Onto The Right
So, the discussion about the Indians changing their name gave me the idea to search 'who decides what it racist' to see what would come up. The actual verbiage I used in DuckDuckGo was, "leftists who make everything racist". The article linked above came up as a result and the title intrigued me so I read it. Let me preface this by saying when I mention liberals I'm talking about the leftist neo-marxist liberals, not the traditional Democrats. There is a huge difference between them other than who they vote for. I have to say I had
no idea just how different the mindset is in how liberals view racism. After reading the article I thought about how so many conversations with liberal co-workers and comments here actually make sense in light of how the author described their mindset on racism. The crazy thing is, I thought this was written recently when in fact, it was written in 2018. Not long ago but also feels like a different..... I was going to say decade. Lol. It literally is, but you know what I mean. 2019 feels like five years ago at this point.
The first paragraph starts like this......
The DC “Unite the Right” rally resurfaced the silly “Who’s the real racist?” game. When liberals call conservatives or conservative opinions racist, conservatives respond: “No, you are the real racist!” But conservatives don’t seem to understand that liberals use that term in a different way. Worse, conservatives damage conservatism by arguing. If they are going to play the game, conservatives should do so with open eyes.
Let me start by acknowledging the obvious: racism is bad. The game isn’t silly because the response is wrong; people on the left really are racist. Of course I am generalizing, but it isn’t far off. Does anyone on the left not embrace identity politics, which is about judging people by their group identity as defined by race, sex, and queerness? This seems pretty racist by any textbook definition of racism.
And he goes on. I don't want to pick and choose things to copy and paste because I think the whole article needs to be read for context. There are a few things I'm still trying to sort out as far as how black people can be racist if they're not liberal/Democrat to fit what the author is saying, but that's for discussion after you've actually read the article and can talk about it. So what do you guys think?
I haven't read the article yet, but this is what I have been saying here. Racism is a political tool, first and foremost, because political power is how they believe they can effectuate change.
(12-16-2020, 10:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't read the article yet, but this is what I have been saying here. Racism is a political tool, first and foremost, because political power is how they believe they can effectuate change.
Identity politics specifically. But how racism is viewed and accepted according to the author is not what I expected, but it makes a lot of sense now.
Read the article. Its quite interesting. Maybe everyone else knew all he pointed out, but I didn't. I was aware of identity politics but didn't link it to their abject hatred of anything not liberal. At least not to the degree it is. I guess because I do my thing and am more of a "live and let live" kind of person, I don't realize so many have a serious agenda that is very much anti-American, anti-conservative, and plain anti- everything that is not them.
2020, some old friends, and people on this board have shown me otherwise.
I took the time to read it. I didn't see anything that stood out as incorrect. This stuff is a lot more nuanced than what is described, but the guy has got the general premises correct. This is why I keep saying we don't know what we're up against. People are just unaware of what the progressive movement is actually trying to accomplish. Either that or they think it's an underfunded, obscure movement that doesn't have any power. Democrats wield the progressive movement as a stick, but it's only a matter of time before they can't contain it anymore.
I read the whole article, and now my head hurts. I'm still trying to digest parts of the article like this:
"Many leftists probably do not really want to kill all white people [font=Cambria, georgia, serif][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]even if some do[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif] ([/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]and try.[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif])[/font][/font] They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out, just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however."
...and my mind is like:
[font=Cambria, georgia, serif]"Many leftists [how many? including white leftists too?] probably do not really want to kill all white people [well, that's a relief] even if some do (and try.) [oh no!]. They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out [making them the new oppressed minority big time], just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide [ethnic cleansing, progressive stlye] stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however." [huh? ok, I am lost and need to read it all over again][/font]
(12-17-2020, 02:21 AM)KodiakJag Wrote: [ -> ]I read the whole article, and now my head hurts. I'm still trying to digest parts of the article like this:
"Many leftists probably do not really want to kill all white people [font=Cambria, georgia, serif][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]even if some do[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif] ([/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]and try.[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif])[/font][/font] They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out, just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however."
