Post Aa462N27msbaHMHho0 by earthworm@kolektiva.social
(DIR) More posts by earthworm@kolektiva.social
(DIR) Post #Aa43sn2o1a8A98uJ2O by LilHulkQ@mstdn.social
2023-09-23T16:32:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This nonsense should have been REALLY settled with the Crown Act being signed into law, but here we are....NEWS: The family of a Black high school student suspended for his hairstyle has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Texas' governor and attorney general.https://apnews.com/article/hairstyles-dreadlocks-racial-discrimination-crown-act-e79ede512923b672a275abf054e2407b
(DIR) Post #Aa43sojjjS47Oa06am by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T16:40:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LilHulkQ While I am certainly against dress codes in public schools of any kind, im confused why they claim a policy that is neutrally written (simply doesnt hair past a certain length) somehow is a racial issue itself.Now i think its fair to be concerned it was **applied** raciall and only use to attack this poor kid and letting whites who violate get a pass.. and that should be illegal and persued in court if that happened.But reading the court case thats not what they are arguing. They are arguing the policy itself, even if uniformly applied, disproportionately attacks blacks... how does a length restriction on hair disproportionately target blacks on its own? I mean if anything the opposite, since the law is defined by length past ones elbows that would target straight haired people disproportionately while tightly-curled hair would form an afro and would take quite the effort to get an afro "below the elbows"...So yea... while i dont know if he was discriminated against specifically im really having a hard time seeing where this rule, when applied evenly, would be racist. I would love to hear thoughts that might explain this.
(DIR) Post #Aa45zYPp0oZwiB1ewi by LilHulkQ@mstdn.social
2023-09-23T17:04:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatory. I'll let this play in court. I sense some willful ignorance from your post. Could be wrong but anyway...Take care...
(DIR) Post #Aa462N27msbaHMHho0 by earthworm@kolektiva.social
2023-09-23T17:04:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ Because laws don't exist in a vacuum?Lawmakers are perfectly aware about biases in the executive and judicative. Laws are never the same for everyone, just check if in your country a rich and a poor person receive the same sentences, or even the same probablility of getting controlled by the police (in this case: getting discriminated by wannabe-cop-teachers).I am not from the US and wondered sometimes why black folks made so much fuss about hairstyles and systemic racism. Now I understand them better...What a deeply racist and garbage system 🤬
(DIR) Post #Aa46GQo6YLWA2OQp16 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T17:07:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LilHulkQI mean i am specifically making a post asking for clarification… Meaning i identified my possibility of ignorance and asking for someone to clarify it.How is a request for someone to correct my ignorance somehow the opposite, willful ignorance? That seems odd. in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatoryThank you for attempted to answer this, but that wasnt my question. I asked for what the logic or reasoning behind it being discriminatory. Knowing some judge ruled it to be discriminatory doesn’t really answer that does it?
(DIR) Post #Aa46MskNaOD8QflUkC by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T17:08:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@earthworm So is the argument here that the law, in and of itself, isnt racist. But it has been applied in a racist way?@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa47cRMZGbaU5Qbsmm by me_valentijn@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T17:22:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ It's a rule which was created to conform to conservative White traditions. Black hair and related cultural traditions are often very different.By demanding that all children conform to a White tradition, many Black children have to choose between abandoning part of their ethnic identity, or being deprived of an education for keeping a sensible Black hairstyle.Individual application of the rule is not necessarily racist. But the rule itself is still systemically racist.
(DIR) Post #Aa48FsQKacNFJ8AubQ by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T17:29:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@me_valentijn Hmm I think I see the logic there... the idea that "short hair is professional" is generally a white-culture thing and therefore unfair to apply that in law, even if applied to black and white equally.I will have to think on that point a bit, but I see where its going, sounds reasonable at first glance and is generally in line with why i am against dress codes in genera.However the other side i am pondering is if "long hair is bad" is really a white culture thing at all.. afterall long hair being seen as normal and professional has been the case in both white and black cultures. It seems to me it is discriminatory against most cultures both black and white. Which makes it wrong and discriminatory still, just not sure if its so explicitly anti-black, its really just anti-expression of any culture.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa48zpcvJwGxxCyhGq by me_valentijn@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T17:38:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ It certainly is discriminatory in multiple ways, but what matters is that some of them are violating rights as a result of someone's identity in a protected class.It's also not solely down to what looks professional. It's a matter of how differently textured hair behaves, which in turn has driven what is currently acceptable in different cultures.It's easy for White hair to conform with those rules. Whereas Black children are left with few and often unreasonable options.
