Monday, November 27, 2017

"The 'Racist' Card"

TWEET MEHere is an interesting take on Republicans and racism via an interview with Peter Beinart. 

The Field Negro education series continues.

“Is American conservatism inherently bigoted?” That’s the question asked by Peter Beinart in a new piece for the Atlantic. It’s also a question that a lot of Americans have been asking over the past several years, particularly with the rise of Donald Trump. Beinart has been a passionate critic of Trump’s racism and bigotry, but he argues that liberals have been too unsparing in their labeling of people and institutions as racist. With Americans becoming increasingly progressive in some ways, Beinart recognizes that the ground is constantly moving beneath people’s feet. (Six years ago, Barack Obama was not openly in favor of gay marriage; now such an opinion is often considered beyond the pale.)

To discuss his essay and the American dialogue a year after Trump’s election, I spoke by phone with Beinart recently. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed Ed Gillespie’s Virginia campaign (before we knew his racial appeals didn’t end up working), the notion that political correctness causes racism, how to talk to people who embrace social change at a different rate than you do, and the costs and benefits of labeling people who vote for bigots as “racist.”
 
Isaac Chotiner: You don’t really mention this in the essay, but one thing that struck me while reading it is: However we want to define people, and whether “racist” is the right label for them, a lot of people—46 percent of voters—just undeniably voted for a racist. How do we talk about them?

Peter Beinart: One of the points that Ta-Nehisi Coates has made repeatedly that is very well taken is that journalists should not think like political consultants. So, it may be politically unwise to call those people “deplorable” and to call out their racism, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. But I do think that in applying the term racist or bigot, except in the really extreme cases, it makes sense to try to apply the term towards an act or a policy or a statement rather than to a person.

And I think if I were going to critique Hillary’s “deplorable” comment, I might critique it along those lines, which is to say that a lot of Trump supporters believe deplorable things—which they absolutely do; just look at how much support the Muslim ban had in all of the polls—rather than to call the people “deplorable.” Because I think there’s a way in which, again, except in really extreme cases, even people who hold bigoted views are more complicated than that. And it also, obviously, is going to get people’s backs up much more, and so we should try to focus these terms on policy and action rather than individuals.

To take an example in the news: Ed Gillespie in Virginia ran a campaign that I think you and I would say has racist elements to it.

Yes. 

In some ways, it’s a Trumpian campaign. But it’s also very similar to a lot of Republican campaigns from the pre-Trump era. And you see a lot of Democrats labeling the campaign racist, or labeling Ed Gillespie racist for running this campaign. How do you think we should talk about something like the Gillespie campaign, which really is mainstream Republican at this point?

My piece just came out, but I actually wrote it a couple months ago, and I actually think that the circumstances are worse now than they were back then, because I think it’s become more clear now that the Gillespie campaign and the New Jersey campaign are good examples of this—and the kind of exiting of Jeff Flake and Bob Corker—of how much Trumpism is the model for the Republican Party. I think it was a little bit less clear even this summer.

As much as possible I think we should try to be specific in the way we deploy these terms, so I think saying Ed Gillespie is racist—or even the Ed Gillespie campaign is racist—is less valuable both descriptively but also in terms of its impact than saying this particular ad of Ed Gillespie is racist in this particular way. I certainly am not suggesting that we should take these terms out of parlance, because goodness knows we are in the Trump era, where so much of this deserves that. But I also think that they have such power because there is this sense, rightly or wrongly, amongst conservatives, that conservatives genuinely seem to believe, a lot of them, that they are routinely and unfairly tagged with these terms. I think it makes it all the more important that when they are deployed, that they’re deployed as specifically as possibly, so I would want people to say, name me the specific thing that Ed Gillespie has said or done in this campaign that’s racist.

You mentioned in your piece what Marco Rubio said about Black Lives Matter a long time ago, where he kind of tried to show some empathy for people who are feeling like race relations in the country needed to change, and you pointed out that when Republicans do things like this that, Democrats can and should highlight them and applaud them. But when this is all happening under a paradigm of Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, supporting a bigoted president, it’s just very hard to have any sort of conversation.