...and my mind is like:
[font=Cambria, georgia, serif]"Many leftists [how many? including white leftists too?] probably do not really want to kill all white people [well, that's a relief] even if some do (and try.) [oh no!]. They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out [making them the new oppressed minority big time], just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide [ethnic cleansing, progressive stlye] stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however." [huh? ok, I am lost and need to read it all over again][/font]
Its not complicated, the activist left view of whites (men in particular but women are starting to feel it now) ranges from "Shut up whitey, your time is over" to "Up against the wall and hold this target over your chest", and as they gain more power the scale will slide more and more to the latter, even if it's just self preservation on the part of the former to shut up and sing. Until the crocodile is ready to eat them too.
It's an interesting article, and I agree with a lot of it.
But I think it should be pointed out, he's talking about the extreme far left engaging in actual racist thoughts. Racism is defined as "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." The thought that if a person is white, they are inherently racist, is a racist thought under that definition.
The identity politics practiced by the Democratic Party in the form of affirmative action, and race-based solutions, is discriminatory, and hypocritical, and it provokes racism, and in my opinion it is very bad policy. But it's not racist according to the definition of racism.
My point is, what he says is largely true, but he's only talking about the extreme far left of the political spectrum. Normal liberals are guilty of endorsing discrimination, but they are not racists. So when he says "the left," he should say "the far left," and not paint the entire left with this "racist" label.
So to an extent, he's right- liberals shouldn't paint conservatives with the sins of the far right, but by the same token, conservatives should not paint liberals with the sins of the far left.
The white leftists don't identify as white because, again, it's not actually about skin color. They call themselves allies or antiracist. It's the same way that conservative blacks are not considered black. You are still trying to process this through the lens of race and it will never make sense that way. "White" is a group that has benefitted from capitalism and doesn't want to change the system because it's the source of their political power. Leftists who are Caucasian absolve themselves of that sin by allying with other minority groups and calling for equity via some form of globalist socialism.
The left discovered long ago that dropping the 'R' card is effective at culling queasy moderate Republicans.
There is a lot that happened during the post modern movement in the 60's and 70's, but one of the tools that was adopted by the left during that time was the dynamic use of language. Basically, post modern philosophers questioned our ability to know any truth. This included language, which introduced a fluidity in defining words. Since language is a social construct, you can define them however you like. When you combine that idea with critical theory, it's only logical that language should leveraged to gain political power. It's very interesting to watch regular people try to explain away sayings like, "Defund the police." They know they don't actually want that, but have no problems picking up a mantra, so long as the words can be explained in a way that makes sense. I feel like it's a form of brainwashing, but, I haven't gotten to read up on it as much as I'd like. Like most concepts, once you get into the literature, the motivations become more clear. It might be my next deep dive. I want to either read up on language or gaslighting (and there is probably some overlap there).
(12-17-2020, 10:19 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]The left discovered long ago that dropping the 'R' card is effective at culling queasy moderate Republicans.
You may remember I was here asking you to vote yes on FL amendment 3 for top two primaries.
In September, Sean Shaw and the Florida Black Legislative caucus said that passing this amendment would reduce minority representation. There was no evidence, in fact the evidence we have points the other way. No matter. The League of Women Voters had been working on open primaries for 5 years. They had already voted to support Amendment 3. Suddenly they got scared of being called racist and so they changed their endorsement and linked arms with the FL Democratic party. They have been a nonpartisan organization in Florida for 80 years! But just a little hint of being accused of racism in 2020 brought them to heel.
So yes, accusations of racism absolutely are a cudgel for the left.
(12-17-2020, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's an interesting article, and I agree with a lot of it.
But I think it should be pointed out, he's talking about the extreme far left engaging in actual racist thoughts. Racism is defined as "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." The thought that if a person is white, they are inherently racist, is a racist thought under that definition.
The identity politics practiced by the Democratic Party in the form of affirmative action, and race-based solutions, is discriminatory, and hypocritical, and it provokes racism, and in my opinion it is very bad policy. But it's not racist according to the definition of racism.