(DIR) Post #Aa49ZZwj68ozkLHnnM by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T17:44:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@me_valentijn Thanks for trying to answer, it is very much appreciated.> It certainly is discriminatory in multiple ways, but what matters is that some of them are violating rights as a result of someone's identity in a protected class.I guess this is what im trying to understand better. I see how it is discriminatory in general to damn near everyone, minority or not, in different ways.. but how it targets protected classes (minorities mostly) over nonprotected is what im trying to better understand here.> It's easy for White hair to conform with those rules. Whereas Black children are left with few and often unreasonable options.So if i understand the argument here isnt so much that long hair is more important to the identity of a minority than a white or anything like that. But your saying blacks with long hair dont have options to put it up and conform where whites do?Is that something you could explain because im not sure i understand why a white person with long hair can put it up and has options where a black person can... cant both groups, despite their difference in hair wear it up? In fact, isnt it **easier** for blacks due to the nature of their hair than whites (in the sense that most black hair needs to be straightened to be long enough to fall past the shoulders where straight white hair is more natural).Obviously i am probably missing something culturally important here, something to do with black hair I suspect.. Im just not sure what that is and would love to understand it better.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa49fDCkZ00ax6T1iy by me_valentijn@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T17:44:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ And I'll agree that these rules were probably not explicitly written to exclude Black children. But they were written with absolutely no thought of Black children, and it's now apparent that they have a discriminatory impact.That's exactly why laws have been written to prohibit this situation, especially in a context where a fundamental right (to an education) is being unreasonably withheld.
(DIR) Post #Aa49fDxBmL9hH8C76m by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T17:45:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@me_valentijn I certainly do agree rules like this should not be allowed. For tons of reasons, and cultural discrimination, accidental or otherwise, is certainly one of them.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4Dq7dhzjOGh6XDJw by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T18:32:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ sealion.
(DIR) Post #Aa4E51phri0p1tFqIy by earthworm@kolektiva.social
2023-09-23T18:35:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ If you want a theoretical discussion about law philosophy, then maybe you are right. But this has little connection to reality. And in this case, the intention of proving in a theoretical-philosophical discussion derails from the racist intentions behind these laws. Therefore, why would you want to prove that?Think this analogy: Now we talk about a law in the US that allows police to shoot immediately when they feel threatened.Following the theoretical-philosphical logic, this law wouldn't be racist. Because in an "ideal" world heavily armed cops would shoot only the bad guys, right and have no racist bias. But we all know that POCs have a much higher chance to get shot.again: the lawmakers usually know what they are doing (ok, not always, as there are accidents).Furthermore, I could imagine that the issue might also have to do with the fact that hairstyle is for some groups more important than others. For white folks, hairstyles can be used to show rebellion (long haired hippies in the 60-70s, punks in th 80-90s).But then there is this thing of cultural expression and identity that seems a little bit more important for some black folks, wouldn't you agree?So, when laws about hairstyles are made, you repress both rebellious youth (that chose to have long hair or punk hairstyles to show their disagreement with societal standars, but otherwise could pass as sons and daughters in law) and people from historically oppressed groups that can't hide that see every day they are not part of the dominant (white) society and have their own issues finding their identity. And for some of them, hairstyle is more than just a fashion choice.
(DIR) Post #Aa4FKjmQqwAFcwmG6i by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T18:49:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely Sincerely trying to understand a perspective is now sealioning... yea get out of here with that toxic anti-growth BS... you arent wanted.
