The Glade 4.0

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Lol! Ya think?! And the Understatement of the Year Award goes to....

this is one of those "doth protest too much" things Nitefox. You keep bringing it up when almost no one else here does...

It's fun TheRiov. Try not to read too much into it. Or, just ignore my posts altogether. It's ok.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

This. It is extremely important that minorities, or whites on their behalf, point out racism against minorities, because only by discussing these issues can we move past it. However, when whites point out racism by minorities, it is really only motivated by a desire to make their own racism look less problematic through comparison, and thus can be assumed to be an indicator of racism on the part of the white individual.

In short, while there may be a racist minority individual, when a white person points this out, it means they are racist.

/sarcasm off

AK - I agree that, in theory, a white person pointing out racism by minorities might be doing so in a good-faith effort to help eliminate such racism, but in practice, do you honestly think that's what the folks at Fox News, World Net Daily, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Washington Times, Red State, etc. are doing? Seems pretty obvious to me that it's mostly about white people with a racial chip on their shoulder expressing their resentment.

I do believe that. The prevailing view that only whites can be racist has significant policy ramifications. Countering that narrative has substantial value.

You're a big Toure fan aren't you?

That's just you using predjudicial language to describe the same thing. Has it occured to you that comments like the OP and general use of 'racism' as a way to avoid debate and demonise opposition is the reason for the 'chip'?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's not the prevailing view at all, though. There's a school of thought among certain left-wing academics and activists that holds that although anyone can be prejudiced, "racism" requires a combination of prejudice and institutional/societal power, but even that is a controversial, niche view that amounts to little more than pedantry. The prevailing view is actually just that every group contains racists, but that historical and contemporary power dynamics make anti-minority racism a much more significant problem. The obsessive "but, but, blacks are racist too" crap from the right is all about denying that, not about fixing anything.

No idea who that is.

Sure, I don't doubt that at all. However, as I've argued before, I believe it's also part of the progression from old-school explicit racism to eventual post-racialism. There's a natural desire to declare all significant racism and all the legacy effects thereof to be a thing of the past as quickly as possible, even if that's not really the case. When someone points out that uncomfortable truth, people get pissed off, and when it's pointed out over and over, people get a chip on their shoulder about it. Some people start obsessively denying that racism is a problem at all and pulling the whole "I know you are, but what am I" routine. And that, in turn, can be it's own form of racial prejudice.

Has it ever occurred to you that NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the like have a vested financial interest in maintaining complicated and abrasive racial relations in the United States? I find it amusing that you guys are always looking for the angle when it comes to corporations or conservatives or Republicans or what have you ... but you won't even consider the ****' obvious when it comes to U.S. race relations.

And, again, for the million time ...

Get your Northern Midwest and North East U.S. jackass selves out of your lily-white states and come live in places with real ethnic diversity and representative population distributions before you presume to **** tell the rest of the country how to live.

_________________

*yawn* lived south of the mason-dixon line for >60% of my life.

The problem with that is that people are not "pointing out the uncomfortable truth" when they make attacks on the nature of someone's ancestors over 100 years ago. That has nothing to do with moving to a post-racial society and if it does, such a goal is impossible because the truth of someone's ancestry will never go away.

Furthermore, the simple fact is that blacks and other people who either were or claim to have been oppressed, or claim to be so now, simply do not have a monopoly on the truth. By claiming they are "pointing out the truth" you are begging the question. That's what causes the chip; the unwillingness of the left and minorities (especially blacks) to actually converse or debate.

Racism as a problem will never go away until this ends, because one side is allowed to simply call anything it wants racism, and anyone who disagrees a racist. You cannot eliminate racism as a problem as long as that claim is an untouchable political tool. The left has no interest in ending racism; it's too valuable a stick to beat the right with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because, of course, it's not prejudiced to claim someone has no experience with racism because they live in a stereotypically non-diverse area.

I guess my problem is that if the left recognize racism exists amongst all ethnicities; why do we only need to legislate fixes for it for caucasians?

_________________

As a general rule anti-racism laws are generic and variations on the idea that you can't descriminate based on race. Even most affirmative action laws which are the most detailed on who they affect typically are based off of the local demographics. So they only affect Caucasians to the extent they are in the majority.

Then why do the goalposts keep moving?

_________________

Because over time, there's been a subtle shift, so that "racism" has come to mean the overall average status of a group, rather than actual discrimination against them. Rather than racism being a cause of disadvantage (laws and policies prevent full participation, in turn causing economic disadvantage) it has also come to include the effect (economic disadvantage itself is called lack of full participation, or "minority status" or "racism")

Essentially it's become "Society is racist (has minorities that are disadvantaged as a group) because it's racist (discriminates against them."

This makes the problem essentially impossible to discuss because any time a suggestion is made that the problem is not discrimination is made, the claim is made, essentially, that discrimination must still be a major force because disadvantage exists. By calling them both "racism", any cause of disadvantage automatically becomes "racism" and the connotations of active racial discrimination are kept alive.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Obsessive? Let's talk about that. There is an obsessive NEED by the left to demonstrate that the right is racist. It is a political, philosophical, and financial need. And the left doesn't shut up about it. Right or wrong about the levels of racism, do you agree that much of the left is obsessed with this?

So, assuming you agree (and this is so apparent that I believe you must) is not the "chip" justified? Or understandable at least? Clearly, there are racists on the left. Perhaps the right dogpiles on these folks a little more aggressively. But is it wrong?

Further, if at any time someone from the right points out a racist on the left, someone on the left attacks him for pointing it out. EVERY TIME. This is nothing more than a defense mechanism. The left NEEDS the right to be racist, and if the word ever got out that the left was racist too, they would lose that advantage.

This a million times.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Chris Matthews agrees

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... d-rule-all

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I've always been confused how "the right" [read: the Republican party] became "the racist" party, given the Democrats have traditionally been the party of white racism.

Weird. In fact, Orwellian.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine