575
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
575 points (100.0% liked)
News
23367 readers
2785 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you're misrepresenting what's happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.
Nothing in the policy requires black kids to have the same haircut as white kids. The school even noted that locs are fine, but the length is not.
It's a dumb policy that should go, but injecting race into it, without showing that white guys have gotten away with having long hair, is just disingenuous.
Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony of me being called a troll because I'm not conforming with the general opinion around here?
Being factually incorrect is not an opinion. Your argument is wrong.
You're only admitting that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
It's got nothing to do with me.
The policies that regulate hair length for male students are designed to target minorities and are racist. These are facts. Picking alternate facts is not an opinion.
I'm sure it's true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it's the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). So the fact that you don't understand the difference between a fact and a opinion has everything to do with you.
It's true for the case that we are discussing in the article and every other time it's been used to punish minorities. Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice instead focusing on the content of my argument.
You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you. It's not "splitting hairs" to point out you have no clue what you're talking about.
If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say "I apologize, you're right, I used the wrong term" and then simply rephrase your argument. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it out
I went back and checked what I wrote in my argument. Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.
These policies are always racist. Your argument misrepresenting my argument will not change this.
No, what I claimed is a fact. What your argument claims is false. False claims are not opinions.
Ad hominem attacks against me aren't compelling.
No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact.
And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position.
Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion.
Your argument attempted to split hairs.
Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct.
Your argument does this to itself.
https://thegrio.com/2024/02/21/school-rules-governing-hair-are-rooted-in-racist-plans-to-control-black-peoples-appearance-scholars-and-lawmakers-say/
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
This is called a dog whistle.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/dog-whistle-political-meaning
Systems of oppression don't have to explicitly target a group of people in order to succeed. They can be fairly obtuse and still have the desired effect.
White guys in America don't have a culture heritage of growing out long hair. Whether or not White guys can get away with it is not the metric of a policy being racist. Regulating male hair length disproportionately effects White guys less and Black guys more. By disproportionately I mean, despite there being a smaller percentage of Black people in the population, Black people make up a larger percentage of people punished by hair length regulations in schools. Minorities are the target here. It's about cultural erasure.
First, no one is denying that these codes have been used to oppress individuality of minorities. We both agree this is the case. But that doesn't mean any dress code itself is racist.
Like even in the article you posted, it notes:
And this is my point. It's a about conformity. These types of rules have existed long before integration. They should definitely not exist in a free society at all, but the idea that hair length is in-and-of-itself is racist is not supported by the facts. Could it be? Sure, I would open to be convinced that this rule is being unfairly applied to black kids and other minorities. In that case I would absolutely agree.
Who says? This is a huge coming-of-age thing I see all the time. I'm not even sure if young black men like to wear long hair more than young white men. I would say a much higher percentage of my white friends have had long hair than my black friends. We even have movies like Dead Poet's society, Dazed and Confused, and (loosely) The breakfast club, where pressure by authority to conform by cutting hair is an element. It's a tale "as old as time": school administration wanting boys to conform by cutting their hair. Long hair has long been a symbol of anti-conformity for this exact reason.
The oppression of minorities is racism.
To White people's standards of physical appearance.
White people's culture typically depicts men with short hair. What your argument is describing is older generations of White people subjecting younger generations of White people to their cultural heritage. Some Black people celebrate their culture where men have long hair. While the policy does punish White people who are rejecting their cultural heritage it disproportionately affects Black people who are trying to celebrate their cultural heritage. Inequality harms everyone, but it doesn't harm everyone equally. We would all be better off with equality. edit: capitalization
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
Agreed. Although, I would say western standard more than white, but it's more a subset rather than something separate.
Depends on the culture. Also you're talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
I've yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I'm not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don't simply accept the claim as a postulate.
Sure. But assuming that because something affected a black person it means it must be racism is not equality and we are not better off with it. And that is what I believe is happening here. I mean, we're talking about policies that existed in historically white schools even before segregation. It's not like schools wanting kids to have short hair is some new thing, it's always been a tool of conformity to western standards. That now being applied to black people too is not racism, it's just dumb as it always has been.
The oppression of racial minorities is racism. This was evident based on the context of our discussion, but your argument splits hairs anyway.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024. So it makes sense we would talk about modern White people culture here in the United States in this post-wig time period.
The abundance of articles on a casual google search demonstrate this is something Black people are struggling with. It's not a secret.
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately. That's the give away that the policies are racially motivated.
