I have lived next to one for over twenty years, without knowing it, and only know now because he thought me becoming more conservative meant I shared his ideals.
His son told me that his sister dating a black man would have never flown, and 'Why is white rice the best rice? Because it's white.' has come directly out of his mouth. He has an obsession with Nordic/Estonian/Lithuanian pride, graduated in the same Yale class as Dubya, and is part of the CO GOP elections organization.
That's supposed to be the great evil racism? If so, it's laughable. This is just dumb and boring attempt at edgy humor,10 year old grade, which translates to a big pile of fail. No one likes those. And if it was serious, then it's just simply an even greater level of idiocy. News at eleven, educated people aren't necessarily smart, not these days.
So I'm done being civil with anyone I have good reason to believe is another racist or ethno-nationalist, and do think it is a bigger problem than many here want to believe.
Don't be part of the problem. Not being civil just means being active part of the free-for-all of all sorts of political radicals yelling empty slogans at each other. Won't fix any problem, but damn it will get you to feel good about yourself and the others pissed off at you.
I stand corrected; I apologize for making assumptions. Still, I firmly contend that the "self imposed guilt" you describe? Is rooted in racism; specifically, benevolent racism. Basically it's the idea that white people have a duty to other races, because we're better than them, as we have "white privilege".
That brings up an interesting issue, the modern use of the term "racism" tends to conflate 3 rather different attitudes with different goals often different motivations.
1.Benevolent racism, white man's burden, inter-group altruism, extended humanitarianism - "you have a duty to uplift groups that do worse/groups that do better have a duty to uplift you, failure in that duty is a righteous cause for anger and even violence".
2. Isolationism, uncaring racism, self-detarminationism - "we live here, you live there, we don't give a damn what happens over there as long as it stays over there, and we insist that over here is run according to our rules and our rules alone".
3. Supremacism - "our race/religion/culture is so great that everyone else shall submit to its rule and whim whether they like it or not".
Group 3 is everyone's favorite strawman for "racism", and is seen as the source of all ills of the world by group 1, even though it's very rare in western societies. The most obvious real world example of group 3 are islamist movements.
Group 1 is popular among the left, especially if camouflaged in the right terminology.
Most people who get called racists are actually some variation of group 2, but usually get aggressively accused of belonging to group 3.
Often unfairly, but it gets complicated when you throw in multicultural/multiracial countries, with the inherent conflict about who's rule exactly should apply "over here".
Which brings up yet another problem - the internet dialogue over this stuff getting unnecessarily mixed up between very different historical and political situations.
The example here being Pakistani minority in UK vs Afro-Americans in USA.
The latter have a few hundred years of shared history, depending on subgroup share the same or at least similar and created during these few hundred years of shared history culture. Many of them do identify as Americans, black nationalists are more of an extreme and like them or not, should be given exactly as much approval as white nationalists.
This exception aside, they don't have any particularly intolerable and unavoidable political ambitions, international connections to interfere with them or the other way around over their compatriots (as in no other country or people to particularly care about or be loyal to), and in general it should be American's business how to get along with their somewhat ethno-culturally different compatriots.
Pakistanis, on the other hand, are Pakistanis. A lot of them want to live more according to the ways of Pakistan than England, and demand that England doesn't get in the way. A lot of the problems with them are tied to religious incompatibility - a lot of Pakistanis care far more about members of the Ummah (community of Muslims) in distant places of the world than about the English infidel supposed compatriots, and in fact would wish special considerations over those. After all, in their homeland, they get all that.
They also have a specific foreign and not exactly nice country that they often maintain various kinds of ties with.
There is no reason to consider these two troubled relationship in the same way without taking these major differences into account. Trying to do so just leads to talking past each other while both sides continue to think the other is out of their mind.
Also an interesting video on what seems to be a not so popular position, coming from someone who can represent it really well:
TL;DW if you want a lot less incidents by cops, give them officer leadership\supervision in the field.
Or in other words, it's a competence and funding problem, and that's one of ways to address it.
Of course that's absolutely incompatible with left wing ideology, and also practicalities of democrat cities that have plenty of crime and don't want to spend much on policing.
They would need a lot of officers, and officers cost a lot of money...
