I’m not familiar with the term quoted above.
How do you read it as being about anyone who disagrees with Clinton? It specifically refers to “their candidate.” It very clearly is about Sanders supporters, and not just anyone who criticizes Clinton.
I criticized Clinton a lot. I was never called a Bernie Bro. And, heck, I actually said I preferred Sanders over Clinton. What I didn’t do is act like the Bernie Bro and glorify Sanders while attacking Clinton. I actually got that, despite their differences, both were on the same side.
I didn’t, however, engage in the conspiracy rhetoric. I made sure my criticisms were constructive criticisms. I recognized that Clinton was the favorite to win, and accepted that. I focused my ire on Trump, not someone on the same side.
And I sure as hell didn’t threaten to vote for Trump if Sanders lost. Or say I’d sit out the election and not try to stop him.
Maybe you’re familiar with “Shut Up And Dribble”? How about “Don’t Be So Uppity”?
I presume this is snark. But that means you’re not interested in actually debating the topic. And that would be pointless.
So I will instead respond like it’s not snark. Yes, there a fairly broad consensus. It doesn’t take much to notice. White people saying the n-word? Generally considered racist. Yet you said your friends were debating that. Seems they aren’t representative.
Where there is debate is stuff like whether merely mentioning the word (without using it) is acceptable. And there’s also some debate on whether “nigger” and “nigga” are the same word, with some people saying that the latter is sometimes okay but the former is never okay.
You were claiming liberals don’t pay attention to what black people say about racism. But black people are the ones basically calling the shots on anti-black racism. Who started BLM? It wasn’t white people.
My position on what is and isn’t racism against black people is pretty much entirely informed by black people. And other liberals on this board have said similar.
You attacked our positions not based on what they are, but on whether we were listening to black people. So that is my response.
I’m confused. This sounds like the historically condescending attitudes from some in the white community towards those in black communities that are speaking out against racism. While related, it’s not the issue I was discussing. It’s not exclusively black Americans who are trying to spread awareness of white privilege, there are significant portions of white America doing so as well. It is this combined group that I referred to when suggesting that a less accusatory, confrontational strategy be adopted in order to most effectively reach the goals of those of us wishing to ultimately dismantle “white privilege”. Your replies would only be relevant if I was speaking exclusively to the black communities. Which i certainly am not.
The idea that there even is such a thing as “expert” in matters such as this is absurd on its face - it’s not a point I want to debate here and now, but if it’s something you want to go back and forth on, like when we’re bored and battling insomnia in the wee hours of the morning and have nothing to do but argue subtle points about the meaning of various things I might still be up. Some nights I’m not sleeping so well other nights I’m out, it’s hard to predict.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my thoughts in a serious way; I mean this sincerely. Some of my responses to you, may seem pedantic at first blush, however, I believe you are misrepresenting what I say by using words that are distinctly different, with subtle yet important differences in meaning.
The first thing I want to correct is that I did not say friends, they are coworkers. I think this is important. If these were friends I would not bothered to post in this thread - I would not feel that I have anything relevant enough to even bother writing about.
Why is this distinction important? I believe it matters because in this situation we are not choosing to be in each others company, we are required to work alongside each other day in day out because we have the required skill to do the work that needs to be done. The relevance to this is that this interaction over the years has put me into contact with opinions and ideas distinctly broader and more complex than what I see expressed by my friends (I have a mix of minority and non-minority friends).
This is nothing close to what I said. There is and has been considerable debate about the appropriate use of these and other racial slurs, none of what I said should lead you to the conclusion that this is what any or all of it was about. Jumping to this conclusion only indicates that you rarely have these kinds of conversations.
Again, I never said liberals in any of my analysis; once more you are inserting words that I did not use. Why is this significant? I believe that OP is describing a broad problem that does not necessarily fit into neat categories of political affiliation. Also, saying I said liberal you are ascribing a level of partisanship to my analysis I find odious.