(DIR) Post #Aa4G8d6vvJMzQD9nyi by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T18:58:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@earthworm If you want a theoretical discussion about law philosophy, then maybe you are right.No im not asking these questions in a theoretical context but rather a practical one and specific to this situation. But this has little connection to reality. And in this case, the intention of proving in a theoretical-philosophical discussion derails from the racist intentions behind these laws. Therefore, why would you want to prove that?Agreed, which is why I have no interested about the general or philosophical case. I am asking about the real world practical case where a law like this is itself discriminatory. I am curious about this law, and trying to understand the reasoning behind, practically, why it is discriminatory, not philosophically… Real cause and effect. Think this analogy: Now we talk about a law in the US that allows police to shoot immediately when they feel threatened. Following the theoretical-philosphical logic, this law wouldn’t be racist. Because in an “ideal” world heavily armed cops would shoot only the bad guys, right and have no racist bias. But we all know that POCs have a much higher chance to get shot.By that logic wouldnt all laws and rules be discriminatory in practice, since cops can (and will) apply racial bias in applying it… so that still leads me to wonder, what makes this rule any more or less racially discriminatory than literally any other rule.. sure the application is always discriminatory of any rule because of racist bias… but why is this rule any more discriminatory than literally anything else.I think we were close to an answer when we were talking about the perception of long hair in various cultures. Black culture and White culture are differently compatible with this rule and thus not culturally neutral and thus a discriminatory, that explanation lines up with me just fine.. less so the explanation we are attempting now.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4HCIqlIJwfhEuO6i by LilHulkQ@mstdn.social
2023-09-23T19:06:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely @freemo Spot on Jo.Especially when pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
(DIR) Post #Aa4HCJaqWyoC0ATBwG by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T19:09:55Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@LilHulkQ GTFO with that toxic shit.. I am sincerely here trying to better understand the perspective in the hopes I can adopt it. The disgusting toxic shit you two are trying to do to make that seem like some racist undertone is disgusting. Especially when, as someone who is not white myself, is part of a victim of that same discrimination, so clearly I would care.Shame on you for creating a toxic environment where minorities cant simply discuss topics in the hope to understand a perspective without being villanized... And for the record no one made any "relentless request" of you or anyone.. what a disgusting way to frame an earnest question asked in the open for anyone who **Wants** to answer it.You **ARE** the problem, not the solution, at this point you are almost indistinguishable from the right trolling people with good intent.@JoBlakely
(DIR) Post #Aa4HYm913jF8vFA8SO by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T19:13:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo@qoto.org @LilHulkQ Pay someone money if you want to be taught, or if you really care, go do some critical reading to get informed before you presume to be entitled the labor of a Black man to educate you and care for *your* growth. You would know why this is wrong to even ask if you had done even the bare minimum of listening to Black people. Don't tell me you are about 'growth'.
(DIR) Post #Aa4HruCvIz4LQo70Cm by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T19:15:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LilHulkQ @freemo And about this stupid pointless ruling about hair solely in order to control and break people's spirits.
(DIR) Post #Aa4HruuWgrwnc2VpAW by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T19:17:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely I dunno, the ruling seems like a good one since, as I stated, it absolutely makes cultural assumptions and violates freedom of expression.But i do agree its kinda small compared to the real sorts of racism out there and the kinds of rulings that mean something that we should be seeing and dont.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4Ig3D66hWPpf6Xc8 by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T19:26:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong. You want to understand "why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not." It's because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It's because of racism.Have you even met racism?
(DIR) Post #Aa4JBwNP3BSpu88Bea by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T19:32:15Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@JoBlakely Have you even met racism?Did you really just ask a Native American, a race that has almost been completely eliminated due to genocide, if I ever met racism…. seriously!? I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong.Completely agree fromt he get go, the rule itself was wrong, and the choice of the school to enforce it also wrong. This would be true regardless of any racial component but doubly so if there was some racial bias at play as well (which is likely). You want to understand “why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not.” It’s because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It’s because of racismThat is perfectly fair, and I said exactly this early on and agree with you. The problem is by this logic all rules of any kind and of any nature are wrong because racists will ultimately be the ones applying it… My point is that if the rule itself isnt racist (and im not even convinced of that mind you) then fine, lets just admit that and focus on the problem of racists applying rules, which would seem to be the real problem… however if it is racist in addition to racists also applying it then we (and specifically me) should better understand why it is racist so we can better see and identify other rules that are racist.This is supposed to be about learning and attacking people and calling them sealions when someone makes a sincere attempt to understand another POV and consider it as one they may want to adopt… that hurts everyone on the side of good here, everyone.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4Jdm0jBQsvrcnRwG by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T19:37:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ Yeah, i did ask because a) you do not identify as such until now nor bring any insight from your experience to this. I would think if you had met with it in any real measure then your own experience with racism would have informed you as to how and why it gets applied unfairly.
