

[Steve]

It is a racist response to racism. Which seems to be the most intuitive response for some reason.

And it is racism caused by a failure to provide medical treatment that is any good.

I mean I am pretty sure if we looked at the doctors from say the Fred Hollows foundation we wouldn't have the same issue.

And this seems to be consistent with institutional racism in that we are already dealing with junk institutions. And instead of fixing that institution to a professional standard. We quick fix it by making black people see black doctors or by dumping women from BJJ.

And it acknowledges that racism or rapeyness is an inherent and unfixable part of society. Which justifies it.

I have gone toe to toe with people who make the same comments regarding women in the military. Because you know alpha males are gonna screw. So we just have to keep them separated.

And it is not born out as we move away from localised culture.

I suppose we would test this by looking at elective surgery rather than primary care and see if the issue persists. If once people are paying serious money for doctors suddenly this racism issue disappears. Then it was never a racism issue.

Great points. Regarding racism or rapiness, when the stakes are high (i.e., immediate and concrete), you have to first address the immediate issues, and then work on fixing the systemic issues. For example, if you train at a gym where sexual assault is a real concern, step one is to quit going to that gym. Step two or three or four may be to work on a larger scale to address systemic misogyny. If you're a black person who is not getting the care you need from your racist medical provider, step one is to get the care you need... then step 2 or 3 or 4 might be to address the systemic racism.

I don't see my points above being in conflict with yours. I think it's all part of a large, complex problem. To use a medical analogy, sometimes you have to mitigate the symptoms before you can cure the disease.

 

[Steve]

"We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients."

What does "specifically" mean to you? That means their job is to treat black patients. They are specifically assigned to treating black patients. That means exactly what I said.

Clearly, it means something different to me. I don't see anything in that statement that would preclude a black doctor from seeing a white patient. I see black people demanding that black doctors and nurses be hired specifically to address systemic racism within the medical community. But I do see how you might interpret it differently, if you look at the statement from the position that the white doctors are the victims, and not the black patients.

 

[drop bear]

Great points. Regarding racism or rapiness, when the stakes are high (i.e., immediate and concrete), you have to first address the immediate issues, and then work on fixing the systemic issues. For example, if you train at a gym where sexual assault is a real concern, step one is to quit going to that gym. Step two or three or four may be to work on a larger scale to address systemic misogyny. If you're a black person who is not getting the care you need from your racist medical provider, step one is to get the care you need... then step 2 or 3 or 4 might be to address the systemic racism.

I don't see my points above being in conflict with yours. I think it's all part of a large, complex problem. To use a medical analogy, sometimes you have to mitigate the symptoms before you can cure the disease.

Where we might conflict is from my experience that once the immediate issue is solved that tends to be the end of it.

Because a cheap fix is cheaper.

So I generally have an issue with recommendations that are generally patches.

To use a medical analogy.

"Doctor my arm hurts when I do that"

"Then don't do that"

 

[skribs]

Clearly, it means something different to me. I don't see anything in that statement that would preclude a black doctor from seeing a white patient. I see black people demanding that black doctors and nurses be hired specifically to address systemic racism within the medical community. But I do see how you might interpret it differently, if you look at the statement from the position that the white doctors are the victims, and not the black patients.

Except it doesnt say they would be hired to address racism in medical treatment. It says they woulf be hired specifically to treat blacks.

You had to paraphrase it and add a whole lot of details to make it mean what you said.

 

[Steve]

Where we might conflict is from my experience that once the immediate issue is solved that tends to be the end of it.

Because a cheap fix is cheaper.

So I generally have an issue with recommendations that are generally patches.

To use a medical analogy.

"Doctor my arm hurts when I do that"

"Then don't do that"

100% agree. The thing is, the institution is not generally interested in "fixing" the issue. As often as not, they will deny there's an issue at all. I mean, consider the discussions around police forces going on right now. There are a lot of people who will deny that there is a race issue related to policing in America. And if you look at BJJ, a lot of guys will argue that misogyny is not an issue, either. As with the cops, if you are in the dominant class and can control the narrative, the voices of the disadvantaged are easy to ignore. And so, it stands to reason that those folks, the ones in the minority classes (whether that's by virtue of race, gender, sexuality, religion, or anything else) will tend to be more pragmatic about it. I don't know if I'm being clear. I guess what I'm getting at is that "solving" the issue is a high minded position. It presumes that the issue can be "solved" (i.e., that the system can be fixed). In other words, a person may not be looking to cure racism. They may just want to get high quality care.

All that is essentially echoing what I said earlier in the thread. A request for race based medical care may not be exactly legal, but I totally understand where it comes from.

 

[Steve]

Except it doesnt say they would be hired to address racism in medical treatment. It says they woulf be hired specifically to treat blacks.

You had to paraphrase it and add a whole lot of details to make it mean what you said.

I paraphrased it and added a lot more detail because you don't get it and I'm trying to explain it to you. If you told me 2+2=5, you would be factually incorrect. I might explain to you how addition works, and add a lot more detail with the goal of helping you understand your error. Doing that doesn't change in any way that 2+2=5 is factually incorrect.

 

[skribs]

I paraphrased it and added a lot more detail because you don't get it and I'm trying to explain it to you. If you told me 2+2=5, you would be factually incorrect. I might explain to you how addition works, and add a lot more detail with the goal of helping you understand your error. Doing that doesn't change in any way that 2+2=5 is factually incorrect.

Except you're the one claiming 2+2=5.

It says they are there specifically to treat blacks.