My point is, what he says is largely true, but he's only talking about the extreme far left of the political spectrum. Normal liberals are guilty of endorsing discrimination, but they are not racists. So when he says "the left," he should say "the far left," and not paint the entire left with this "racist" label.
So to an extent, he's right- liberals shouldn't paint conservatives with the sins of the far right, but by the same token, conservatives should not paint liberals with the sins of the far left.
To use the definition of racist doesn't really work here because, as the author pointed out, leftist liberals do not view racism by its definition. They view racists and racism as (from the article):
To people on the left, who already deny men are created equal, a racist is a member of the oppressor class. The Left understands racism this way because they see everything in terms of group identity and power. A case in point: Laura Ingraham made some fairly common-sense observations recently, and even made sure to emphasize she was not talking about race. Ingraham talked about consent, the rule of law, and immigration; she didn’t say a thing about power. Yet CNN’s Brian Stelter cannot see it any other way, claiming Ingraham was pandering to “white, Christian America’s fear of losing power” and is a racist. Racism, they say, is not simply prejudice. It is now “prejudice + power.” One cannot be racist if one does not have power, so only white people can be racist. That last sentence is where I get stuck because plenty of black people have power. The Obamas and Oprah to name two right off the bat. Unless the leftists don't believe Obama and Oprah actually have power, they're just puppets in the white mans theater.
I agree that he should have identified the far left as his target, and he kind of did by calling them neo-marxists, but was not consistent throughout the article. This is why I said in my initial post when I say 'liberals' I mean the leftist liberals, not the traditional Democrats. The party is being hijacked by the leftist liberals and traditional Dems are becoming guilty by association. (I feel the same about the Republican party being hijacked by fanatic Trump fans.) Both parties are being infiltrated by third party members who can't win on their own ticket so they run under R or D. This goes for groups who know they won't be heard through third party so they attach their message to the closest one. BLM has done this with the Democrats.
Affirmative action and race-based solutions are not new to the D party, but it's going next level crazy with the cancel culture.
Anyone who endorses discrimination is racist, no? To endorse means to approve. How can one approve of racism and not be racist? That doesn't even make sense.
(12-17-2020, 09:16 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The white leftists don't identify as white because, again, it's not actually about skin color. They call themselves allies or antiracist. It's the same way that conservative blacks are not considered black. You are still trying to process this through the lens of race and it will never make sense that way. "White" is a group that has benefitted from capitalism and doesn't want to change the system because it's the source of their political power. Leftists who are Caucasian absolve themselves of that sin by allying with other minority groups and calling for equity via some form of globalist socialism.
I thought of this after I read the article when my husband asked about white leftists. I told him it's not about skin color, it's about ideology. Ideology trumps everything that is logical and is why you can't reason with it. Terrorist groups are all about ideology (and brainwashing) and is why they have no problem with being martyrs for their cause.
The same goes for black conservatives. They are seen by the leftists as Uncle Toms and are aligned with the oppressors so they fall into their category of racist even if they're not white. Guilty by association.
Interesting. The article definitely helped me see better how the leftists think in regards to this subject for sure and seeing other points of view that aren't mudslinging and name calling (yet) are helpful.
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama and Oprah have power but are not racist as I pointed out in my reply to The Real Marty.
(12-17-2020, 12:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2020, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]It's an interesting article, and I agree with a lot of it.
But I think it should be pointed out, he's talking about the extreme far left engaging in actual racist thoughts. Racism is defined as "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." The thought that if a person is white, they are inherently racist, is a racist thought under that definition.
The identity politics practiced by the Democratic Party in the form of affirmative action, and race-based solutions, is discriminatory, and hypocritical, and it provokes racism, and in my opinion it is very bad policy. But it's not racist according to the definition of racism.
My point is, what he says is largely true, but he's only talking about the extreme far left of the political spectrum. Normal liberals are guilty of endorsing discrimination, but they are not racists. So when he says "the left," he should say "the far left," and not paint the entire left with this "racist" label.
So to an extent, he's right- liberals shouldn't paint conservatives with the sins of the far right, but by the same token, conservatives should not paint liberals with the sins of the far left.
