This sounds like the behavior of assholes, and indeed I’m sure that some (probably very, very small) portion of liberals in general are assholes like this.
But this doesn’t sound like anything to do with liberalism of the vast majority of liberals on the Dope, or that I’ve ever met, spoken to, or heard from.
I’ve heard of the term before, but I still don’t get at all how it’s supposed to be insulting. At worst, it describes the behavior of a handful of vocal assholes.
It sounds like saying that anti-Nazi is an insult because a few people who oppose Nazis happen to be assholes.
All I can say is: Doth protest too much, methinks. Look at the reasonable responses in this thread and the links I’ve provided, if you think this is little more than a few vocal assholes then you may have an issue with relative size.
Most of the examples of this sort of thing I’ve seen have been some variation on the Matt Taylor t-shirt “incident”:
Someone says or does something (in this case wears something) publicly that several liberals find objectionable.
These liberals publicly criticize the person who said/did/wore this thing.
The person who said/did/wore the objectionable thing either sincerely apologizes (like Matt Taylor did – good on him, and it shows his maturity and decency, IMO), gives a weak apology, or just complains about being criticized.
That’s the vast majority of the supposed SJW overreach that I’ve actually heard of. Very little of people actually losing their jobs or otherwise being harmed more than just being criticized.
You have got to be kidding me. This board is absolutely chockablock with this kind of behavior.
But even if you’re right that most liberals don’t adopt these tactics or engage in this kind of behavior, it’s the ones who do that drive the movement. They are the ones who are the face of political correctness and they are the ones who have created the anti-PC backlash that’s going on now. And perhaps the rest of you get painted with the same brush because with the exception of a few renegades like Bill Maher and the guy in the OP, none of you are speaking out against it or condemning it.
Virtually all of us are condemning violence and threats. And so do the leaders of various liberal movements. As to the “chockablock” behavior on this board, cite? Or do you just mean the very few liberal crazies on the Dope, who are routinely criticized and disputed by other liberal Dopers?
While the SDMB is mostly left-wing, it is a lot better in this regard than the vast majority of left-leaning message boards. It really is. Some other left-leaning message boards are absolutely vile and ugly in this regard (of course, so are some right-leaning message boards as well.)
How is this a good example? A lot of it was racist.
It’s just a conservative shell game. If you can obfuscate and muddy the waters enough so that no observation can ever have any weight maybe we can skip merrily along into plutocratic totalitarianism. Wouldn’t that be a win!
Makes sense. States are paying to train police, while barbers have to foot the bill themselves, and pay licensing fees to the state to boot. A conservative would call that “fiscal responsibility”.
Saying that some people hated Obama due to racism is not equating criticism of him with racism. It’s certainly possible to dislike his policies due to not racist reasons, but that doesn’t mean that therefore there are no racists that hate him only due to his race.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but confusing them certainly does get people to be mad at liberals. Very effective in that regard.
A significant portion of this criticism is at least partly based on racism, IMO. Some is not. I’m sure some has unjustly been accused of being racist – but that can spark good discussions. Some folks seem to think any accusation of racism is an end to discussion, but it doesn’t need to be – it can be the start of a discussion. “How can I be racist? My best friend/spouse/adopted child/etc. is black!” is a poor response, IMO – a good response to an accusation of racism that one thinks is mistaken is something like this: “I don’t think it’s racist – it’s based on x, y, and z. But I’d like to hear more about why you think this assertion was racist, since I understand that people can sometimes be unaware of their own biases, and I want to take every opportunity to both improve myself and to learn how others think”.
Discussion can be difficult, especially on such issues. And of course there are assholes uninterested in discussion. But it’s worth trying, IMO.
There is no doubt some people hated or disliked Obama because they were racist or because of racist reasons. I know there are racists in every political party/liberal/conservative/etc., but they’re generally a minority. Why focus on this tiny portion of people?
The criticism is that the knee jerk response to criticism of the Obama Administration’s policies is to call them racist. Look at the framing above - ‘it’s possible to dislike his policies due to not racist reasons…’ That gives the impression that the default view of opposition to Obama’s policies is racist. In fact, it should be the opposite - the default view of criticism should be that they are based on the merits, or even ideological differences, not racism. Shit, I’ve seen people criticize the idea of limited government as racist. When you have those complaints it renders the entire criticism moot.
I’m sure this board is much better in this regard than many others, and the credit goes almost entirely to its moderation, which is head and shoulders above even the best I’ve seen elsewhere.
