I wouldn’t call this “old” as much as “probably, almost inevitably, tampered and doctored with” information.
You, I’m sure, may see things differently.
So you’ve just called me a racist. How is that going to motivate me to not vote for Trump?
That’s the issue. There are moderate people who do not see the words the same way you do, who have not given it extensive thought (or have, and have come to a different conclusion than the liberal group think) - and the left is out there calling them racists. And then the left is shocked when they won’t come over to your side. You’ve just insulted them.
When you are undecided, little things can tip you over. Being disrespected by the supporters of the candidate is one of those things. If you are made to believe that you are hated by that side (and who likes racists, god - those people are horrible), why throw in your lot with them.
Take this over into #NotAllMen. Look, very few women ever thought it was all men. But that doesn’t change the fact that I’ve been pushed up against the wall in the bar and fondled. Yet men had to make a big deal out of “well, that’s not me, I’ve never done that” - because being lumped in with the assholes who do hurts. If I walk around saying “Men can be such pigs” - its offensive - even though the implication is “Some men can be such pigs.”
People can disagree and not be bad people - and lets be clear, when you call someone a racist - most people assume thats a bad thing. People can place different emphasis on words used. People have different experiences that color their perceptions of the world.
The left is pissing off people who don’t meet their requirements for not only ideological purity, but language policing. Decent MODERATE people. And they are throwing dirty words at those people - Racist. Sexist. And then they are shocked by the rise of Trump.
Wasn’t a statement about morality, just a response to BigT that’s Assange’s motivations to hurt Clinton are greater than his supposed love of transparency or any worries about a Trump presidency.
How can it be in support of Sanders when he had already lost? that release right before the convention was entirely about helping Trump, it had absolutely nothing to do with Sanders.
I think what we’re eventually going to learn is something Mafia dons learned about 50 years ago–electronic communications are inherently insecure. The Mafia bosses learned that about voice transmitted over copper wire, but I doubt very seriously modern day organized criminals do much incriminating business on computer systems. This probably even applies to some degree to terrorists (while we know at one point al-Qaeda was sending PGP encrypted emails, which are essentially impossible to decrypt, we also saw that for example Osama bin Laden was living off the grid.)
While 95% of campaign communication is fine when conducted over email, there may need to be a realization that if you’re going to discuss a controversial strategy, certain attacks on your opponents or etc, you need to restrict yourself to verbal communication.
Bullshit. Trump’s base isn’t made up of decent moderate people who are being falsely accused of racism or sexism. Trump’s base is made up of people who are racist and sexist.
There aren’t that many people who are really, truly racist and sexist. Sorry, I just don’t believe that. Not two out of every five people.
I DO believe that a lot of people are quite unconscious of their position in life and what other people go through. The importance of BLM’s message - and I’m using it as but one example - is lost on someone who just doesn’t have the awareness that black people are treated very, very differently by the police than white people. IF you have no personal experience with that, you’re ignorant of what the statement “Black Lives Matter” means.
Let me use a different example, a personal example. In the 90s I was presented with a feminist concept called “Male Gaze.” The concept of Male Gaze in media is essentially that the entirety of a film is presented on the assumption that the viewer is male; every aspect of presentation is based on that assumption.
When I first heard about “Male Gaze” I thought it was stupid. (In fairness to myself, many people using the term didn’t understand it.)
So anyway, then later I took a class in film, and I became an amateur student of cinema, and I grew up… and you know what? Male gaze is absolutely a real phenomenon; there is no doubt about it. When you become aware of it you start wondering how the hell you missed it in the first place. Once you understand the concept and look for it it’s brutally obvious, and the further back you go in cinema the more obvious it is.
So was I a sexist in 1993, nut not now?
I don’t think so. In 1993 I was one hundred percent of the belief that women are the equals of men, should be afforded every one of the same opportunities, and should be treated with the same respect. I was, however, quite ignorant of some of the issues women face. And so I probably had opinions, and quite possibly exhibited behaviours, that contributed to sexism. But I was not a sexist, not am I today.
Similarly, a person who just doesn’t get BLM, or a hundred other things we could talk about, is not necessarily a racist, or a bigot. A person who feels uncomfortable with gay marriage is not necessarily a terrible evil homophobic jerk; it’s simply an unusual and new thing that they were extremely socialized to see as being an impossibility, and even for decent and kind people that is a hard hurdle to jump. A person who conflates the Christian religion with American identity is not necessarily a bigot; they may be quite unaware they’re doing it, but Christianity is so much a part of their life they hardly see it when it’s right in front of them.
I guess this is a long winded way of saying “Do not assume malice when ignorance is an excuse” but so be it. The angry low information voter might honestly think races are equal and everyone is deserving of respect, but simply doesn’t make the connection between what they are supporting and real live people.
You know what? Someone in Virginia, right now, there is a person (at least one, maybe more) who personally knows the Khan family, and likes them, because they seem really likeable. Maybe they went to one of the Khan’s barbecues, or lent him their lawn mower. Two weeks ago they were planning on voting for Trump. That seems like a weird thing to do, but what Trump says is an abstraction; of course, this personthought, Trump will protect us from the Muslims, but that doesn’t mean Khizr. He’s a great guy. American all the way. Poor people, their son died a hero in Iraq, did you know? He died protecting his men.
Now that person’s not voting for Trump. Today he’s saying, “What, Trump attacked Khizr and Ghazala? Are you serious? Why… Asshole! They’re not terrorists, they lent me their lawnmower! Their son died fighting for us! How could he do that? Screw that guy.” Inside - maybe not consciously - he’s thinking, *Maybe I don’t exactly get it. If Trump would go after those nice people, what’s it like to not be white? * Maybe. It’s a stretch but people do come to these realizations. They are learned things.