(DIR) Post #Aa4KSBHnU6MKjVohu4 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T19:46:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely Yeah, i did ask because a) you do not identify as such until now nor bring any insight from your experience to this.Incorrect, I post my heritage as a Native American clearly and prominately on my bio… At no point did I make any claim I was white or not a minority.. You assumed I was white and didnt bother to ask or check. That was an error on your part, but a simple “im sorry” would be fine, people make mistakes it just comes down to how you respond when you realize it. Now that you do…. I would think if you had met with it in any real measure then your own experience with racism would have informed you as to how and why it gets applied unfairly.So you didnt even bother to read my reply before calling me a sealion and blocking me?I literally said in my very first reply I see quite clearly how and why it might be applied in a racist manner. Just like any rule of any kind can and will be applied unfairly… Here is the exact quote of what I said in my very first reply: Now i think its fair to be concerned it was applied raciall and only use to attack this poor kid and letting whites who violate get a pass.. and that should be illegal and persued in court if that happened.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4KUSTiXEfqdJTiYi by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T19:46:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ These bs control hair, dress, etc. standards are in lieu of real standards. They serve no purpose other than to assert dominance & control. They are inherently biased in some way shape or form.
(DIR) Post #Aa4KwAkS34rhkiWLA0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T19:51:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely I agree with you, as I stated in my original reply as well they are wrong, biased, etc... that was never in question. What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person who instead of attacking me and calling me a sealion actually bothered to make a sincere attempt at answering that, and they had a good answer: because it assumes a white cultural norm (long hair being unprofessional) that does not exist in other cultures. And thus is written to specifically enforce the rules of a white culture... it was a good answer... just a shame people like you were derailing an honest productive conversation.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4M8jL7MeVSStDt0S by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T20:05:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @LilHulkQ What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied. Those reasons will change, it's not just bc of white norms. They'll find reasons, until girls are wearing burkas & Black kids have heads shaved or neither allowed in school. It will be arbitrarily applied bc of racism. That is how hate works. I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.
(DIR) Post #Aa4Mgi4Ib5zmMsYhoe by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T20:11:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely > What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied. That part was never in question (as I pointed out in my original quote)... the fact that racists apply it unfairly is not the least bit in doubt and I stated so.The point is a law being racist or not is seperate from if the law is applied racist or not. If murder is made illegal and you only arrest black people for murder, then it is applied unfairly and in a racist way. No one would argue we need to strike murder from the books as a law because it is a racist law, of course not, instead we try to address the racism in one way or another.By comparison a law like segregation or slavery is **inherently** racist regardless of if it is applied by someone without racial bias (as the law itself is racist).Thats the question here, the original article claimed the law itself was unfair and racist, this part I was confused on (though now i can see reasons to justify this thinking). The fact that it was also applied in a racist way as the article claims was something i explicitly didnt question.> I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.While I can accept that was your assumption, it was still based on you not even bothering reading my response (because you claimed i didnt know things that I explcitly claimed and agreed in my response)...So the question remains, why did you make all these assumptions when clearly you didnt even bother to read my comment? You explanation as to why you felt it was justified was literally the complete opposite of what I **actually** said... Do you have an excuse for that or maybe you want to apologize and are willing to admit you were wrong for doing so?I am happy to listen, but so far you sound like a bully who is just trying to justify their disgusting behavior rather than admit they were wrong.@LilHulkQ
(DIR) Post #Aa4Mj4tkgfu5kjkrHk by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T20:11:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo You are asking why in a virulent racist country known for violent prevention of cultural and personal expression of BIPOC, the pointless enforcement of bs standards with no purpose other than to control is being disproportionately used to control BIPOC? Is that what you are wondering about?Really wondering what part you don't get.
