A Difficult Conversation

[VikingsGuy]

Honest questions: Should you treat someone different based upon an assumption of their life experiences? In this case, by seeing someone's color, what assumptions should I make and how should I adjust how I treat that person? If I start from a place of treating everyone with respect, should I change how I act based upon the color of the skin of a person I'm meeting for the first time?

The reason I ask all of this is because of what I've said before about how my parents were/are not racist and I don't believe I am either. So it's confusing to me to be told that I should "see color" when it's never affected how I treated someone before. I think people like me get confused and turned around when we get told to "see color" because it implies that we should adjust our actions in some way based on the color.

I don't have a magic answer, but I just take it one step at a time - and lead with empathy. I try to treat all strangers with a base level of love and respect as commanded by my faith. As I interact with a person I try to be open and aware of how they may have specific needs/perspectives. I may interact with an old woman differently than a young man. Not to the level of stereotyping, but from a perspective of empathy and openness to the differences their lives may have taken them down. Similarly, I will likely adjust my approach if I see a lone male on a trail vs a lone woman. Maybe the woman has no concerns and is a Navy seal that could kick my ass, but being a good-sized guy I would try to give her a little more space and make sure I wasn't looming over her. In contrast, I wouldn't think at all about how I walked past the guy. Similarly, if I saw a black hunter at a small WY pub sitting alone I might make sure to say hi or buy him/her a drink to show acceptance/support. I have one black friend who appreciates it when I mention some of the racial things I am seeing/reading, another one doesn't want to talk about it all. I try to meet each in their own place, but in the end, we are each shaped by our experience, our culture, our history, our faith (or lack thereof) and yes, our racial experiences.

 

[Vidimus]

Seems like when you disagree it is not a difficult conversation, but rather "it loses you". However, you suggest that the appropriate "difficult conversation" is when the "other" has to answer to your beliefs. An interesting approach to "difficult conversations" - I am right, you are wrong, now explain how you are going to do what I tell you to do. Not exactly building understanding or bridges.

I could waste my time explaining how you are wrong but you clearly think you have me all figured out so I won't.

Edit: Eh ok I was cranky about that. Been getting into Stoisim more lately and not doing a very good job of self discipline wrt angry sarcasm yet, especially when its so easy to be snappy. Its just so tedious at this point to be accused of racism, which you are clearly doing by implying that I think of the black community at the "other". Nonsense drivel of course. My point was simply that the discussion Steve had was from the same perspective as literally every single megacorp in America at the moment so it is obviously not difficult. He did try to push a little deeper a couple times and props for that but for the most part the focus seemed to be that black people are not outside because racism. I don't even know if Rue believes that herself since her organization didn't seem hyper focused on that before. They jump straight to "this is what needs to happen to fix the problem" without ever proving what the problem actually is, and if their interpretation of a solution is the only/best/effective solution available.

That's where the "difficult" part of the conversation needs to happen. What exactly is the problem, and I know Rue said she "doesn't need to know the numbers" but sorry, not how it works. You need to demonstrate a problem using the data available. Secondly, if there is a problem, whats the best approach to fixing it? I find that most of my problems in life are self inflicted and that even if they are not, my personal attitude and actions go much much further toward solving my problems than pointing fingers at everyone else, right or wrong. That's why its a difficult conversation, because people like you are eagerly awaiting the chance to show how not racist you are by calling anyone who disagrees with the socially accepted approach a racist. And that's why it's not going to get fixed, only one approach is allowed, evidence is cherrypicked and/or not even accepted unless it supports the desired conclusion, and any exploration of ideas and solutions outside that ever shrinking Overton Window results in blacklisting and accusations of racism. Hey if I'm wrong, and the solution to getting more people in the outdoors involves laying massive blame on everyone instead of encouraging some level of self responsibility and autonomy, then that's a good thing and the problem will disappear because that's the only thing everyone is focusing on right now.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I could waste my time explaining how you are wrong but you clearly think you have me all figured out so I won't.

