(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.

---