Let me guess. You want to abolish the programs for helping victims of racism or sexism right now. And you might get around to setting up a program for helping poor people someday.
I totally believe you think that’s a coherent thought. You’re kind of dimwitted, though.
Exactly. I’ve got a brilliant and irascible gamer friend who’s also a hardcore Marxist and who has utter contempt for intersectionality theory, because he thinks class is the proper axis upon which to base revolutionary change. It’s a damn sight different hearing him say it from hearing a rightwing scold like octopus say it.
“I don’t have a problem with a black man protesting racial injustice; I just wish they would quit being so, you know, angry. They’re scaring the kids! Heck, they’re scaring me, too!”
Oh, for fuck’s sake, you whimpering idiot: mocking children and spitting on the concept of adoption is not protesting racial injustice by any definition of that phrase. Fuck you for insulting every person who has ever actually protested racial injustice by conflating the concepts, fuck you for spitting on adopted parents and children by joining with Huey Freeman in this ridiculous way, and fuck you for being a whimpering idiot in general.
I thought it was poetic and wise. Fine, whatever.
I take your point to be that Huey’s racism doesn’t matter, because he can’t do anything about it. Here, he has as much power as anyone: He can use words to influence other people’s thoughts and feelings. IRL, we don’t know how much power he has. He’s a black man with a job. He may be homeless; he may be a CEO. He may even be lying and be a Russian agent or last spring’s prom queen.
I think Kant had a point when he said that the only thing that’s absolutely good is the good will. A good person is good even if they’re tied to a chair. A murderer doesn’t become good because they’re in prison, and a bigot without much power is still a bigot.
We’ve talked about less important things here than black racism. We’ve talked about the legal status of Godzilla and proper strategy in Middle Earth. And how often have you saved the world by posting, anyway, that we’re now wasting valuable time?
Don’t worry, he’s said that he will teach us.
Based on what I’ve read of folks with radical politics, I think the answer to the OP’s question might be this: some people have been so hurt by the current system of culture, government, and economics that they think that anyone who doesn’t advocate its complete overthrow is complicit in its endurance. They seem to think that white people (and other privileged folks) are severely underestimating (or worse, dismissing) the severity, scope, and negative effects of racism in this country. In that POV, a lot of the arguments against Huey Freeman would come off like Trump supporters scolding liberals for “not being nice” to Nazis, and that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that. They feel literally existentially threatened by racism, capitalism, or what have you, and think that (a lot of? Most?) people who disagree with them are at best indifferent to the suffering they and their loved ones are going through.
This is, admittedly, not necessarily the case in this particular situation, but it’s something that I’ve noticed about a lot of the more vocal and hardcore socialists I come across online, for example. How much do you REALLY care about the poor and disabled and such if you’re not behind fundamentally changing or overthrowing the very system that makes them directly suffer?
Of course it would *seem *different but that’s because your simple.
Like support for open borders, if the left were actually honest about the why’s of their belief system how much power would you really have? By disguising your motives you have damaged the nation with your nonsense.
…goooooodnight, everyone!
If we were simple-minded, dishonest, and had disgusting motives, why would we be arguing with you? We’d be in full agreement and campaigning for Trump.
What are the why’s of our belief system? How would revealing them change our “power”? What motives have we disguised? Do you believe in the Illuminati?
We’re not disguising anything. The problem is that you fuckers are just too fucking thick to realize that building a wall won’t stop the illegal immigrants who will simply find ways to enter through legal ports of entry by way of human smuggling or visa fraud, or they will simply overstay and disappear. It’s you disgusting pieces of shit who are dishonest about your anxieties and apprehensions about all immigration, legal or otherwise. Conservatives are driven by fear not facts, which is why they buy into conspiracy theories and fake news. The world in which conservatives live is a dangerous jungle filled with non-white venomous predators.
It’s not your idea of protesting, but protesting can come in many forms. It can be holding hands with white people and walking through the streets, or it running around the streets and throwing rocks. Or it can be neither of those things. Maybe it’s refusing to be friendly to white people until they can demonstrate a commitment to building a society that is more equitable.
And for the record, Huey didn’t necessarily mock a child or spit on the concept of adoption. I acknowledge that what he said was offensive to Shodan, and I think he meant it to be. I wouldn’t have said it, but I don’t necessarily characterize it the same way that others have.
On the subject of cross-cultural adoptions and marriages: I’ll say that having lived in Asia, I’ve met a lot of white people who despite all their cross-cultural exposure were still obviously racist. Having adopted a daughter from China or having married a woman from Thailand doesn’t automatically make someone less racist. Thomas Jefferson impregnated Sally Hemmings. He was still very much a white supremacist, albeit the ones of ‘nicer’ ones among the people of his day.
If attacking adopted kids is protesting, then you’ve already lost the battle.
That’s fine. But to the extent that refusal to be friendly to white people involves making ludicrously false claims, it’s fair game to respond. Huey’s lack of politeness doesn’t bother me; calling me a cross burner for no reason other than I’m white does bother me a little. Claiming that white people are all literally inbred autists will prompt a response — particularly around here.
Sure, but so what? Absolutely nobody disagrees with that. The idea is not so much “Shodan is not racist” as it is “Shodan didn’t purchase a trophy daughter that he cares about only as an object.”
Back when I was younger and stupider, I had a lot more tolerance for wacky beliefs, such as libertarianism. I worked with a hard-left dude (who was absolutely horrible in other ways, but I digress), and we talked politics. When I defended libertarianism, he made essentially the same argument: if I were actually being honest about libertarianism, I’d admit it was morally vacuous.
Around the same time, I sat on a Greyhound next to a hard-right Catholic (sedevacantist, if that means anything to you). He made the same argument: if I were actually being honest about spirituality, I’d admit that the Catholic god was the only plausible god.
And around the same time, I chatted with a Hare Krishna. If I were actually honest, he insisted, I’d try the hare krishna chant for several weeks and realize it was the only true path to enlightenment.
The “if you’re actually honest about” approach to politics is sincerely held by many stupid people. It’s a shortcut to argument, allows you to conclude that the only reason anyone would disagree with your brilliant logic is that they must be lying.
The alternative is to consider carefully the views of your opponent, allowing for the possibility that their views are reasonable and well-founded. That can be scary.
Especially for dumbasses.
Illuminati? No. Reptile people? Maybe.
Look, I’m sure many on the left are sincere. Naive but sincere. However, quite a few just parrot the superficially nice sounding concepts to gain social standing and political power.
You want to know why socialism and communism is always just one more try away of doing it right this time? Because of left wing dupes. People want power. They say the right things to get mob support. It’s like a religion or a cult exploit the masses with good sounding nonsense and rule them.
That’s why Huey is troublesome here. In a hive of liberalism he exposes that modern liberalism is not about a consistent set of beliefs.
I think part of Huey’s problem is that he can’t see the distinction between White People Privilege, and Sane People Privilege. He knows he doesn’t have the first. He doesn’t know why he doesn’t have the second.
Regards,
Shodan
Hitler was white. Stalin was white. Seems like those would be your type of white people.
You realize that many who are fervent advocates and followers of an ideology or a religion are led by those who use that particular belief system as a tool to manipulate? I wouldn’t be so worried about modern liberalism if one of their tenets wasn’t the worship of a supreme state.