Edit: Eh ok I was cranky about that. Been getting into Stoisim more lately and not doing a very good job of self discipline wrt angry sarcasm yet, especially when its so easy to be snappy. Its just so tedious at this point to be accused of racism, which you are clearly doing by implying that I think of the black community at the "other". Nonsense drivel of course. My point was simply that the discussion Steve had was from the same perspective as literally every single megacorp in America at the moment so it is obviously not difficult. He did try to push a little deeper a couple times and props for that but for the most part the focus seemed to be that black people are not outside because racism. I don't even know if Rue believes that herself since her organization didn't seem hyper focused on that before. They jump straight to "this is what needs to happen to fix the problem" without ever proving what the problem actually is, and if their interpretation of a solution is the only/best/effective solution available.

That's where the "difficult" part of the conversation needs to happen. What exactly is the problem, and I know Rue said she "doesn't need to know the numbers" but sorry, not how it works. You need to demonstrate a problem using the data available. Secondly, if there is a problem, whats the best approach to fixing it? I find that most of my problems in life are self inflicted and that even if they are not, my personal attitude and actions go much much further toward solving my problems than pointing fingers at everyone else, right or wrong. That's why its a difficult conversation, because people like you are eagerly awaiting the chance to show how not racist you are by calling anyone who disagrees with the socially accepted approach a racist. And that's why it's not going to get fixed, only one approach is allowed, evidence is cherrypicked and/or not even accepted unless it supports the desired conclusion, and any exploration of ideas and solutions outside that ever shrinking Overton Window results in blacklisting and accusations of racism. Hey if I'm wrong, and the solution to getting more people in the outdoors involves laying massive blame on everyone instead of encouraging some level of self responsibility and autonomy, then that's a good thing and the problem will disappear because that's the only thing everyone is focusing on right now.

Thanks for responding with more detail.

I did not call you a racist, and I am certainly not some social justice warrior - I am a white capitalist quasi-libertarian Christian Reagan lover. I am not trying to play "gotcha" or suggest there is only one path to a socially acceptable discussion. I am trying to get similarly conservative Christian white males to set aside the tired canned answers that are so comfortable to us and be open to a broader discussion - to see the world through a different lens for a moment - not to surrender to it, but to seek understanding from it. It is about empathy, openness, humility, flexibility, and engagement. You are the one who seems fixed on one right analysis, the one who thinks that the only difficult discussions are the ones the other side is dodging. Did you stop to think the "difficult conversation" that was referenced in the title was not about asking the tough questions of the black woman you disagree with, but rather about the difficulty conservative white western rural males have in doing anything more than dismissing the conversation out of hand? Demanding others prove to your personal satisfaction is the easy conversation, challenging our own assumptions is the hard conversation.

 

[Vidimus]

Thanks for responding with more detail.

I did not call you a racist, and I am certainly not some social justice warrior - I am a white capitalist quasi-libertarian Christian Reagan lover. I am not trying to play "gotcha" or suggest there is only one path to a socially acceptable discussion. I am trying to get similarly conservative Christian white males to set aside the tired canned answers that are so comfortable to us and be open to a broader discussion - to see the world through a different lens for a moment - not to surrender to it, but to seek understanding from it. It is about empathy, openness, humility, flexibility, and engagement. You are the one who seems fixed on one right analysis, the one who thinks that the only difficult discussions are the ones the other side is dodging. Did you stop to think the "difficult conversation" that was referenced in the title was not about asking the tough questions of the black woman you disagree with, but rather about the difficulty conservative white western rural males have in doing anything more than dismissing the conversation out of hand? Demanding others prove to your personal satisfaction is the easy conversation, challenging our own assumptions is the hard conversation.

I don't care if you are white, black, brown or whatever. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So until they stop asserting that systemic racism is the root of all evil without proving it, then I can dismiss it. And its not a matter of "proving to my satisfaction" it's a matter of factually proving the issue exists. I've looked at the statistics myself and statistically speaking the evidence doesn't exist. It simply doesn't, that's not my opinion, and the fact remains even if all of society disagrees. As an accountant Randy probably understands the numbers don't add up either, and with a degree in applied math myself I absolutely know the current information we have doesn't support a proof. I'm certainly open to new details but you seem to think that no information is required, just taking random anecdotes and feelings as "proof". And stereotyping "conservative white western rural males" as not having empathy, or being close-minded and lacking engagement its nonsense. That exists in every segment of every demographic, its not unique to whitey. In fact I've found the personalities I've encountered through the outdoors are some of the most engaged and truly charitable people I know. I know, mine are anecdotes but so are yours.