(DIR) Post #Aa4N3IKgRqxPD6zYiu by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T20:15:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely > You are asking why in a virulent racist country known for violent prevention of cultural and personal expression of BIPOC, the pointless enforcement of bs standards with no purpose other than to control is being disproportionately used to control BIPOC? > Is that what you are wondering about?Nope, and im really confused that despite my original comment saying nothing that remotely resembles what you said, and I have corrected you now several times, and even quoted myself to make it quite clear nothing resembling what you said was said.... yet you keep trying to repeat it like somehow your wrong assumptions are going to become reality if you repeat it enough.> Really wondering what part you don't get.There is nothing left I dont get. A person who was respectful to people and minorities actually responded and cleared up my earlier confusion and gave a good answer.At this point we are mostly discussing how you were a toxic to a person who was kind and looking to understand something a bit better... nothing more is left since thankfully someone who wasnt toxic helped.
(DIR) Post #Aa4N6451tYdPsMzUCe by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T20:16:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo dude. now I know you are sealioning. I quoted you: "What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person" So you keep moving the question and answer goalposts. Now you say that was never in question. Please. you don't even know what you want to know. What is your question? Where do you stumble?
(DIR) Post #Aa4Np0MkYECZO6hycK by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T20:24:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely dude. now I know you are sealioning.Oh no i get it, you are a toxic horrible human being who has no issue attacking minorities trying to address racism because… well your a shit human, thats what you do. I quoted you: “What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race… I got that answer from another person”Correct this is what I was trying to understand with my original question.. not if it was biased in a non-racial way, but specifically the racial biases inherent in the law itself, rather than the application of the law. So you keep moving the question and answer goalposts.Nope, same goal post as my original reply.. I already quoted that original reply earlier and made that quite clear. Now you say that was never in question.This is what I actually said “That part was never in question (as I pointed out in my original quote)… the fact that racists apply it unfairly is not the least bit in doubt and I stated so.”So, if you bothered to read this isnt a change in anything I stated with my original reply.. the fact that racists apply it unfairly was not something i ever questions (and ive shown this quite clearly with quotes)… was was asked is how the law itself (not its application) is considered racist.. something that has been answered and I agreed with so is now resolved. Please. you don’t even know what you want to know. What is your question? Where do you stumble?I said last time, there is no question left, no stumbling.. I asked it and a polite person came and gave a good answer.. its been resolved and I came to agree the law itself is also racist, not just its application.Why you are obsessed that there is still some lingering questioning order to prove im sealioning, when there isnt, and in fact this was resolved quite quickly why you still keep pretending it wasnt is… bizzare to say the least…. I guess you gotta convince yourself your not a horrible person by pretending I am sealioning after all.. cant do that if you admit I accepted the first answer and agreed.
(DIR) Post #Aa4OPkhlk0YxWy3ve4 by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T20:30:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo You ask "what elements are explicit to race?The only real answer there is, is: "The racism part."It's the racism. That's the only answer to your question.
(DIR) Post #Aa4OZ3QLVuTAC1Lf60 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T20:32:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely Yes that is a true statement... completely useless at answering my question, but true... Its a bit like answering "what is 1 + 1" with "It is one added to one"... like yea, it might be true, but you literally said nothing to address the ask.Aldso great way to defelect from your harassment of marginalized minorities which you have only doubled down on in this conversation in a desperate bid to justify it.
(DIR) Post #Aa4Q140n1P9w4vJYbA by JoBlakely@mastodon.social
2023-09-23T20:48:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I'm an intersectional marginalized minority but I don't use it like a shield, nor do I harass others. I came as an ally of a Black person who shouldn't have to labor to teach you some basics and who also thought you came to harass them.
(DIR) Post #Aa4QO2xt50Y1UZurPk by freemo@qoto.org
2023-09-23T20:52:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JoBlakely Well your doing an horrendous job then if you think harassing other minorities who ask respectful questions is you being an ally for black people is helping your cause in the slightest... the only thing your doing is pushing people to the other side of the fence by harassing well meaning and sincere questions where someone is trying to understand someone elses perspective.If you really think going around calling people names because they ask someone respectfully to explain something about racism in an attempt at personal growth... I dunno what to tell you but "ally" is the last thing you are.