To use the definition of racist doesn't really work here because, as the author pointed out, leftist liberals do not view racism by its definition. They view racists and racism as (from the article): To people on the left, who already deny men are created equal, a racist is a member of the oppressor class. The Left understands racism this way because they see everything in terms of group identity and power. A case in point: Laura Ingraham made some fairly common-sense observations recently, and even made sure to emphasize she was not talking about race. Ingraham talked about consent, the rule of law, and immigration; she didn’t say a thing about power. Yet CNN’s Brian Stelter cannot see it any other way, claiming Ingraham was pandering to “white, Christian America’s fear of losing power” and is a racist. Racism, they say, is not simply prejudice. It is now “prejudice + power.” One cannot be racist if one does not have power, so only white people can be racist. That last sentence is where I get stuck because plenty of black people have power. The Obamas and Oprah to name two right off the bat. Unless the leftists don't believe Obama and Oprah actually have power, they're just puppets in the white mans theater.
I agree that he should have identified the far left as his target, and he kind of did by calling them neo-marxists, but was not consistent throughout the article. This is why I said in my initial post when I say 'liberals' I mean the leftist liberals, not the traditional Democrats. The party is being hijacked by the leftist liberals and traditional Dems are becoming guilty by association. (I feel the same about the Republican party being hijacked by fanatic Trump fans.) Both parties are being infiltrated by third party members who can't win on their own ticket so they run under R or D. This goes for groups who know they won't be heard through third party so they attach their message to the closest one. BLM has done this with the Democrats.
Affirmative action and race-based solutions are not new to the D party, but it's going next level crazy with the cancel culture.
Anyone who endorses discrimination is racist, no? To endorse means to approve. How can one approve of racism and not be racist? That doesn't even make sense.
I know I am splitting hairs here, but I think it's important when we use certain terms to get the definition correct. Some people who endorse discrimination do so because they are racists. Other people who endorse discrimination are not necessarily racists. The latter group endorses discrimination
not because they think one group is inherently inferior or superior to another group (which is the definition of racism) but because they think it is the only way to bring justice to a group that has been discriminated against in the past.
That's the point I was making earlier. Discriminating based on race or sex is a bad idea no matter what the motive. But different people have different motives. One motive is racism. The other motive could be anti-racism, or curing the effects of past racism. Like I say, either way, it's a bad idea.
So, when you say, "Anyone who endorses discrimination is racist, no?" I disagree. Some people are, and some people are not. Racism and discrimination often overlap, but they are not the same thing.
Yes, plenty of black people have power, and in those cases the "prejudice + power" definition could implicate them.
So I agree with Americus and I don't think "prejudice + power" is the best definition for racism. It has a lesson to teach, though. I think the lesson is, when you look at an individual, evaluate that person according to how much power they have. If they have little power, their prejudices don't mean much, and they shouldn't get a finger pointed at them. But if they have a lot of power, expect them to be working on their own prejudices and expect them to lift up people who are historically underrepresented or disadvantaged.
I also think there is such a thing as white supremacy. It's a mindset lots of people have that they are unaware of. Simply thinking of white as "default" and black as a "variation" is an example of white supremacy. White people tend to not think about their own race at all, and they tend to think of whiteness as one of the least interesting things about their white friends. But when they consider a black person, suddenly they will think of that person's race as a really important characteristic - even if they don't think it's a bad characteristic, it comes to the forefront of their mind and conversation. The two need to meet in the middle. We should be more conscious of our own whiteness, and less conscious of the race of non white people. Have them equal in your mind.
We're seeing the results of how Trump inflamed many people on both sides. But Trump himself was a result of the growing inequities institutional leftism has sown into the boardrooms of establishments that must remain impartial for stable democracy. Universities and the media, which are relied upon to foster, demonstrate and promote critical thinking, have become bastions of leftist intolerance and censorship. The cancel culture embodies this and accusations of racism is the weapon of choice. Why should any person be given a stage, or a story reported accurately and fairly if it is to give credence to the evil of racism? Thus, the enemies of the left - racists - must be exorcised for the greater benefit of society.