You assume I don't accept the premise because I'm close-minded and lack empathy. You are wrong. I don't accept it because its unproven, and whats worse is apparently those pushing this premise feel like they don't need to prove it. To accept an unproven premise with the level of serious repercussions that the proposed "solutions" would have, is foolish and cowardly. If you can prove, with data driven evidence, that systemic racism is a significant factor keeping black Americans from experiencing the outdoors than I'll be right there with you. Until then, I think systemic racism is a myth as the evidence suggests, that the black community should be the most empowered to effect their own change, and that making this discussion about racism instead of empowerment will have negative results. Others have said it before, but by accepting that racism is the main problem you remove the agency of the black community. You make their success and happiness dependent on someone else, not themselves. You decide they are not capable enough to succeed, unlike many other minorities that have found success in the US. You decide they are too weak and helpless on their own. Needless to say, I do not believe that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't care if you are white, black, brown or whatever. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So until they stop asserting that systemic racism is the root of all evil without proving it, then I can dismiss it. And its not a matter of "proving to my satisfaction" it's a matter of factually proving the issue exists. I've looked at the statistics myself and statistically speaking the evidence doesn't exist. It simply doesn't, that's not my opinion, and the fact remains even if all of society disagrees. As an accountant Randy probably understands the numbers don't add up either, and with a degree in applied math myself I absolutely know the current information we have doesn't support a proof. I'm certainly open to new details but you seem to think that no information is required, just taking random anecdotes and feelings as "proof". And stereotyping "conservative white western rural males" as not having empathy, or being close-minded and lacking engagement its nonsense. That exists in every segment of every demographic, its not unique to whitey. In fact I've found the personalities I've encountered through the outdoors are some of the most engaged and truly charitable people I know. I know, mine are anecdotes but so are yours.

You assume I don't accept the premise because I'm close-minded and lack empathy. You are wrong. I don't accept it because its unproven, and whats worse is apparently those pushing this premise feel like they don't need to prove it. To accept an unproven premise with the level of serious repercussions that the proposed "solutions" would have, is foolish and cowardly. If you can prove, with data driven evidence, that systemic racism is a significant factor keeping black Americans from experiencing the outdoors than I'll be right there with you. Until then, I think systemic racism is a myth as the evidence suggests, that the black community should be the most empowered to effect their own change, and that making this discussion about racism instead of empowerment will have negative results. Others have said it before, but by accepting that racism is the main problem you remove the agency of the black community. You make their success and happiness dependent on someone else, not themselves. You decide they are not capable enough to succeed, unlike many other minorities that have found success in the US. You decide they are too weak and helpless on their own. Needless to say, I do not believe that.

First of all, the determination by one person/group to declare what is the presumed truth on a non-scientific topic and then demand from that premise that others “prove” the opposite is not the way constructive social and political discourse works. Why is “prove that racism plays a role in rate of incarceration or home ownership or relative wealth” the correct and only proper question? Why is the right question not, “there are mathematical disparities for blacks in incarceration rates, wealth and home ownership, and given 200+ years of slavery followed by 100 years of segregation (a system that existed in the lifetimes of people who are still alive) and relatively recent “redlining” practices related to housing how does one prove that race does not still continue to play a material role in these numbers”? The bulk of human history points to animosity towards the other, and the devaluing of the lives of people of color, and while we have made much progress, isn't it reasonable that the starting hypothesis be that these threads are still a part of our social fabric and reasonable starting condition - one to which we should have to prove we have overcome?

And, before you rest firm in the total lack of evidence of systemic unfairness, read some books/articles about “redlining” and let me know if that is not meaningful evidence of systematic treatment by race to the detriment of blacks - home ownership is both empowering and a major creator of wealth in America. This is one example of systemic disadvantage In our lifetime and the evidence that it happened is undeniable.