I agree with you, but I think that this is so bad for the country. The country needs a less racist conservatism, or less bigoted conservatism, if not a nonbigoted—I mean, many people say our liberalism is bigoted too, so it depends on from what perspective you’re seeing this. I think that in some ways, we didn’t appreciate—you know, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush had lots of problems and all, but we are in so much worse shape now than we were then, that I think it’s kind of incumbent on liberals and conservatives to try to think together, those who oppose Trump, what it would take to try to breathe some life back into this, to have a Republican that actually wanted to compete for the black and Latino vote again, rather than purely running against them. I don’t claim to kind of have conclusive answers, but I think the project is one that liberals and conservatives of good will need to really both be engaged in.

There is this idea out there, which I see online if I ever write something about Trump and racism, that basically one reason white people are driven to Trump is because they get called racist all the time.
Right, right

“I’m so angry about being called racist that I’m going to vote for a racist president.”
Right! Doesn’t exactly disprove the thesis!

It’s a ridiculous thesis. But I also think it’s worth thinking about culturally what it means having a country where a lot of people are labeled racist.

This was something that I was really wrestling with and struggling with a lot in writing the piece. As I think the question implies, it’s somewhat ridiculous to suggest that political correctness is creating racism when America was pretty darn racist for a long time before anyone had heard of the term political correctness, and before any of this kind of culture of “political correctness” existed, right? So, obviously American racism does not require political correctness to exist and flourish throughout our history.

So I think that’s kind of obvious. I do think that, though—and I tried to cite a couple of studies in the piece—there are more and less effective ways of talking to people who hold views, some of which we would consider bigoted. And there is an art of persuasion, and that art kind of matters politically, and it also matters civically, like it matters in the way we interact. And while it’s true while Ta-Nehisi Coates says, like, journalists should just say what’s true, that’s definitely true, but it’s also important that we try to think about how we nurture and strengthen nonbigoted points of view, nonbigoted attitudes among people who we still fundamentally disagree with, you know? And I think that’s what I was trying to get at in the first half of the piece.

One thing that’s come up in conversations I’ve had about Weinstein and sexual harassment with people who are, say, over the age of 50, is this real discomfort about how things are changing in the culture. I hate the Mark Lilla thesis that, you know, Democratic Party PC-ness is what’s costing them elections, but I also think that, just for the health of our civic culture, it’s important to be aware of how people are different. I guess I don’t have an answer, because things like sexism and racism need to change, and going easy on them because it makes people “uncomfortable” is its own form of PC-ness. 

Certain cultural norms emerge, and sometimes they emerge quite quickly, like let’s say around issues about trans people. I mean, that’s been pretty recent in terms of its evolution in the broad public consciousness. And certain language emerges, and certain norms emerge about how you talk. And that’s very good, those things, and that’s partly why I am a progressive. I believe in that progressive impulse. But I think where it can be a problem is where you basically don’t give people any time and space to evolve a little bit more slowly, and one of the things I tried to say in the piece is I think it’s important to look at whether people are moving in the right direction, rather than necessarily demand that they move at the same speed.

To say, “Well at least we’re moving in the right direction on these things” after this election is really hard, when you are scared the country is in the broad sense not progressing but entering a reactionary time.

Right. I think there have been several moments in American history where progressives bought into the kind of famous Martin Luther King Jr. line about the arc of the moral universe being long and bending toward justice, and then you get shocked into the realization that actually there’s no inevitability about that at all. And I think that happened to liberals during World War I, I think it happened in the 1960s and ’70s and now it’s happening again. You’re right, in that moment it becomes much harder and unfortunately these are the wages of Donald Trump’s presidency. [Source]

I disagree with Beinhart's take, and I call bullshit on people who say that they voted for the racist because they were called racists.

No, they voted for the racist because they are racists.

It's really that simple.  

59 comments:

Deplorable me said...

Peter Beinart is a Jew. The worst thing in the world to him is white nationalism, because the only credible threat to Jewish Supremacism is a white populace who realizes that its cultural and governmental institutions have been co-opted by people who hate them. Even the soft civic nationalism of Trump is anathema to our rulers.

To Beinart, those who aren't sufficiently on board with being demonized and discriminated against are "bigoted and racist". Believing they have as much of a right as anyone else to exist unmolested makes them "deplorable".

The truth is, the Left does not want a country where we are all treated equally before the law. The Left needs racial acrimony and ethnic resentments in order to justify their continued assault on American society.

You called us racist no matter what we did, because that's what you do to get your way. Now nobody gives a fuck anymore.

Anonymous said...

"No, they voted for the racist because they are racists."

The Field Negro is as racist as anyone on the internet.

Anonymous said...