It is being applied to students now to erase Black culture which is a form of racism. The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn't exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn't mean it's not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it's to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
I've repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it's cultural heritage.
Apparently you don't know what heritage means:
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me "splitting hairs."
Still waiting for this evidence. You've alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
On this point we agree. What we disagree on is that we know this particular rule is racist or being applied in a racist manner or that it's intent is to erase black culture. I think (although could be convinced otherwise) it's the same thing that it has always been: forcing conformity on young men.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Page 29 has stats on how dress code enforcement impacts racial minorities.
Black people are overrepresented in disciplinary action while White people are underrepresented in disciplinary action. While Hispanic people are not disproportionately overrepresented by a significant margin, they are still among the most targeted by disciplinary actions which is probably why news articles mention them.
This is factually incorrect as I already demonstrated. The policy disproportionately targets Black people to in order to erase their culture. Also, your argument being wrong is not context.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People's culture. Everyone knows this. Your argument is disingenuous.
My point is that wigs aren't relevant to the discussion. They had largely fallen out of favor in the US public at the start of the 19th century. White men started to wear their hair short. The fact that some Presidents still wore them in the 19th century, a minority of White people to be sure, is not relevant. Also, while some early 19th century US presidents wore wigs in their youth some of them they may have stopped by the time they took office or while holding office. It is common knowledge that wigs are not part of White people's cultural heritage in the US.
Your argument about wigs has no merit and ignores what is actually happening as described in the article. No one is forcing people to wear wigs. They are forcing people to have short hair. Short hair has been the enduring cultural heritage of White men in the United States.
To White people's standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out. Your argument relies on ignoring facts to attempt to ignore the policy's racism.
If the claim is that rules/laws are applied unfairly on black students (or people in general), I absolutely agree. The stats strongly support this. But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men. Just say you don't have the evidence for this. It's really that simple.
No, what you've shown is that punishment is disproportionately doled out against black people. Something I agree with. But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist. Which is, of course, nonsense. What you are arguing is that our justice system has biases in it, and something we both agree with.
Then why talk about heritage at all? And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Blatant projection.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it's predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It's you who has the double-standard. If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it's you who is racist.
The ACLU report goes into detail about this starting at page 21. Pages 21 to 29 cover racial discrimination.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Yes, systemic racism exists in our society. It is deeply embedded in our intuitions.
Because it is relevant to the discussion. The wigs specifically are not.
The long hair styles were wigs.
An argument about wigs being the cultural of heritage of White men in the United States is disingenuous.
This is argument is historically inaccurate. White men in the US have historically had short hair. It's been that way since the early 19th century. Black men have a historical culture heritage of long hair that predates the policing of black hair in the United States.
Ad hominem attacks reduce your argument's credibility. edit: typo
No one is talking about wigs? WTF? Why do you keep lying?
lol. I'm done.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument was refuted so now you're relying on splitting hairs over what hair styles actually were.
After calling me a racist too. ROFL XD
Incorrect. And that's a fact (not opinion, maybe you'll learn). It's so easy to look up to make sure you aren't wrong. . .and still you don't? Amazing.
I just said using your own metric, you're racist. I don't agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
Your argument has abandoned the premise we are discussing in favor of focusing on wigs again. I took the time to add some sources to the lower section of my argument since your argument now rests on splitting hairs over hair styles and ad hominem attacks.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, policies regulating hair length are racist against Black people.
I'm not forcing people to cut their hair or denying them their cultural heritage. So by my argument's own metric your argument is incorrect about its conclusion. Still though, I have nothing to do with this discussion. Ad hominem attacks about me do not add credibility to your argument. Your argument has been refuted by the evidence presented. Again here is the source.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Here is some stuff I learned about wigs that refutes your argument about long hair not being wigs in reference to 19th century US presidents.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument even referenced 19th century US presidents with long hair styles. Those long hair styles were wigs which were worn in their youth at the end of 18th century and which were mostly abandoned by those presidents by the time they took office in the 19th century in favor of short hair.
Here is a source that covers the relevant time period. Lincoln occasionally wore a wig.
https://www.sishair.com/presidents-who-wore-wigs/
One notable error in the article is that Washington's hair was powered to make it look like a wig. But that he was a president during the 18th century when wigs were still popular, which explains that fashion choice.
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/ten-misconceptions-about-washington/
This wiki page has some more details backed up by sources. Again, some of these 19th century presidents had worn wigs earlier in life, but Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had, as far as we know, mostly stopped by the time they were actually in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wig