Still, this board is full of posters who characterize mere disapproval or disdain as ‘hate’, or anything some woman anywhere might not like as ‘misogyny’, and virtually any mention of anything involving race that doesn’t involve 100% acceptance and permissiveness as ‘racism’, even when it doesn’t apply to race, as in the case of people from Mexico, or in the case of ‘cultural appropriation’, where one is not to be allowed to adopt modes of dress or behavior identified with a culture not their own. Even ‘rape’ has been so watered down now that one has no idea whether reports of rape actually involve, you know, intercourse.
In short, nothing ever seems bad enough on its own when it comes to he left. Instead everything gets exaggerated as far as it possibly can for inflammatory purposes and very little remains of the truth. The real problem though comes from the fact so many people buy into it.
You’re reading too much into my phrasing and it’s making you come off defensive. You also removed a word from my quote. The ‘certainly’ I put before possible was put there for a reason, so why did you remove it? I guess it is easier to argue against what you assume people think than against what they actually say.
You frame the idea in the same way Airbeck did - with the implication that the criticism is de facto racist unless shown otherwise. You blur it by characterizing on the one hand ‘significant’ and the other hand ‘some’, but the implication is there none the less.
The description above imparts no cost to the person who falsely accuses another of racism, even implies there is a benefit of good discussion from these accusations. Being accused of racism is an end to discussion, just like being accused of being a child molester is an end to discussion. It’s a terrible fucking accusation and would serve more to end discussion rather than encourage it. Casual accusations of racism do real damage when it comes to seeking justice for actual racism.
I may be expressing some bias in word choice (significant vice some) – it’s very possible. I am human, after all. Nonetheless, what I said was true. If you read it literally, there’s nothing I said that should be controversial.
For most such accusations of racism, which I believe come from legitimate beliefs based on their personal experience (i.e. when someone who has experience brutal and vicious racism throughout their life, they may be slightly inclined to see it a bit more commonly than it really is) there should be no cost. I think relatively few such accusations are made maliciously (meaning not honestly). I don’t believe that most accusers see it as ending the conversation – but if someone reacts defensively, or says something silly like “how can I be racist cause my friend is black?”, then I think that shows that they’re not really interested in further conversation.
I advocate to my fellow liberals to try to be careful with such accusations – and I think most of them are. But an error shouldn’t be such a big deal, and really can lead to good conversation. Further, a lot of people really aren’t aware of their own biases, and calling them out might be the only way to get through their delusions that yes, they really might have some bigoted biases within them.
So what do when encountering a real honest-to-god racist? Are we allowed to accuse them of being a racist if they are straight up using racial slurs? Or are you saying that nobody should ever use the word racist because it’s possible someone somewhere will be falsely accused at some point? It sounds like you’re suggesting its never ok to call a racist a racist.
Feel free to clarify. If you heard a criticism of the Obama Administration’s policies, do you think it’s more likely influenced by racism, or not?
You may advocate till the cows come home but it’s a fool’s errand. An error should be a gigantic fucking deal. This idea that it can lead to good conversation is absurd. Here is a disconnect that is the subject of this thread. Chalk one more thing that’s wrong with liberalism, the casualness that charges of racism are bandied about. This paragraph is my opinion obviously, suffice to say my take is oceans apart from yours.
If someone were using racial slurs then I think that’s fair evidence to consider them racist, or holders of racist beliefs. Like I said, casual accusations of racism do real damage when it comes to seeking justice for actual racism. If 9 out of 10 claims are false and 1 out of 10 are accurate, it sucks but that 1 accurate claim isn’t going to be taken as seriously if those other 9 claims didn’t exist.
I wouldn’t make any judgment at all without knowing the specifics of the criticism and the critic.
Why should it be such a “gigantic fucking deal”? For the vast majority of this country’s history, white supremacism was the rule of law, of standard policy and practice, of culture, of media, and of society. Even after slavery was abolished, white supremacism (in lesser but still horrific forms) was still the law and common practice of most of the country. Even after the Civil Rights movement it was incredibly significant in the lives of many or most people of color (and especially black and Native American people – by far the most horrifically impacted through America’s history by bigotry). Red-lining, which helped to keep many black communities impoverished, existed well into the mid and late 20th century.
It shouldn’t be such a huge deal to suspect that this thing, which has been so powerful throughout American history, might still be at play with a particular event, or assertion, or criticism, or whatever. Even when it’s incorrect. It should and can spark reasonable discussion.
Hell, if I say or do something that someone thinks is racist, I strongly hope they call me out on it. I want to learn and improve and be a better person. I hope I’m not racist, but I don’t think I could possibly ever know this, so the best I can do is strive to not say or do racist things, and I hope my fellow Americans will help me in this.