I think it's important not to accuse people of racism when there's insufficient evidence to support such a claim. On occasion, left-wingers do go overboard pointing the finger at people for having racist motives, when it is not at all clear that is the case. For example, there now is seemingly a whole media sector made up of tedious, annoying SJW writers who love to make unreasonable interpretations of TV shows and movies and discover allegedly bigoted messages in them that were clearly not intended by the creators.

I also realize that there are different degrees of prejudice/ignorance, so it's pretty unfair and unwise to, say, treat a person who is initially unfamiliar with someone from Ethnic Group X and slightly apprehensive about them moving in next door, as being equivalent to a Nazi who wants to exterminate Ethnic Group X. Or to freak out over any failure to use the exact preferred PC terminology -- e.g., attacking clueless grandpa for saying "oriental" instead of "Asian," because he hasn't caught up with the times.

This kind of behavior is very alienating and does push people away from anti-racism, and the Left in general. You won't be able to change people's minds on the important issues if you've already driven them away by being a self-righteous dick all the time. Anti-racism isn't some kind of "cool kids club" designed to make the members feel superior to those not admitted to it; the point is supposed to be eliminating injustice.

That said, I can't go along with Beinart's view, either. Trump supporters who agree that Mexicans are a bunch of rapists and Arabs/Muslims are all jihadis, and they need to be kept out of the country -- these people are properly racist! It's no good pussyfooting around the issue. Hillary Clinton was right to call them deplorable. They are! And Ed Gillespie did run a racist campaign! I don't think we should sugarcoat the issue when someone is acting unambiguously hateful. That won't work.

All Trump supporters didn't vote for him because of racism. I think their reasons for voting for him were all bad reasons, but not all racist reasons.

But let's be real -- a big chunk of the Trump vote was racist, and I won't say it wasn't.

dinthebeast said...

Trying to moderate your reaction to racism to keep from offending racists normalizes racism.
Fuck that.

-Doug in Oakland

Limpbaugh said...

So neocons like Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Bill Kristol voted for Hillary because they oppose racism? Hillary voters voted for recruiting, arming, training, and paying terrorist to fight Libya and Syria. They voted for raping children and killing their parents. They voted for the refugee crisis and sex slavery. They voted for war with Russia. Genocide in Libya and stealing 10 billion from Haiti was alright with them. Hillary voters voted for crimes against humanity. And of course Trump voters only wanted more racism. Things like interventionism, corruption, jobs, and the TPP didn't matter to any of them. Gee..., I wonder if anybody could have been voting against the other candidate?

Limpbaugh said...

Deplorable me's comment reminds me of the accusation that Terry McAuliffe had the cops stand down in Charlottesville. I don't know if that is true or not, but unlike Mike from Iowa, I wouldn't rule it out. I could see McAullife was completely sleazy back when he was chairman of the DNC and I voted for all Democrat candidates.

mike from iowa said...

Unlike "sleazy" Limpaw, I bother to check the records and guess what I found about stand down order inm Charlottesville? https://www.snopes.com/were-police-told-stand-down-charlottesville/

Nope, it did not happen. Try or cry a little harder, Limpaw. You are beginning to amuse me in an irritating nasal whine.( think Fran Drescher)

Anonymous said...

snopes? seriously?

Anonymous said...

Terry McCauliffe did issue a stand down order for Charlottesville. That is an established fact:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/avoidable-mayhem-15394.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/is_virginia_governor_terry_mcauliffe_culpable_in_charlottesville_riot_.html

mike from iowa said...

American Stinker is a right wing, biased rag of bullshit, stoopid Anymoose.

Where, in that article of dubious right wing suppositions, does it prove there was a stand down order? Don't bother yerself because it ain't in there. They asked if there was a stand down order. They never claimed there was and provided no proof one was issued.

mike from iowa said...

Yer avojdable mayhem piece from another biased outfit is avoided of any proof of a stand down order. It is never mentioned. Where does the right get wienies like you to argue for them?

Don't tell me that officials that have to be ordered to interfere is yer excuse for an unproven standby order.

anotherbozo said...

"No, they voted for the racist because they ARE racists."

I can remember being floored by one female Trump supporter's comment on the "grab 'em by the pussy" episode: "Well, we're not electing a PRIEST..." If she voted for the sexist, does that mean she's a sexist? A sexist in her case being someone who believes in the superiority of men.

