# Hope for the Republican Party of the future? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423 "2014-03-11T13:28:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/221 "2014-03-21T18:39:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So for instance, when someone says a black person should “stop acting so black” would that be okay with you? No – why would you think it would be okay with me? > [@](#): > > But it’s a racist way of describing a societal concept. It implies that all whites accept or are responsible for it. It invites confusion between the two, perhaps deliberately. I disagree with this – I think it assists in the understanding of privilege and related concepts. > [@](#): > > Okay, so please tell me how you define “blackness” as a societal concept. I said “probably” 🙂 I think I understand a little bit about white privilege and “whiteness”, but I have less understanding about “blackness” as a societal concept. I’m reading up on it. > [@](#): > > But it sure appears that you did: > > I read “different” to mean one is more acceptable than the other. So what do you mean by “different” exactly? More acceptable? How does this “difference” matter? Maybe you could give a concrete example. This is how I see them as different – anti-black racism (in US history, since that’s what we’re talking about mostly) has resulted in millions of assaults, rapes, kidnappings, and murders, and in the stripping away of dignity and dehumanizing many more people. Anti-black racism has, through most of US history, been tolerated and even aided by the formal and informal power structure and government. Anti-white racism, in US history, on the other hand, has resulted in a comparatively tiny amount of crimes, and has never been aided by the formal and informal power structure and government. Neither are acceptable, and both are bad. But, both historically and in modern times, one has been far, far worse for individuals and for society. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/222 "2014-03-21T18:40:42Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Huh? > > It’s not a diagnosis of a problem, it’s a declaration that some people can be judged by their race. The author is not saying that, at least not how I’m reading it. I don’t see anywhere that the author says that anyone can be judged by their race. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/223 "2014-03-21T18:43:21Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m saying the use of a race to describe a societal concept invites this. It assumes all members of that group are part of that concept and not individuals. > > Back to the article: > > \*\*White privilege is an assumption that whiteness, and white people, are benign. White privilege is also an assumption of preeminent good intent and innocence. > \*\* > > Do you not see the problem with that? I see a big problem with white privilege, and specifically in this way he’s describing it. It is a big problem that a white person is largely presumed to have just made an innocent mistake (when, for example, saying something stupid about inner city people), while a black person is more likely to be presumed to be malicious or even racist in a comparable scenario. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/224 "2014-03-21T18:44:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Up more than the normal annual increase in premiums. The administration has specifically said they will be lower than they were before ACA was passed. The insurers disagree, and they are the ones who decide these things, not the administration. So, then, any increase above the (undefined) “normal annual increase in premiums” is the same as “way up”? Even if that amount is .1% above the “normal”? I suppose if it were ten percent increase, maybe that might qualify. Unless, of course, the “normal” increase were $2, and the ghastly, ruinous increase amounted to twenty cents. Is there some reason you are reluctant to specify the actual numbers here? I trust you are aware that arouses the suspicion that you are trying to pull a slow one? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/225 "2014-03-21T18:47:06Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Huh? > > It’s not a diagnosis of a problem, it’s a declaration that some people can be judged by their race. No, it is an observation that all **will** be. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/226 "2014-03-21T18:48:25Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What about it? Agree or disagree? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/227 "2014-03-21T18:48:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No – why would you think it would be okay with me? Because that’s the same thing as talking about “whiteness.” > [@](#): > > I disagree with this – I think it assists in the understanding of privilege and related concepts. No, it obscures it. > [@](#): > > I said “probably” 🙂 I think I understand a little bit about white privilege and “whiteness”, but I have less understanding about “blackness” as a societal concept. I’m reading up on it. Oh, dear. You don’t see the hazards in even entertaining the idea of “blackness?” Why don’t you tell me what “whiteness” is instead? > [@](#): > > This is how I see them as different – anti-black racism (in US history, since that’s what we’re talking about mostly) has resulted in millions of assaults, rapes, kidnappings, and murders, and in the stripping away of dignity and dehumanizing many more people. Anti-black racism has, through most of US history, been tolerated and even aided by the formal and informal power structure and government. Anti-white racism, in US history, on the other hand, has resulted in a comparatively tiny amount of crimes, and has never been aided by the formal and informal power structure and government. Okay. Obviously. But that doesn’t address my point, which is that the Salon article argues that it’s okay to prejudge white people, but not blacks, because of history. I’m glad you don’t agree. > [@](#): > > Neither are acceptable, and both are bad. But, both historically and in modern times, one has been far, far worse for individuals and for society. But so what? If we agree that neither are acceptable, why do you feel the need to say one has been worse than the other? How is that relevant? We already know that. Nobody is saying that whites have suffered as much as blacks or anything like that. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/228 "2014-03-21T18:49:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Agree or disagree? Agree. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/229 "2014-03-21T18:51:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, it is an observation that all **will** be. If that’s true - and I still don’t agree - it’s more than that. It justifies judging whites by race, not just observes it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/230 "2014-03-21T19:16:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Nope, you’re not getting it. If we’re just talking about individuals, then I would judge bigotry the same. But when society is in the mix, then they’re not. Black bigotry towards whites does not register on the radar of “harm to individuals and society” when compared to white bigotry towards blacks, both through history and in the present. > > [Here](http://jamietheignorantamerican.tumblr.com/post/72154890106/go-forth-and-educate-yourselves) is a simplified primer on white privilege. Bigotry has no practical meaning unless it’s practiced against individuals. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/231 "2014-03-21T19:18:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, any increase above the (undefined) “normal annual increase in premiums” is the same as “way up”? > > Even if that amount is .1% above the “normal”? > > I suppose if it were ten percent increase, maybe that might qualify. Unless, of course, the “normal” increase were $2, and the ghastly, ruinous increase amounted to twenty cents. > > Is there some reason you are reluctant to specify the actual numbers here? I trust you are aware that arouses the suspicion that you are trying to pull a slow one? Hardly. Top story on [finance.yahoo.com](http://finance.yahoo.com): > **[4 Reasons Obamacare Premiums Will Rise Next Year](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-reasons-obamacare-premiums-rise-094500177.html)** > > Now that the first open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act is coming to a close, insurers say they are getting a better idea of what to expect next year—and that includes higher premiums. Early into Obamacare’s troubled launch—plagued... I think it’s you trying to filibuster the issue, the way supporters did every other piece of bad news before it actually happened. I guess it gives you time to explain why the bad news is good news after it does happen. “People lost their insurance, but it was crappy insurance!” Why couldn’t you guys have said that BEFORE? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/232 "2014-03-21T19:28:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [Here](http://jamietheignorantamerican.tumblr.com/post/72154890106/go-forth-and-educate-yourselves) is a simplified primer on white privilege. I looked at this insulting and point-missing primer. Yes, we know white people have privileges (or advantages based on past privileges). Duh. The question is what you do with that information, not whether it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/233 "2014-03-21T19:33:07Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > From this article: > > "White privilege is an assumption that whiteness, and white people, are benign. White privilege is also an assumption of preeminent good intent and innocence. > > The historical record suggests otherwise: whiteness was born of violence towards people of color." > > Wow. > > Sorry, but a white person is not responsible for the sins of whites in the past. Using “white privilege” as an excuse for racial prejudice against whites by blaming them for past injustice is evil. > > And it even defines “whiteness” as white privilege, as if a white person can’t possibly be white any other way. (Meanwhile, people are busy saying race isn’t even a real thing, but a social construct). > > ALL people should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and presumed to have good intent until otherwise shown. That’s the basic principle behind opposition to racial prejudice. This is a very disturbing, but not surprising, abuse of the concept of white privilege – using it as an excuse for racism directed at whites. > > People should be treated as individuals and judged by their actions, not by race. Pretty simple. I don’t blame MOST White people for the sins of the past. I **DO** blame a number of them for the sins that they allow to continue. That’s what "White privilege "is. When the playing field becomes level, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/234 "2014-03-21T20:25:37Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay. Obviously. But that doesn’t address my point, which is that the Salon article argues that it’s okay to prejudge white people, but not blacks, because of history. I’m glad you don’t agree. The Salon article doesn’t argue this; not even close. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/235 "2014-03-21T20:27:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Bigotry has no practical meaning unless it’s practiced against individuals. As it was, and still is, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/236 "2014-03-21T20:28:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I looked at this insulting and point-missing primer. > > Yes, we know white people have privileges (or advantages based on past privileges). Duh. > > The question is what you do with that information, not whether it’s true. We can acknowledge that things like what Paul Ryan said are probably racist, even if he didn’t mean it that way. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/237 "2014-03-21T20:37:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Oh, dear. You don’t see the hazards in even entertaining the idea of “blackness?” LOL. I’m not creating the idea, I’m just pointing out that it exists as a social construct. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you tell me what “whiteness” is instead? Whiteness is sort of like a very low-grade royalty or nobility, in my understanding. People who have “whiteness” (e.g. people who are considered “white” by most of society) have certain privileges and assumptions made about them that, generally, make things a bit easier. There are fewer barriers to success, people generally treat you better, assistance is easier to get, etc., on average (even though there are numerous individual examples who buck this trend). It’s not a biological construct, it’s a social construct, that has been around for centuries. As [John Scalzi put it](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/), being a Straight White Male is the lowest difficulty setting in the video game called “Life”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/238 "2014-03-21T20:44:36Z")
The Salon article is not about **lance strongarm** , or even any white people at all, except those he names (like Paul Ryan). It’s mostly about American society, and some of the social constructs that exist in American society, like “whiteness”. Nowhere does the author judge anyone by his or her skin color. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/239 "2014-03-21T21:56:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > LOL. I’m not creating the idea, I’m just pointing out that it exists as a social construct. Okay. New question - SHOULD it exist? > [@](#): > > Whiteness is sort of like a very low-grade royalty or nobility, in my understanding. LOL! Yeah, that’s it. Millions of white people in America live like barons. > [@](#): > > People who have “whiteness” (e.g. people who are considered “white” by most of society) have certain privileges and assumptions made about them that, generally, make things a bit easier. There are fewer barriers to success, people generally treat you better, assistance is easier to get, etc., on average (even though there are numerous individual examples who buck this trend). It’s not a biological construct, it’s a social construct, that has been around for centuries. As [John Scalzi put it](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/), being a Straight White Male is the lowest difficulty setting in the video game called “Life”. All you’re saying is that discrimination in favor of whites still exists. Why not just say that? Why make up this weird thing called “whiteness,” as if it’s some kind of complex thing? It just means white people. Sure, some people still discriminate in favor of white people. We should continue to try to end this discrimination. What more is there to add to that? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/240 "2014-03-21T22:00:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Salon article is not about **lance strongarm** , or even any white people at all, except those he names (like Paul Ryan). It’s mostly about American society, and some of the social constructs that exist in American society, like “whiteness”. Nowhere does the author judge anyone by his or her skin color. I think you’re wrong: "White privilege is an assumption that whiteness, **and white people,** are benign. White privilege is also an assumption of preeminent good intent and innocence. The historical record suggests otherwise: whiteness was born of violence towards people of color." I read this as saying that all white people are guilty of the sins of history by virtue of being white. It’s the sociological version of original sin. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423.md?page=13)