As for rejecting the premise because you reject proposed solutions, this is not a great way to work on social/political problems. It focuses on shutting off the conversation without fully engaging, unwillingness in finding potential win-wins within the dialog and feeds into a known intellectual bias. There are some interesting scientific papers that show that people actually assess statistical evidence differently if they disapprove in advance of of presumed solutions the data might suggest. And the more educated you are the more this bias interferes with unbiased judgment of the math.

As for stereotyping others. I too agree that there are lots of great, kind hearted folks in the rural west. But having worked all over the US and much of the world, a large share of conservative white males I have met have a fairly predictable response to this discussion. Call it anecdotal if you wish, but it’s anecdotal with a large and diverse (but obviously not random) “n”.

As for self-agency, you and I probably agree on this to a fair extent. (I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell when it comes to the preconditions of success.) But if there are unlawful/immoral/unjust headwinds in a society then shouldn’t we eliminate them while still holding our fellow citizens able. But this goes more to the “now what”, than to the question of headwinds - do they exist or not. While I believe in many ways it is better/easier to be born white in America and that there are headwinds if born black, I want to solve for those headwinds without the socialist silliness that is being trotted out these days. I want education, family and hard work to be the foundation of the restoration - but we need to tackle the headwinds that make this more difficult for some than others without further institutionalizing victimhood and the welfare state. Not an easy task, but one that is worth the effort.

 

[Vidimus]

First of all, the determination by one person/group to declare what is the presumed truth on a non-scientific topic and then demand from that premise that others “prove” the opposite is not the way constructive social and political discourse works. Why is “prove that racism plays a role in rate of incarceration or home ownership or relative wealth” the correct and only proper question? Why is the right question not, “there are mathematical disparities for blacks in incarceration rates, wealth and home ownership, and given 200+ years of slavery followed by 100 years of segregation (a system that existed in the lifetimes of people who are still alive) and relatively recent “redlining” practices related to housing how does one prove that race does not still continue to play a material role in these numbers”? The bulk of human history points to animosity towards the other, and the devaluing of the lives of people of color, and while we have made much progress, isn't it reasonable that the starting hypothesis be that these threads are still a part of our social fabric and reasonable starting condition - one to which we should have to prove we have overcome?

And, before you rest firm in the total lack of evidence of systemic unfairness, read some books/articles about “redlining” and let me know if that is not meaningful evidence of systematic treatment by race to the detriment of blacks - home ownership is both empowering and a major creator of wealth in America. This is one example of systemic disadvantage In our lifetime and the evidence that it happened is undeniable.

As for rejecting the premise because you reject proposed solutions, this is not a great way to work on social/political problems. It focuses on shutting off the conversation without fully engaging, unwillingness in finding potential win-wins within the dialog and feeds into a known intellectual bias. There are some interesting scientific papers that show that people actually assess statistical evidence differently if they disapprove in advance of of presumed solutions the data might suggest. And the more educated you are the more this bias interferes with unbiased judgment of the math.

As for stereotyping others. I too agree that there are lots of great, kind hearted folks in the rural west. But having worked all over the US and much of the world, a large share of conservative white males I have met have a fairly predictable response to this discussion. Call it anecdotal if you wish, but it’s anecdotal with a large and diverse (but obviously not random) “n”.

As for self-agency, you and I probably agree on this to a fair extent. (I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell when it comes to the preconditions of success.) But if there are unlawful/immoral/unjust headwinds in a society then shouldn’t we eliminate them while still holding our fellow citizens able. But this goes more to the “now what”, than to the question of headwinds - do they exist or not. While I believe in many ways it is better/easier to be born white in America and that there are headwinds if born black, I want to solve for those headwinds without the socialist silliness that is being trotted out these days. I want education, family and hard work to be the foundation of the restoration - but we need to tackle the headwinds that make this more difficult for some than others without further institutionalizing victimhood and the welfare state. Not an easy task, but one that is worth the effort.