I would doubt that. Unquestionably a lot of Trump voters loathed Obama's race and wanted a 180 from his presidency just because of it. But there must have been others who thought a "businessman" would "shake things" up in a Washington they condemned indiscriminately. My white brother-in-law voted twice for Obama before voting for Trump, and wasn't alone in his ignorance and naiveté.

Reminding me: God help us all.

PilotX said...

Of course not all of trump voters are racists but all racists were trump voters. What's the point? If you're cool with racists and don't oppose them then fuck you too. We can't be cool. This is just like on Facebook when people are silent while others go on raciat screeds that to me is an approval. Funny thing is the most racist people always bitch about being called racist.

Anonymous said...

If she voted for the sexist, does that mean she's a sexist? A sexist in her case being someone who believes in the superiority of men."

Clearly, no, and the same logic applies to Trump's racism (although I do think his racism is more serious because his intent is to turn his racist prejudices into racist policy, whereas he doesn't really have the same hostile policy goals toward women).

There are white people who don't support Trump's racist policies, but were willing to overlook them and vote for him since they won't personally be affected by those policies.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're racist, but if they're not, it sure doesn't say anything good about their intellect or their character, either. I mean, what, exactly, are they supposedly getting in return for throwing people of other ethnic groups under the bus by electing Trump?

If you voted for Trump because you think he's going to fix the economy, this says you're not too bright. Because his promises are flimsy and implausible, and you have to be completely economically illiterate to believe that "getting tough with foreigners" will magically make the economy boom. You also have to be a gigantic fool to believe a rapacious capitalist like Trump is looking out for the interests of the working class. It's a bad joke.

If you voted for Trump because: Benghazi, Hillary's emails, "she sold our uranium for a bribe," Pizzagate, she stole the primary from poor Bernie!, etc. ... then you are a moron for getting your information from #FakeNews media that is self-evidently NOT credible.

If you voted for Trump because you're rich and want a tax cut, and you don't care who gets hurt to make that happen, that means you are a greedy shit.

None of these are justifiable reasons for having voted for an incompetent, corrupt, racist monster as president. Anyone who did should be ashamed of themselves.

PilotX said...

I think we got some real insight when a major GOP presidential candidate told his supporters his main goal was to "not make blah people's lives easier". That should tell you all you need to know about thetypical conservative, hey let's punish some niggers! Well, at least I know where I stand.

Wesley R said...

There's a book called "The Invention of The White Race". It talks about race being used to put people in a social categories. The races were divided by the elites because the working class (black and white) rebelled about poor working conditions. The elites did this in order for them to maintain control over the masses. Deferment Donald is now using the same playbook used by the elites before the founding of this country.

dinthebeast said...

Yes those women are sexist, just like Fergus' voters are racist: If you support the cause of racism or sexism you're in.
It doesn't matter what other bullshit you rationalize your vote with.
Your vote supported those causes. You did that. So even by the above article's logic, you must be accountable for it, for it is a specific, definable, instance of racism and sexism, that is in a certain way worse than the awful creep you voted for because there will always be awful creeps out there, but because of you, this specific awful creep with all of his racism, sexism, and the laundry list of pathologies he displays daily is now in a position of power he could never attain without having received your vote.
So to paraphrase a sticker in Texas, Fuck Trump, and fuck you for voting for him.

-Doug in Oakland

Just another White Old Fart said...

PilotX said...

Of course not all of trump voters are racists but all racists were trump voters. What's the point? If you're cool with racists and don't oppose them then fuck you too. We can't be cool. This is just like on Facebook when people are silent while others go on raciat screeds that to me is an approval. Funny thing is the most racist people always bitch about being called racist.

1:06 PM


- I just went ahead and quoted the entire comment, because that is exactly what I was thinking, although that PilotX said it *much* more clearly and concisely than I could have put it!
-
- I frankly don't care what excuses people give for voting for Trump, or for not voting at all, because the facts are that
1) we are stuck with the results;
2) Trump is as he has always been; he's 71 for petesakes, and has *decades of* documented bad behavior AND business foul-ups. Most people simply could not be bothered, so ignorance is no excuse;
and
3) yes, silence regarding contemptible and/or criminal behavior is indeed not only approval, but also complicity, or in legal terms, "accessory after the fact", therefore, regardless of whether one did or did not vote for Trump because of racism, the subsequent silence regarding, or more often, outright approval and support for, his racist nonsense makes them accessories after the fact, and CURRENTLY definable as racists, just as someone who knowingly aids and abets a criminal is also defined, and prosecutable, as a criminal.
-
-
- As to the boringly-inevitable whining and crying and bed-wetting about HRC:
all of the Hillary-bashing is irrelevant, because the bought-and-paid-for "Electoral College" didn't put her into the Oval Office. Then too, if they had, there would have been plenty of people protesting IF she had "bombed children", as Hillary-Haters claim, because non-conservatives are, by definition, unruly and refuse to march in lock-step.
-

MAGA said...

anotherbozo said..."My white brother-in-law voted twice for Obama before voting for Trump, and wasn't alone in his ignorance and naiveté."

