Do you think it’s more likely than not that a false accusation of racism will spark reasonable discussion?
In any event, like I said, we are oceans apart on this. Not like there is no common ground, but more like there is no common planet. False accusations of racism destroy discussion, they don’t encourage it.
I don’t know. But I blame hyperbolic/ultra-defensive responses more for poisoning such discussions than the false accusations. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been complaining about false accusations of racism to the point that they treat no accusations seriously, unless they’re of liberals. And it’s worked – their listeners don’t see accusations of racism as legitimate.
People who strongly suspect that racism is involved in something shouldn’t tiptoe around it. I don’t advocate saying “you’re racist!” in any but the most obvious (e.g. racial slurs, or advocacy of Jim Crow or segregation or the like) examples, but “you know, that thing you just said sounds racist to me, let me explain why…” is entirely reasonable, IMO. Some liberals undoubtedly go too far, and I’d encourage them to be careful. But I think that the infotainers like Rush are far, far more guilty of poisoning reasonable discussion and understanding on this issue than liberals.
It only destroys discussion if the one accused decides they don’t want to talk about it any more. Why not advocate that, if someone thinks that they’re falsely accused of racism, they respond with questions? “Why do you think that’s racist?” Why doesn’t that make sense to you?
Post snipped.
I love how it is only an effort to demonize the left yet the real world consequences of the liberal thinking splatting against the windshield of the real world are ignored.
For example, colleges have been skewing harder and harder left for a long time. And the real world consequences of the hard swing left is that companies are finding that new college graduates are unemployable.
I can go on with the cites, this is a well known problem.
The push towards ‘safe spaces’, PC campuses and other liberal ‘protect the pooor widdle kids from the real world’ policies is turning them into infants who can’t think and run away anytime anything that might offended them is encountered.
Instead of debating those who they disagree with, they get them banned, oops, I mean disinvited, from talking.
And sometimes it is downright funny. Like the ‘Uncomfortable Learning’ series at Williams College that was supposed to be about confronting controversial ideas. Of course, in true liberal fashion, the college disinvited not one but two speakers who had controversial ideas. Linky.
So much for winning by crafting strong arguments. Who needs that? You might have to encounter a scary idea and that is unacceptable. Just ban the people you don’t like and pretend everything is ok while you hold a pillow in your safe space and chant the mantra ‘I *am *special’.
Note, the above is just about employ-ability. There are tons of other ways that this type of thinking is causing problems. I’d post more but a) I don’t have the time and b) there are tons of articles on the subject if one really wants to know about the issue.
Slee
Yeah, if those 11 people hadn’t been disinvited to speak at a college once, millenials could write better!
I think it’s reasonable for a person to start to tune out false accusations when they occur frequently enough. People aren’t saints and time is limited. It makes sense because there definitely isn’t time to engage every person who casually tosses accusations of racism at any hint of disagreement. As an example, the ACA was a lightning rod for this, IMO. There’s lots to disagree with about the ACA, but inevitably discussions include casual accusations of racism.
The core point is they’re sheltered from ideas they don’t like, to the detriment of their education, character, and socialization and growth as a human being.
And having witnessed a few of these speakers in person, and many on YouTube, the protests against them are very rarely peaceful or reserved.
Rushing the stage and seizing microphones, while campus security does nothing, bringing and using whistles at speeches, chanting loudly mid-speech, general heckling. These are silencing and disruption tactics, not peaceful protests, and the enforcement of policy is extremely politicized, left wing speakers rarely face this kind of action, and when they do, disruption is dealt with (as it should be, in all cases, regardless of agenda).
Leftists are more prone and willing to resort to violence and silencing tactics in recent decades, and abuse their positions of power to advocate for this, and downplay the sins of their own, and play up everything that the right does (I’m fully aware of the fact that the right does this as well, it’s also disgusting when they do it, but, that’s not the topic at hand).
Orly?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-attacks-idUSKBN1352NO
Do you want me to bring up the mosques that have been burned lately?
