What if the knowledge comes by a deference to authority and thru no true critical understanding on the part of the individual who comes to the same knowledge as that authority figure who did his/her due diligence? Sort of similar to laypeople’s knowledge that there is an inverse relationship between space and time?
I think the word major is an overreach, I would replace it with significant.
I wouldn’t say real discussion so much as immersion in african american culture. (I’m fine using African American in this context, but I prefer to use the term black when describing people). I think many people interact, get along with, and have minority friends and neighbors - but that is different than having a high level of daily interaction with a minority group on an equal footing.
I think many people have good intentions, yet these intentions lead them to demonize others too quickly over unsettled, vague, and rapidly changing social mores than are not agreed upon by even the offended demographic and often rely more on an individual’s perspective than any agreed upon societal norms. A Tower of Babel if you will.
And there is all kinds of racism, that is something I believe. There is racism that is hateful, there is racism that is unconscious, there is racism born out of simple ignorance due to things such a geographic isolation. There is also racial bias which is different than racism. To get more specific, I think that not all these should be treated the same.
I have some other points, I’ll get to them tomorrow and also include the cites, graphs, circumstantial political data etc. that you requested - if I have time.
Are you serious?
(emphasis added).
I mean, I’m glad you’re softening your statement; doing so makes it less absurd. But your eyerolling and moaning about how I misunderstood your point is pretty much at your feet in this case.
By all means do so. But if your point is that a significant problem is that some white people don’t immerse themselves in African American culture, suddenly we’re not so far apart in our views, and I no longer need cites for your claim.
No, it’s apples to apples. I get that you don’t *like *them apples, though.
I don’t think that “shutting down debate” is limited to situations where you are physically excluded from debating. These are only the most extreme examples.
Shutting down debate through accusations of racism is usually an exercise in thought policing. It doesn’t really work, except against liberals. But liberals are starting to develop an immunity to this tactic and moderates have been rolling their eyes at it for years now.
Some people would call that scientific racism.
There is also a long history of ethnic and racial stereotypes in education and intelligence that persist, in many cases, despite being disproved.
I don’t think this is that far off.
Most white folks seem to understand racism in the abstract or from what they see in the news. Very few of them have had frank discussions about racism with minorities. It makes wypipo extremely uncomfortable. I had a discussion over the summer with a black friend about affirmative action where all the other guests were white, you could almost hear their buttholes constricting. The discussion was about politics and it meandered into a discussion about race for a few minutes and in those few minutes it became uncomfortable enough that we stopped almost mid-thought. Suburban minorities rarely speak frankly with their suburban white friends about race.
I’m pretty sure that you can shut those fairly liberal white people up with accusations of racism. And they resent it. Then some of them take that resentment into the voting booths with them.
In the aggregate, one false claim of racism is not balanced by one correct accusation of racism.
… That’s my point. It never works. To the degree that it’s common, it doesn’t matter at all. To the degree it matters, it’s vanishingly rare. So why should we care about the former, or treat the latter as anything but a very rare breakdown of acceptable norms? It’s a deepity.
To the degree that its common it can create resentment. Identity politics that demonize otherwise liberal people is a problem. Not all liberal male critics of Hillary are Bernie Bros, but this didn’t stop people from hurling the label at any young men that criticized Hillary. This stifled criticism but probably hurt her at the polls.
People are cautious about criticizing Israel IRL because of accusations of anti-Semitism. This doesn’t actually lead to more support for Israel.
Liberals have to be very careful about criticizing ANY form of Affirmative Action.
Liberalism used to be a principles based ideology. It is now turning into a narrative based ideology. This is driving away moderates and independents. This may not be enough to make YOU vote for Trump or stay home on election night but at the margins it makes difference and the critical race theorists do not have a large enough voting block to ignore those margins.
**Who **hurled this label at any young men that criticized Hillary?
No, we are probably not so far in our views, we just have different ways in expressing ourselves.
Probably our real differences stem more from our opinions on what should be considered appropriate when interacting with people who have views further away from ours.