Traditional hard leftists rallied against capitalism as the great evil. China has demonstrated that capitalism, and technology, meted out in controlled fashion can actually enhance communist control. America's left does not have that power, but you can be sure they have taken China's methods to heart. Schools are used to inculcate while social media and the MSM are used to control the message. While we obviously do not live in a society as Orwellian as China and the old USSR, the incrementalism is unmistakable.
Trump was the pushback, and an effective one at that. While his personality turned many away from him, the message he represented is unmistakable. The left can only call so many black and brown skin people Uncle Toms and race traitors before the message begins to explode in their faces. This in turn leads to the dilution of the race card threat. It's my theory that we've seen the last great hurrah of the left's most powerful political cudgel, as Mikesez accurately put it. Local politics remain even-keeled in most places. The secret is to not let the AOCs dictate the conversation or let the media amplify selected messages without repudiation. Do what the left has done and fight your fight.
(12-17-2020, 01:08 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Racism is real, first and foremost. We can then categorize how it is used to undermine the reality of racism that exists worldwide.
Here is a pic from a Unite the Right Rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
![[Image: 325px-Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right...9_crop.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg/325px-Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg)
You've proven the point - that a minority of voices is hijacking the greater movement. Is an actual racist any worse than a leftist who uses influence to negatively affect the lives of people they simply accuse of racism on the basis of political belief?
(12-17-2020, 02:21 AM)KodiakJag Wrote: [ -> ]I read the whole article, and now my head hurts. I'm still trying to digest parts of the article like this:
"Many leftists probably do not really want to kill all white people [font=Cambria, georgia, serif][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]even if some do[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif] ([/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]and try.[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif])[/font][/font] They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out, just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however."
...and my mind is like:
[font=Cambria, georgia, serif]"Many leftists [how many? including white leftists too?] probably do not really want to kill all white people [well, that's a relief] even if some do (and try.) [oh no!]. They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out [making them the new oppressed minority big time], just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide [ethnic cleansing, progressive stlye] stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however." [huh? ok, I am lost and need to read it all over again][/font]
No doubt. Well stated.
(12-17-2020, 01:24 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2020, 01:08 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Racism is real, first and foremost. We can then categorize how it is used to undermine the reality of racism that exists worldwide.
Here is a pic from a Unite the Right Rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
You've proven the point - that a minority of voices is hijacking the greater movement. Is an actual racist any worse than a leftist who uses influence to negatively affect the lives of people they simply accuse of racism on the basis of political belief?
I actually believe that most of the racists in the world don't even realize they are racists and don't use political beliefs to express such. This is very evident in the corporate world and in the sports arena (even if it is stereotyping racism).
(12-17-2020, 01:32 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2020, 02:21 AM)KodiakJag Wrote: [ -> ]I read the whole article, and now my head hurts. I'm still trying to digest parts of the article like this:
"Many leftists probably do not really want to kill all white people [font=Cambria, georgia, serif][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]even if some do[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif] ([/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif]and try.[/font][font=Cambria, georgia, serif])[/font][/font] They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out, just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however."
...and my mind is like:
[font=Cambria, georgia, serif]"Many leftists [how many? including white leftists too?] probably do not really want to kill all white people [well, that's a relief] even if some do (and try.) [oh no!]. They just want to “cancel white people” or have them all die out [making them the new oppressed minority big time], just sort of disappear so they can avoid that icky genocide [ethnic cleansing, progressive stlye] stuff. That they are not full-blown radicals is hardly much comfort, however." [huh? ok, I am lost and need to read it all over again][/font]
No doubt. Well stated.
(12-17-2020, 01:24 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You've proven the point - that a minority of voices is hijacking the greater movement. Is an actual racist any worse than a leftist who uses influence to negatively affect the lives of people they simply accuse of racism on the basis of political belief?
I actually believe that most of the racists in the world don't even realize they are racists and don't use political beliefs to express such. This is very evident in the corporate world and in the sports arena (even if it is stereotyping racism).
Then that begs the question: Do you believe Republicans are people using political beliefs to express racism?