I would like a cite on your claim that “Leftists are more prone and willing to resort to violence and silencing tactics in recent decades”
His cite is your post - your facts are silencing his assertions! And reason is committing violence against the alternative facts put forward by the right.
I recall the Dope discussions on the ACA, and IIRC such accusations in these threads were very rare.
People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.
This seems odd - if I accuse someone of racism, it’s their fault for poisoning the discussion because they get defensive.
Because accusations of racism are often an attempt to change the subject when the liberal is losing the argument. Talking about why it’s racist is changing the subject to a topic that the liberal can’t lose - accusations of racism are usually un-falsifiable.
So Rush Limbaugh is doing what you recommend - not reacting to accusations of racism defensively or hyperbolically. So Rush and his listeners are not poisoning the debate, just like you ask.
Regards,
Shodan
It can be. Not always, but sometimes. Sometimes such accusations are reasonable, and can and should spark more discussion. Sometimes they’re not.
You say “often” – the only thing we disagree on, it seems, is how often this is. You probably think most of the time, and I think it’s considerably less often.
How did I say that? I meant the opposite. He’s and other radio right wing entertainers have been responding with ridiculous hyperbole to accusations of racism for years.
That’s the point, and, from the point of view of liberals, the problem - they don’t take accusations of racism seriously. And thereby prevent liberals from changing the subject when they are losing the argument.
Laughing at people who make accusations of racism isn’t hyperbole just because it infuriates liberals.
Regards,
Shodan
So you think such accusations are always attempts to change the subject because they/we are losing the argument, rather than honest attempts to characterize them?
When did I say it was? I think many reasonable accusations have been brushed aside by hyperbole and the like from the radio entertainers.
When liberals fight for freedom, they win. When they fight for government regulation, they lose.
There is a perception by conservatives that liberals want to take all their money away and give to people who don’t deserve it in the form of entitlements.
Sorry, but you are asking a very complicated question and you will not understand what I just said and what’s right and wrong about it without doing some reading.
America, like it or not, is a center right country. So what passes for liberal here is conservative in many other western nations.
Aside for why conservatives hate Liberals? Many reasons.
Conservatives perceive threats more acutely than Liberals. So when Liberals are in power conservatives fear that crime, terrorism, hostile foreign governments, etc will run roughshod over us since they feel Liberals do not take these things seriously enough.
Conservatives place a higher value on cultural purity than Liberals. So Liberals do things that make conservatives feel their culture of purity is being infected. Gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, immigration, drug use, different religions, etc.
Conservatives feel that liberal economic and government policies will make it impossible for businesses to make ends meet due to higher costs of doing business. They fear this will lead to mass unemployment and recessions.
Conservatives value tradition and respect for authority. Liberals reject tradition and question authority figures (like police officers).
They think conservatives are tough and individualistic while Liberals are weak, unarmed wimps.
Conservatives value just desserts, good people are rewarded and bad people punished. Liberal policies of rehabilitation over punishment, or progressive tax hikes to fund social programs are seen as rewarding bad people and punishing good people.
Conservatives fear Liberals foster a culture of dependence to win votes, creating great society programs to make people dependent on the government so those same people will vote Liberals back into power to protect those programs.
Etc.
If I say “often” and you interpret that as “always”, I tend to lose faith in claims of honest characterization.
Regards,
Shodan
I noted the “often” before, and commented on it, but then your next post seemed to me to directly contradict that, thus I asked you the question. I’m glad to see that I misunderstood, and that the only thing we really disagree on is how often such accusations are reasonable and legitimate and how often they are attempts to end a losing argument.
On social issues Liberals are winning.
However on economic issues that have been losing. Labor unions are shrinking, income inequality is up, lobbying is up, middle class economic stress is up. Taxes are more regressive. These trends haven’t changed much. A Democrat President may move things to the left while a Republican moves them to the right but the overall trendline is constant.