This 2013 article in The Economist was interesting, although IIRC Iceland, one of the most liberal and feminist countries in the world, did not actually go forward with the ban after all: Why Does Liberal Iceland Want to Ban Online Pornography?
I meant to say that there’s a difference between helping the disadvantaged and hurting the advantaged; in the case of race/gender today, the left wants to do the latter. With commies, the wealthy/middle-class were the advantaged, the proletarians the working class. For today’s Bernie/Corbyn left, white men are the analogue of the Kulaks.
Well, no, there’s not always a difference. If, say, only white male property owners are allowed to vote, then helping the disadvantaged means allowing them to vote too - which is detrimental to the white male property owners, who now have to share power. In that scenario, there’s no way to help the disadvantaged that won’t hurt the advantaged, or at least feel like it to the advantaged.
That said, what exactly are you referring to? What “hurt” is to be inflicted upon white men? I sure haven’t noticed any, but perhaps I’ve missed something.
As a straight white guy, I’m also looking for ways I’ve been damaged. I didn’t get into Harvard, but I’ll assume they had other reasons to exclude me. Since then, I’ve had a pretty good ride with my white privilege.
We’re not in post-Tsarist Russia anymore, Toto.
Well, we’re not allowed to treat other ethnicities as if they are inherently worth less than ourselves. This was never a hobby that I wished to take up, but I suppose there are some white guys that are disappointed that their hobby of racism is no longer acceptable.
This is not an accurate representation of any significant portion of liberals or the left.
I had a friend that made this awesome post about the “Black Lives Matter” movement, that illustrates my point perfectly.
He said:
Responding to “Black Live Matter” with “All Lives Matter” doesn’t mean you’re racist. It does mean you’re tone deaf, though.
All too often, it is demonstrated that black lives DON’T matter–not equally, and especially not in matters of justice and authority–so finding fault with someone trying to point out that very real problem by complaining that the words they use in their cry for help aren’t inclusive enough for your tastes is:
A. not helpful to them at all.
B. needlessly semantic.
C. a hurtful diversion of the conversation away from the continuing problem that still hasn’t been fixed.
and, yes:
D. dismissive, because you’re acting like your umbrage at their choice of words is more important than the repeated loss of life that prompted this whole conversation in the first place.
This is quite literally a life and death situation for a lot of people. When someone falls overboard and yells “I need a life preserver!” the appropriate response isn’t to stand on deck and yell back: “We all need life preservers!”
My problem with what you call ‘racist’ agitation against Mr Obama is that we now have equivalent agitation against Mr Trump. Is this also racist?
Orange isn’t a race.
Prominent Democrats are questioning whether Trump is legitimately an American citizen, and not being slapped down by their fellow Democrats?
News to me!
Its all political theater. What does/did race have to do with it? If anything, Mr Obamas race protected him to some degree from criticism from the left and right. If today we had President Condaleeza Rice doing the sane things as Mr Trump, I highly doubt we would see an equivalent level of dismissal and demonization.
I know! Being black makes everything easier in America, especially politics. That’s why we’ve had so many black Senators and Presidents, and why such a boring, untalented, uncharismatic guy like Obama was able to get elected. If it were a white guy with the same meager talents as Obama, why he wouldn’t even be able to be elected to a city council!
I think you may be overgeneralizing the many strains of liberalism and the social concepts that have historically existed, what you term “old school liberalism,” and the many strains of liberalism and current social concepts that exist now, what you term “new school liberalism.” There will always be people taking ideas in different directions or more or less sticking with traditional conceptions of said idea.
So to answer your question, I haven’t noticed that.
Then why not say leveling the playing field? Her post explicitly said that equality was not the solution. Some people could have a voice and others could not have a voice based on the color of their skin and their sex.
Responding all lives matter is affirming the common humanity of all people regardless of color. It is affirming that matters about people is not their race but their inherent worth as individuals.
As to it being a diversions it is not because Black Lives Matter is about taking a real problem and then begging the question. It assumes that the reason black people are shot by police officers is that the police officers don’t think their lives matter. So the problem is racist cops and teaching them to value the lives of black people will fix the problem.
Black Lives Matter protests show how much liberalism has changed. It was once about judging people by the content of their character and now it is about how whitepeople need to shut their mouths.
Way to address my argument. And Mr Obama did have meager abilities to be a President. He was aloof and missed opportunities to push his agenda. He created the political environment that allowed a barely qualified candidate to get elected.
But criticism against his actions and policies were tempered by fears of being labeled racist as did Johnny Ace.
And thus all the celebrated black senators and presidents we’ve had, since they are treated so kindly.
And again you do not address anything I have argued.
I’m agreeing with you! After all, it’s not like there were years of prominent Republicans and conservatives who, with zero evidence, questioned his citizenship, or a Republican congressman who, say, interrupted a state of the Union address and shouted that he was a liar, or the biggest and most successful conservative radio hosts routinely questioning his patriotism. I mean, if that occurred, plus a lot of other stuff, then maybe your argument would be utterly ridiculous. But only if stuff like that occurred.