Thank you, I had to look that up. (Sober now, too 
)
Simmer down and quit your fapping, coward.
I think that’s a false dilemma. I believe it should be possible to take stands that are not traditionally thought of as ones held by “allies,” of oppressed groups without fairly being called a bigot.
For example, I generally oppose affirmative action. Am I a bigot? Is it fair to call me one based on that stance?
LOL. Careful guys, we got ourselves a badass here–he watches NASCAR!! LOL.
My memory isn’t what it used to be, or maybe it is and I just don’t remember. But refresh, please. Did Hillary drop her vituperative and vicious “deplorable” line before or after Il Douche was leading the crowd in “Lock her up!” chants? And Shirley some level of disapproval was appropriate, even necessary.
A “tsk, tsk!”, perhaps? How about a “Gee, that’s not very nice”.
Seems to me the survey question is meaningless without three preliminary questions:
- Do you know who Barack Obama is?
- Do you know who Jefferson Davis was?
- Are you going to answer the survey seriously or are you going to fuck around?
Uhhh…the GOP IS the Snowflake party. Almost a year later, there are still people crying about “deplorable”.
But talk shit like they’re gonna actually do something. They’ll find out that 20 guns are useless with only two hands, and plenty of liberals own guns, too.
Senile, though. He watched the football game twice.
They’re hardly crying about it; they’re citing it to illustrate how the left’s belief in the politics of insult and attack have backfired.
That’s fucking rich coming from a Trump supporter. HA!
You’re just another delusional idiot, among many.
First, hat tip to Sirlin. The series of essays started with “Play to Win”. Really great writing there.
I’ve long maintained that casual accusations of racism do real damage when it comes to seeking justice for actual racism. The same holds for bigotry. Now we are in a situation where there is actual racism doing real harm, and the history of these casual accusations has weakened the criticism when it needs to be most impactful.
How many times do I have to state that I didn’t vote for Trump? Just because someone sees/points out how the left has gone off the rails, it doesn’t mean he’s ipso-facto a Trump supporter.
But to the everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-evil crowd, I can see how the distinction might be without a difference. :rolleyes:
Bone:
I know we’ve gone around on this a few times before, but I want to take another shot at it. I think your observation about casual and actual racism is missing something fundamental.
Speaking in overly broad generalities, the Left views personal racism as a spectrum, ranging from ways in which culturally ingrained implicit biases are manifested to David Duke-style racism, and a whole lot in between. In this understanding, lots of people harbor racist beliefs that they do not even recognize as racist. Moreover, good intention is insufficient unless you also have perfect knowledge and no implicit bias. The corollary to all of that is that being racist is not this enormous slur upon one’s character, at least for the more common forms of racism.
The Right, by contrast, views racism as much closer to a binary, and a deep character flaw. Either one consciously believes other races are manifestly inferior or one does not. If you believe that, you know it. And good people do not believe that. Most people in 2017 are not racist, goes this view.
So when the Left identifies instances of racism, the Right often responds with observations about how this thing isn’t that serious, or admits of other explanations, or doesn’t involve conscious bias, etc. etc., all of which makes sense within the Right’s framework, but isn’t really responsive to the Left’s framework.
All that said, lots of Lefty critiques of racism will attempt to take advantage of the moral outrage generated by the Righty view of racism, in order to harness the kind of moral opprobrium we rightly heap on the KKK to also stamp out, say, implicit bias in policing.
In my view, that’s the move that you should rightly criticize. That move is both inconsistent with actual, defensible (and correct) Lefty theorizing about race, and harmful to persuading the Right to agree that those theories are a better conception of racism.
tl;dr – I don’t think your problem is really with “casual accusations of racism,” as it is with the people who want to imbue those accusations with the same moral opprobrium as condemnation of the KKK
Because you don’t want to believe that people you view as good are engaged in a dishonest and destructive rhetorical tactic.
Save your selective outrage. You are conveniently silent when your ideological buddies do the same thing. Please be a better poster and stop with the hypocrisy.
No, that’s not it. There are some dishonest liberals, just as with any group. There are also a lot of honest ones who have different ideas about racism akin with Richard Parker’s most recent post. The disagreements are about that second group, not the first.
No, I don’t catch all such posts, and I’m sure I have some bias that leads me to miss some. But I catch some of them. I will continue to try and do better.
You, on the other hand, continue such broad-brushing even after you’ve explicitly agreed in past discussions that it’s both inaccurate and harmful.
OK everyone, now remember; we’re supposed to do what octopus says, not what he does. He’s not really a lead by example kind of person.
I agree with this, except for the part about “missing something fundamental”.
I think the reality is that accusations of racism are a nuke. While it may be true that individuals could take the view that being racist is not this enormous slur, the risk is that it can be and the results could be devastating. Because of that, the sensible thing to do is treat accusations of racism as the potential nuke that they are. As long as the consequences of being accused of being racist are so large, it is reasonable to treat the accusation with the binary view you indicate.
You’ve explained it in a more nuanced way here which I think is informative. I typically condense it and label it casual accusations of racism because it also conveys the dilutitive impact I’m trying to call out. While some people may view racism as a spectrum, the nuance of that spectrum is not an adequate defense against a mob mentality.
Somewhat of a side note, I think illustrative of this divide is the idea that ‘everyone is a little racist’. I think a lot of people on the left will agree with that sentiment, and a lot of people on the right will not. Maybe based on the spectrum idea this is true, people do have biases, implicit and explicit. But based on the binary idea, this is not true. If someone puts forward the ‘everybody is a little racist’ idea to a person that holds the binary view, it’s counter productive if the goal is to raise awareness, to change behavior. I feel similarly about labeling things as racist that have other non-racist explanations.
Maybe, maybe not. Why do you oppose affirmative action?
How? And what do you mean by “real” damage?
Even if that’s true, it demands that we are sensitive to the nature and forum of the accusation. If I say that an anonymous poster on this message board has a racist belief, that should not be regarded as a nuke. The most they stand to lose is reputation on a message board. All the more since such an accusation will be accompanied by some explanation that will demonstrate what kind of racism I’m talking about.
The same is true when a policy or a statue is being criticized. That statue isn’t going to lose it’s job because its employer overreacts or misunderstands. Even granting your view as true, there should be no problem with leveling the claim that, say, the charter school movement is racist (or, rather, no reason for exercising some special form of restraint).
What’s more, we can agree that racism=nuke shouldn’t be true, for precisely the reason you indicate–it inhibits accurate discourse. So we should work to change it. One of the best ways is to acknowledge our own racism. Or, even better, acknowledge specific racist beliefs we have harbored and abandoned. I have a whole list of these. Maybe we can do a thread.
Persuasion also requires meeting someone where they are. I agree that there’s too little of this in a lot of antiracist discourse.
I think it’s problematic to put a special burden on racism as an explanation. If you’re just saying we ought to be careful about identifying the level of evidence we have for an explanation, then of course I agree. If you’re saying we should be more careful with racism, I think that’s a mistake. For one, I don’t see that putting a special burden on one kind of explanation advances truth-finding. And, for another, identifying and rooting out the effects of racism is among the most important work we can be doing on social science and political discourse. Even identifying something as potentially racist, and therefore highly worthy of additional investigation, is important.