You had to add a lot to make it "they are there to stop racism and also treat whites." It doesn't say they're there to stop racism. It says they are specifically there to treat blacks, which means excluded from treating all others.

You're the one doing mental gymnastics.

 

[Steve]

Except you're the one claiming 2+2=5.

It says they are there specifically to treat blacks.

You had to add a lot to make it "they are there to stop racism and also treat whites." It doesn't say they're there to stop racism. It says they are specifically there to treat blacks, which means excluded from treating all others.

You're the one doing mental gymnastics.

Okay man. I give up. You've convinced me. Those black folks should just stop being racists and feel lucky to get any care at all from their poor, victimized white doctors. Those white doctors are doing them a favor giving them any care at all.

 

[drop bear]

100% agree. The thing is, the institution is not generally interested in "fixing" the issue. As often as not, they will deny there's an issue at all. I mean, consider the discussions around police forces going on right now. There are a lot of people who will deny that there is a race issue related to policing in America. And if you look at BJJ, a lot of guys will argue that misogyny is not an issue, either. As with the cops, if you are in the dominant class and can control the narrative, the voices of the disadvantaged are easy to ignore. And so, it stands to reason that those folks, the ones in the minority classes (whether that's by virtue of race, gender, sexuality, religion, or anything else) will tend to be more pragmatic about it. I don't know if I'm being clear. I guess what I'm getting at is that "solving" the issue is a high minded position. It presumes that the issue can be "solved" (i.e., that the system can be fixed). In other words, a person may not be looking to cure racism. They may just want to get high quality care.

All that is essentially echoing what I said earlier in the thread. A request for race based medical care may not be exactly legal, but I totally understand where it comes from.

I don't think there is a race issue. I think it benefits special interest groups to create one.

And you can see that pretty obviously when you look at our BLM movement.

But hey it is an opportunity for BJJ to market womens only clubs. Because BJJ instructors are super rapey. Women could demand female instructors.

 

[skribs]

Okay man. I give up. You've convinced me. Those black folks should just stop being racists and feel lucky to get any care at all from their poor, victimized white doctors. Those white doctors are doing them a favor giving them any care at all.

You're right, they should stop being racist.

If you have to mock me for saying that, what does that say about you?

 

[Steve]

You're right, they should stop being racist.

If you have to mock me for saying that, what does that say about you?

I'm not mocking you. If you think I am, I apologize. I am using sarcasm to illustrate how your opinion appears to me. Those poor white doctors.

But, I think we need to let it go. I think you're obviously wrong, and you think you're right. It's okay. We disagree, and that's that.

 

[skribs]

I'm not mocking you. If you think I am, I apologize. I am using sarcasm to illustrate how your opinion appears to me. Those poor white doctors.

But, I think we need to let it go. I think you're obviously wrong, and you think you're right. It's okay. We disagree, and that's that.

That's what mocking is.

You're supporting racism, so I'm sorry I don't want to just "let it go". Should we have white doctors that specifically treat whites? Asian doctors that only treat Asians.

Back in the 40s, there was all sorts of "science" on how we were different (and why whites were better). I'd thought we learned that lesson. Things like this are a push to get back to that line of thinking. I don't want to even entertain this as a good idea. It's segregation. It's racism. And you have to really contort the messGe to make it sound like anything else.

 

[Steve]

That's what mocking is.

You're supporting racism, so I'm sorry I don't want to just "let it go". Should we have white doctors that specifically treat whites? Asian doctors that only treat Asians.

Back in the 40s, there was all sorts of "science" on how we were different (and why whites were better). I'd thought we learned that lesson. Things like this are a push to get back to that line of thinking. I don't want to even entertain this as a good idea. It's segregation. It's racism. And you have to really contort the messGe to make it sound like anything else.

I've provided evidence that we have not, in fact, "learned that lesson." I've explained how we can't return to a line of thinking that has never actually changed, and how that deep rooted, systemic racism still exists.

So, you and I... we are in a pickle... a real dilemma. You think I'm supporting racism, and I think you're supporting racism. I've used all the tools I have in my box: evidence, facts, explanation, analogies, and even sarcasm. You've convinced me that you can't or won't even see my perspective, much less agree with it. And I can tell you that my mind is pretty well made up, so if you're looking for some kind of validation from me, you're going to be disappointed.

So, where does that leave us? I suggested we let it go while things are still friendly, and you're saying now that you don't want to. So, what do you suggest? How do you see this playing out?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Where folks are dying from preventable illness and injury, due to negligence (whether individual or institutional), I'd characterize that as incompetence.

I agree. In many of the situations illuminated by recent studies, though, the differences leading to the effects are not nearly that blatant. I heard another podcast today following off a recent study that showed white doctors simply didn't have casual introductory conversations with their black patients in the study, and that was the major difference in the doctors' approach - which led to a lower trust level and the patients opting for less preventive care. This was a controlled double-blind situation with clear difference in outcome, but nothing we could point to as incompetence by the doctors.

 

[Buka]

I’ve been so lucky. I didn’t see any of that stuff in the BJJ schools I trained in.
Heck, the first week, the first three times I tapped, were to women.

But as an aside, I went to college at UMass Boston. There was a great bar, “Your Brother’s Place” that made some of the best sandwiches I’ve ever had.

It was a bar for men only. Gals from UMass took them to court. They won.
When they started to come in, I thought it was great, just another place to meet girls.

Soon after, men stopped going there. Which made the women stop going there. It went out of business six months later. I wanted to cry, I loved their sandwiches.

I’ll never figure out people. Especially girls.