The personal and the political can be jaw-droppingly different things. There is much wool over our eyes. It does not make us bad. It just makes us blind.
Good post, RickJay. 
I’d probably be wary of the party of trumped up sexual assault charges and extradition too.
And in the case of Snowden diverting and searching a plane carrying a frigging head of state.
One the lessons taught by the early feminist movement, long before 1993, was that the personal is political.
The point behind Black Lives Matter is equally personal and political. It is an opportunity to learn. Systemic racism is pervasive in our society. It lives solely because whites prefer that it does. They and only they (we and only we, since I’m white) are the ones who have to change. How to get whites to change is the issue.
I don’t know the answer, although the outrage over recent events seems to be making a dent. Marginalizing the sentiments of hate until they are impossible to say aloud in respectable society is a proven winning strategy. I do know that the people screaming All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter are the enemy of change, the enemy of learning, the enemy of progress, the enemy of our future.
They are also overwhelming Republican and supportive of increasingly despicable candidates and policies designed with the sole purpose of hurting minorities, women, gays, Muslims, and other targets of hate. You don’t believe that two of every five people are racist and sexist? I look at the numbers voting Republican in the Red States and I believe that completely. If you don’t, you have another big learning opportunity ahead of you.
Tweak that slightly more to further de-emphasize left/right and I’d completely agree. If Trump wins the margin will be people who think Clinton means a corrupt status quo which isn’t working, not necessarily ‘high minded liberal policies’, not in the way they see it anyway, and a majority of them would not be avid cable news viewers (which is a fairly small segment of the electorate).
Additional layers of his support, even now, are people who are at odds with the Democrats and just won’t vote for them. Trump might be bad, Clinton is worse because of eg. liberal Supreme Court picks etc.
A further layer positively likes Trump, often because of the ways he differs from ‘the GOPe’, again in their view.
But if Trump were to win, IMO the key at the margin would be votes and turnout for people who tend toward thinking ideology is BS, but the status quo is not good and she represents it, while Trump represents shaking things up. Of course those people are also mainly fairly conservative from a solidly left POV, just not the kind of people dead set against the Democrats. I include people who could vote for either, and people in the same general category who might go out and vote against A or B, or stay home and therefore help A or B.
No.
Someone who turns “Men can be such pigs” into “All men are pigs” in order to be able to take offense at it is doing the same exact thing as someone who turns “Black Lives Matter” into “Black Lives Matter More.”
They’re stupid assholes. There aren’t enough resources to sit down with them every time they do it and give them a cookie and explain why they’re wrong. You just have to write them off and move on.
Wait, you’re saying that you do have a problem with “black lives matter,” as a statement or slogan? Are you voting for Trump?
Let’s pretend you wake up tomorrow in a different world, one where that statement actually is true.
What’s different?
No, you were. People having opinions, and exhibiting behaviors, is what isms are made of. In your case, as you say, it was out of ignorance; this is not unusual.
Saying that a person or position is racist or sexist isn’t assuming malice.
But ignorance is not an excuse–only an explanation.
I’m not talking about the Trump base. Probably 30% of the U.S. is assholes who will vote for him if he shoots someone.
I’m talking about the 50% of people who are between the 20% left end liberals who talk this way and the 30% right wing loons.
Yeah, I have a problem with it - because I think its divisive.
No, I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m someone who teaches Civil Rights in UU Sunday school and gives money to the SPLC.
I’m racist and sexist in the way white liberals are racist and sexist - sometimes I find myself thinking stereotypical non-positive ways, and I correct myself. Note, I do this with women and I’ve been an active feminist for years. Cultural conditioning needs hard work and awareness to shake off.
But I find the words racist and sexist to be powerful words that shouldn’t be used to paint someone who is merely reacting with their cultural conditioning. Racists and sexists - in my opinion - are those who are making decisions that really impact the lives of women and minorities - not those that use words like All Lives Matter because they think Black Lives Matter is disrespectful to police officers. Being called a racist because I point out that calling people racists over semantics is not my favorite thing.
But how is BLM disrespectful to police officers? Doesn’t your knowledge of Civil Rights history demonstrate that, for most of American history, black people were not treated as if their lives mattered as much as other lives? The point of BLM is that special emphasis and focus should be placed on the burning building – not all buildings – and in this case, the burning building (or at least one of the burning buildings) is the way black people are treated by law enforcement and the justice system.
I think this is an example of why privilege is actually a useful and important concept.
You are OK with acknowledging racism in yourself. You are susceptible to cultural conditioning, which gives you racist and sexist modes of thinking, like any other person. Uncontroversial. Not actually that big a deal.
But then:
Two definitions, same word. The difference between the two is that the former is abstract and philosophical: in the way that pretty much anyone is racist, I can be racist; and the latter makes a claim about the real world: in the way that many things are racist, this particular example is also racist. The latter example, you say, is divisive. Well, sure it is – it divides the people who only ever think about racism in abstract philosophical terms from the people who have to deal with real world racism. The abstract kind of racism that is caused by cultural conditioning isn’t powerful enough to rise above the threshold of the label Racism, and so, by labeling a thing that is actually racist as racist, the people who don’t have a problem with the “power” of that label have forced the abstract philosophers to pick a side in the real world.
You don’t even object to the notion that there’s racism at play here, far as I can tell. You just object to saying it; not your favorite thing. It’s a very privileged perspective.