Not clear on what you mean by that last sentence. It may be that you’re suggesting I don’t value civil discourse as much as you do when engaging with folks we disagree with.
As for that, and I wanna be civil here, I see a different difference. Your initial contribution to this thread echoed a contribution to another thread: you dismissed ideas with an ad hominem. That is, rather than talking about the views held by those you disagree with, you imagined things about their personal lives that would render their views contemptible and ignorant.
You did the same to me awhile ago, as I stated before, and it’s about the only thing I remember about you as a poster, given how shockingly wrong your assumptions in that ad hominem were.
I don’t consider that sort of personal attack to be appropriate, FWIW.
This insult came up in almost every thread from the time period in the election forum, and almost every thread from Reddit on /r/politics and several other boards. It still comes up often enough if Hillary gets criticized in /r/politics. It was a common phenomenon across the Internet.
I’ll spend maybe five minutes but google pops up the term (searching this site alone) frequently enough. I’m ignoring illusions to bernie bro and using only the exact phrase, or variants like “berniebro” or “bernie-bro.”
Thread Title: “Hey Bernie, go to hell and take all of your Bros with you”
I can easily dig out more.
OH, apparently, someone already had at the time:
I don’t believe you can have an “authority” on racial stereotypes. It also depends on the nature of the stereotype being upheld by this “authority” and how this “authority” became such. Deference to the Grand Wizard of the KKK doesn’t excuse racism, for instance. And how can an individual who did not do his due diligence identify an “authority” who did?
When dealing with people, deference to authority without critically examining the claims of said authority is not generally acceptable. Would you excuse a mother who poisoned her baby with mushrooms because her non-mycologist neighbor, the local “authority” on mushroom picking, gave her a mystery shroom and said it’d raise the baby’s IQ?
Humans can pretty much abuse almost anything, but that doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the problem itself.
That is, in fact, one of the favorite tactics of naysayers. For example, enemies of the “Black Lives Matter” movement will triumphantly point out a false claim of police abuse as if that negates the fact that Blacks have been the victims of police abuse throughout the history of this nation.
Sure, there are women who will make false claims to garner media attention or extort money, but that doesn’t change the fact that sexual harassment has been prevalent in all facets of our society.
Nobody’s disputing the fact that the phrase “Bernie Bros” (and variants) exists and was levelled at Sanders supporters. But that wasn’t the assertion being questioned, which was that “any young men that criticized Hillary” were called such regardless of their views on Senator Sanders.
I’m not going to say “abused”, or even “used when factually wrong”, but I’ll say “used when tactically a bad idea”.
Pretend this is 1860. You could accuse Abraham Lincoln of having deplorably racist attitudes. You would not be factually in error to do so — if I recall correctly, he did not believe “the Negro” to be an equal in every way to “White”.
As Avenue Q’s song says, everyone is a little bit racist; and many activists say that every white person is a participant in racism, that every male is a participant in patriarchal oppression, and so on. They aren’t factually wrong but tactically it’s more useful (in my opinion) to reserve the terms “racist” and “sexist” for attitudes, intentions, and behaviors — things that a male or white (or etc) individual can modify or ameliorate — and not to use those terms to refer to the fact of institutional racism and patriarchy and the fact that as individuals we are woven into those systems as participants and structures as beneficiaries of it whether we like it or not.
“Racist” and “sexist” and so on should be a horrible thing to be called, something reprehensible, shameful. The terms can’t really work that way socially if people are told that they are racists or sexists because they are white or male.
If you read the context of the quotes (from this board), that’s what’s happening.
How did you read this as anything else?
No, that’s absolutely factually wrong.
You literally just included embryos and newborns in the blame for patriarchy. I reject the notion that it even exists, but even if you accept it, casually blaming it on babies is pretty sick.
Yes! This is correct.
So, when **dalej42 **said:
he really meant all young men who criticized Hillary? He didn’t mean actual supporters of Bernie?