Implying that BLM is calling the shots on on anti-black racism, with the assumption that it is highly regarded by an overwhelming majority of black people is just another type of stereotyping in my opinion. Beyond that, is a decentralized newly formed movement such as BLM really equipped to flesh out all these more subtle matters of usage and context.
The OP isn’t necessarily about positions, it is about reactions and feelings.
No, it’s still relevant - I’m saying this is just an extension of that same “change only at the pace the *privileged *are most comfortable with” attitude to both the Blacks and their allies (as was the case in the days of Civil Rights too).
There is NO dispute about my 3x number its statistical FACT based on the admittedly incomplete but still statistically relevant data we have. The statistics you derive from incomplete data (all data suffers from this but particularly incomplete data) becomes less and less reliable the more you parse it.
The article you link is parsing the data to the point where the sample size is losing its statistical significance. This is bad science.
The article you link tries to derive conclusions based on 40 shootings over a 3 year period. By that rationale the ONE shooting of one Asian child under 14 makes Asian males under 14 are 3 times more likely to be shot and killed than white males under 14. Your statistics are not statistically relevant. No other data is presented in the article.
There may very well be a systemic cops problem but the gross data does not point to a race problem and trying to reach conclusions from data that is not collected to determine your particular hypothesis means that you are not correcting for reasonable variables.
I think that the terms white privilege and white fragility could not have been better designed to close minds. At least with “white privilege” it sort of tracks what the term is trying convey. White fragility OTOH is not very descriptive of the sort of racial defensiveness that some white people have when discussing race.
Yes. That is exactly what he means. :rolleyes:
You realize that this is a democracy and white people account for about 75% of all voters. You can’t just shout them into silence and then assume that your shouting will convince them to vote your way.
This attitude is indeed very critical race theory. They are somewhat critical of the civil rights movement for moving at the fastest pace that white people would allow. There is a reason for that. White people were an even larger majority then. They couldn’t demand anything that they couldn’t convince the majority to give them.
“Minds closing” at the use of the term “white fragility” is pretty much the fucking definition of “white fragility”.
Here’s the ProPublica report:
It makes its conclusions based on analyzing over 1200 shootings over a 3 year period. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about. It analyzed the limited federal data available for police shootings.
what is left out is Jews claiming 'anti-Semitism" whenever a Jewish person is accused of something, like Crown Heights hit and run murder (more ironic is calling semitic arabs anti-Semitic)
but you’re ignoring the left-wing censorship of other (read non-pc) viewpoints via protests on campuses and inside academia
Ever heard the phrase about reaping what you sew?
I agree the lefties on college campuses totally make the case for conservatives. Consider white people told to stay off campus at Evergreen: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/22/evergreen-state-cancels-day-absence-set-series-protests-and-controversies
White people told not to walk across Berkeley. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/berkeley-protesters-form-human-chain-stop-white-st/
Georgetown telling white students to not attend an event: Georgetown Students Host Community Dialogue on Racism, Ask White Allies Not to Attend
Why dont truly open minded liberals stop this crap? Instead we get “well now you know how we feel” crap.
Not sure what you are reading, but I don’t see in that article where “Georgetown” was telling white students to not attend an event. Looks like the event organizers were telling them.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote away discrimination in broader society. At least, not the same people who currently maintain it by their inaction.
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
Yes. I believe it’s called “white fragility”
Of course, that didn’t make it a good reason.
Have you ever been on a campus?
Consider that in the sense that I consider the Sword of Shannara novels–i.e., poorly-written fantasy? Or consider that in the sense that it’s a pernicious falsehood propagated by right-wing pundits looking to smear the left?
I certainly can’t consider that in the sense that I consider real things that actually happened, because white people were NOT told to stay off campus at Evergreen. I’m a little bewildered at your repetition of this objective nonsense, given that I’ve copiously cited debunking articles in the past. If I thought it’d make any difference, I’d cite them again.
BPC’s theory–that small events by tiny minorities of leftists are twisted by right-wing pundits in order to fool conservatives like UrbanRedneck who don’t take the time to vet their sources–seems ever more accurate.