Well, see there's hope for everybody. Maybe you'll grow up too someday and want to leave clown world behind.

Eric "My People" Holder said...

PilotX said...
I think we got some real insight when a major GOP presidential candidate told his supporters his main goal was to "not make blah people's lives easier".
---

Why should any presidential candidate favor one group over another? Especially one that votes 90% against him?

The President's job should be to pursue policies that make all of our lives "easier".

That was what so awful about Obama - he ran things to favor his people over whites and to keep everyone divided.

mike from iowa said...

Limpaw-where is the proof Clinton's stole any Haitian money, let alone 10 billion. Put up or shut the fuck up!



That was what so awful about Obama - he ran things to favor his people over whites and to keep everyone divided.

What a load of caca del toro with a wingnut6 twist of flatout bullshit.

Limpbaugh said...

Mike from Iowa, you could start by not using snopes. Then look into contracts awarded to Clinton Foundation donors and the work they didn't do in Haiti. Of course you have already shown time and time again that you are incapable of recognizing reality. You probably support us paying $27,000 to settle a sexual allegation against John Conyers.

PilotX said...

Exactly my point, a president's job is to make all of our lives better but if you're a racist presidential candidate you don't say that. Why wasn't that said?

Lance Cockstrong said...

Racists want not only to be racist but beyond that to normalize their racism by intimidating those who would call them racist. To not label it is to normalize it.

That said, it is worth noting that there are degrees of racism, you don’t have to dress up in full Nazi regalia and burn crosses to be a racist. Is indifference racism? If you have never met a (fill in your minority of choice) and don’t give a shit one way or the other what happens to them is that racist? No doubt that depends on your frame of reference, in particular if you are a member of said minority group then no doubt that is a distinction without a difference.

Liberalism is bigoted against whites is one way of looking at it. It is an opposite reaction to generations of racist actions against minorities, blacks in particular. Call it reparations if that helps.

Hillary attacking Trump voters as deplorables was correct if bad politics. Politesse would dictate explicitly attacking the candidate while leaving the attack on the voters who support him/her implicit. Unfortunately by apologizing Hillary in effect rendered herself incorrect on all counts, as if Trump needed another exposure to throw punches at.

PilotX said...

"You probably support us paying $27,000 to settle a sexual allegation against John Conyers."

Oh my brother, that was 15 mil paid for all of the grab ass in congress.

mike from iowa said...

Limpaw, point out where Snopes is wrong. Then tell me where Clinton did anything that wasn't done before or after in hiring US companies.
























PilotX said...



"That was what so awful about Obama - he ran things to favor his people over whites and to keep everyone divided."

Really? And how exactly did he favor "his people" over white people? I was blah all four years of Barack and not really aware of how I benefitted over whites and how exactly I was divided against whites. (I know I know. it's just a meme from a troll but I am curious if you can justify your remark).

PilotX said...

8 years

PilotX said...

Comparibly speaking our current president uses racist slurs regularly. Barack would not use a ceremony honoring Indigenous soldiers as a platform to insult a political rival using a racial slur.

Anonymous said...

"Hillary attacking Trump voters as deplorables was correct if bad politics. Politesse would dictate explicitly attacking the candidate while leaving the attack on the voters who support him/her implicit."

Well, except that is wasn't really "bad politics" in the sense of it being an intentional public statement, any more than Romney's "47% speech" was a public statement. Both Clinton's and Romney's statements were made at, essentially, private gatherings of their ideological base and were never intended for dissemination to the general public. Both moments of honesty got secretly recorded and leaked.

The difference being that Romney's statement revealed that he hates poor people, which meant he was exactly the aristocratic robber-baron scumbag the Democrats described him as.