"Why is “prove that racism plays a role in rate of incarceration or home ownership or relative wealth” the correct and only proper question?" That's the only proper question now because that's the excuse people use to try to discriminate now. So yes, you better be able to prove that and not pretend it doesn't need to be proven because X. Anti-discrimination laws wrt house, hiring, etc have either made it illegal to discriminate against blacks, or have actually made it legal to discriminate against white. Getting into college is easier for blacks than any other race. Getting advantages in academia is easier for minorities than whites (except Asians, its OK to discriminate against them because that's the new rules I guess). California is literally trying to repeal Prop 209 which "banned the consideration of race and sex in public education, employment and contracting" so that they can discriminate legally. This is why people like Elizabeth Warren pretend to be a minority, it gives them advantages. Any minority actually discriminated against gets rich with an easy lawsuit. So again, before tearing down the system you better prove the reason for tearing it down is actually valid.

That said, did there used to be headwinds? Sure. Are some blacks born at a disadvantage? Sure. So are a bunch of whites. There are more white families living below the poverty line than black families. Poor white families face the same headwinds as poor black families. Maybe its not so much a race thing as a class thing, a rich and poor thing? You will say that the percentage doesn't match populations but that doesn't seem to matter when you look at police brutality. Blacks are underrepresented in police shootings based on their rate of violent crime and whites are over represented, so why does that percentage not matter but the percentage living under the poverty line does? Blacks kill 2x as many whites as vice versa per year, certainly not in line with population percentages but somehow that doesn't matter either?

In countries that rank higher on the "freedom" metric, mostly Nordic/Northern European nations, you see demographic disparities increase. In other words, when people are more free to choose, they often choose what really makes them happy, instead of what society tries to push them toward, which shows up as unequal representation across whatever metric you use. Therefore, unequal representation doesn't automatically mean discrimination, systemic or otherwise. So acting like every sliver of humanity not being equally represented in every facet of society can only be the result of systemic discrimination is flawed from the beginning.

IMO the only correct solution on a social level is creating as much equality of opportunity as possible. It's up to the individual to decide what to do with that opportunity. This environment we're in were whitey gets the blame for all the evils of the world, despite the white Americans alive today being indisputably the least racist generation ever, is dangerous and not going to lead anywhere good. I agree with you that real education (based on reality, not myths like the current systemic racism mythology) family and hard work is what generates a fair society. All this racial division is manufactured nonsense designed to create chaos. And you can tell that's the case because the most strident supporters of this idea are emotion machines, unable or unwilling to slow down, research and analyze the data and make factually informed decisions. You seem like a good guy and a sincere guy and tho we disagree on this, if all people that think like you were like that then we'd be in a much better spot socially.

 

[VikingsGuy]

"Why is “prove that racism plays a role in rate of incarceration or home ownership or relative wealth” the correct and only proper question?" That's the only proper question now because that's the excuse people use to try to discriminate now. So yes, you better be able to prove that and not pretend it doesn't need to be proven because X. Anti-discrimination laws wrt house, hiring, etc have either made it illegal to discriminate against blacks, or have actually made it legal to discriminate against white. Getting into college is easier for blacks than any other race. Getting advantages in academia is easier for minorities than whites (except Asians, its OK to discriminate against them because that's the new rules I guess). California is literally trying to repeal Prop 209 which "banned the consideration of race and sex in public education, employment and contracting" so that they can discriminate legally. This is why people like Elizabeth Warren pretend to be a minority, it gives them advantages. Any minority actually discriminated against gets rich with an easy lawsuit. So again, before tearing down the system you better prove the reason for tearing it down is actually valid.

That said, did there used to be headwinds? Sure. Are some blacks born at a disadvantage? Sure. So are a bunch of whites. There are more white families living below the poverty line than black families. Poor white families face the same headwinds as poor black families. Maybe its not so much a race thing as a class thing, a rich and poor thing? You will say that the percentage doesn't match populations but that doesn't seem to matter when you look at police brutality. Blacks are underrepresented in police shootings based on their rate of violent crime and whites are over represented, so why does that percentage not matter but the percentage living under the poverty line does? Blacks kill 2x as many whites as vice versa per year, certainly not in line with population percentages but somehow that doesn't matter either?

In countries that rank higher on the "freedom" metric, mostly Nordic/Northern European nations, you see demographic disparities increase. In other words, when people are more free to choose, they often choose what really makes them happy, instead of what society tries to push them toward, which shows up as unequal representation across whatever metric you use. Therefore, unequal representation doesn't automatically mean discrimination, systemic or otherwise. So acting like every sliver of humanity not being equally represented in every facet of society can only be the result of systemic discrimination is flawed from the beginning.

IMO the only correct solution on a social level is creating as much equality of opportunity as possible. It's up to the individual to decide what to do with that opportunity. This environment we're in were whitey gets the blame for all the evils of the world, despite the white Americans alive today being indisputably the least racist generation ever, is dangerous and not going to lead anywhere good. I agree with you that real education (based on reality, not myths like the current systemic racism mythology) family and hard work is what generates a fair society. All this racial division is manufactured nonsense designed to create chaos. And you can tell that's the case because the most strident supporters of this idea are emotion machines, unable or unwilling to slow down, research and analyze the data and make factually informed decisions. You seem like a good guy and a sincere guy and tho we disagree on this, if all people that think like you were like that then we'd be in a much better spot socially.

I appreciate your willingness to participate in the exchange and even if we disagree, I believe we both care about this country and its people. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree, but I wish you happy hunting and I am sure we will spar again some other time, but maybe over something really compelling like if 6.5 creedmoor is enough cartridge for bull elk

 

[Addicting]

I suspect you are correct to some degree.

I was a guest on the Urban Archer NYC podcast last week. Was it coincidence? Nope. Cliff Cadet, the host and hunter, who happens to be a black, saw the comments on my IG when I posted a black screen on June 2nd. He saw me engaging with the audience. He had followed me in the past, but we had never connected. He jumped in on those IG discussions, engaging with the audience from the perspective of a black urban male who hunted. It took a lot of people off guard the way he presented himself. He contacted me afterward and asked if I would be on his podcast. I understood some would have the immediate response that I did this because of the events since the George Floyd death, but I agreed. Yeah, the George Floyd event and the following weeks of tension did bring Cliff and I together. It wasn't by accident.

Glad I did that with Cliff. Link here - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/when-the-hunt-calls/id1497160704

Recently, there was a thread on Hunt Talk about another black hunter who was on the Nine Fingers Chronicle podcast, Arlando Chiles. He was then on the Gritty podcast. The topic of me and Arlando communicating over the last two years came up in both podcasts.

Arlando came to Montana bear hunting in May, but due to COVID, we couldn't get together for a visit. A couple weeks later, the George Floyd event blew up. I did a podcast with Arlando last week, knowing full well that many will say I am just pandering, having the token black hunter on my podcast because of all that is/was going on. Would they have viewed it any differently if we had been able to meet in May before the George Floyd event? Not sure.

In spite of those who don't know the real gig, I'm going forward with releasing it and will take the anticipated comments for what they are. I'm surely not going to ignore a person who I've been communicating with the last two years, just because we have a lot of tensions in our country surrounding the issue of race. That he happens to be a black hunter who has an interesting story of how he found his way to hunting and how he is using hunting to help in his community, makes it even more compelling during these times.

Similar to the question about Meateater, "Did these two podcasts, one on which I'm a guest and one I am a host, happen by accident?" Not really.

But, nothing I do is by accident. I want to push discussions. I want to be uncomfortable in my confidence that my view of the world has it all figured out. Having these discussions helps me think harder of my life experiences that have formed my world view, especially when I compare them to folks who have a way different life experience, yet we both ended up at the same end point when it comes to our love of wild things, wild places, and hunting. I won't quit having these discussions offline or online, due to the amplified tone of the current times that might put me at higher risk or more discomfort.

I've not listened to this Meateater podcast. Maybe my road time home tomorrow will be a good time to do it. Whether it was or wasn't by accident, I'm interested in these discussions.

I listened to the podcast today and was very impressed on how the mission and drive of both parties was the forefront of the entire 2 hours. Unlike the other two podcasts previously mentioned where color and demographic seemed to be in the forefront. I hope as Arlando grows and matures as a outdoor role model, others will be inspired and follow suit. Thankyou for bringing us along on a refreshing Hunter to Hunter conversation.

 

[Trial153]

I finally got to listen to this podcast on one of my recent flights. I thought it was exceptional. Kudos to Steve and his guest for being candid ane thought provoking while still being entertaining. Not easy to do when dealing withing with a difficult subject.