Whereas Clinton revealed that she hates racists. And shouldn't everyone? Of course, those Trump voters who are racist don't want to think of themselves as racist, but if you voted for Trump in order to inflict suffering on certain Americans for the crime of not being white ... I mean, the shoe fits, doesn't it?

Aladdin said...

PilotX said...
"Comparibly speaking our current president uses racist slurs regularly. Barack would not use a ceremony honoring Indigenous soldiers as a platform to insult a political rival using a racial slur."

"Pocahontas" is a racial slur?

Somebody better tell Disney!

Bitter Clinger said...

"The difference being that Romney's statement revealed that he hates poor people, which meant he was exactly the aristocratic robber-baron scumbag the Democrats described him as. Whereas Clinton revealed that she hates racists."

Clinton revealed that she hates poor white people, just like you do.

Romney was pointing out the truth that in a democracy where 47% of people don't pay any taxes, one half of the electorate is going to vote to itself the other half's money.

Lance Cockstrong said...

At the very least Hillary should have learned from Romney that there are no private statements. Needless to say anyone with any sense hates racists. By apologizing (on top of her other apologies for her email indiscretions, "I short circuited" etc) she made herself and her supporters look stupid while giving Trump another opening (as if he needed one) to gratify his base and shower her with more abuse. So she fucked herself both ways.

White = Racist said...

I hate Lance Cockstrong because he's racist.

PilotX said...

"Pocahontas" is a racial slur?

Somebody better tell Disney!"


Well, in the wrong context yes. During a ceremony honoring Indigenous WWII soldiers yes indeed. There was no reason under the sun to bring up Pocahontas in that instance. I think you know that but nice dodge.

PilotX said...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362082-navajo-nation-delegate-rips-trump-navajo-code-talkers-arent-pawns-to

Seems the Navajo nation delegate feels the comment was inappropriate as do most rational thinking humans.

PilotX said...

https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/navajo-leader-rips-trump-for-pocahontas-remark-during-ceremony/

Limpbaugh said...

Ask your Mom to look things up for you Mike from Iowa.

field negro said...

I must say that the quality of comments on this thread for the most part has been awesome. Good discussion and critical thinking.

Anonymous said...

Blacks are the most racist race out there.

Anonymous said...

Chicago November 2017 to Date:
Shot & Killed: 35
Shot & Wounded: 151
Total Shot: 186
Total Homicides: 38

Anonymous said...

"and critical thinking."
6:38 AM

Complete opposite of critical thinking. Very rigid obtuse delusional patterns.

Bold, James Bold said...

"Unlike "sleazy" Limpaw, I bother to check the records and guess what I found about stand down order inm Charlottesville? https://www.snopes.com/were-police-told-stand-down-charlottesville/"

ACLU Virginia confirms stand-down order in a tweet:

https://twitter.com/ACLUVA/status/896386562484731904

All the pro-Black posters here are delusional.  All are in outright denial of reality.

James Bitch is kinda dumb said...

Isn't that rich?The guy who claims to be a genius inventor calls the rest of us delusional. Irony is lost on morons obviously.
Bwahahahahahahaha!

James is a dumb virgin said...

James trusts the ACLU? The same guy who believes in Alex Jones' conspiracy theories trusts an ACLU tweet. Oh this shit just keeps getting better.
Hey James, how did cruising the malls for a little girl go? We know you like em young and virginal or in other words grown women don't like unemployed losers who traffic in stupid conspiracy theories.
James hasn't had pussy since pussy had him.
Bwahahahahahahaha!

Lance Cockstrong said...

It was up until Now anyway ...

Just another White Old Fart said...

Lance Cockstrong said...

Liberalism is bigoted against whites is one way of looking at it. It is an opposite reaction to generations of racist actions against minorities, blacks in particular. Call it reparations if that helps.


- I agree with what you noted regarding the normalization of racism, and degrees of it. But I disagree that recognizing the role of perception must include the acceptance of delusion. It's delusional for people to insist that simply treating people equitably is "bigotry" against the group which formerly was treated favorably.
- I realize that most humans do hold the *belief* that 'fairness' means giving an advantage or "break" to whichever individual or group is currently bending one's ear. That belief, however, is only egoism, and not the actual meaning of the word, or of the concept which it represents.
- The only way in which "Liberalism is bigoted against whites is one way of looking at it", is if the person(s) doing the looking are irrational and so self-centered that they lack the capability to see others as fully human, or as members of the same species as the pseudo-science types try to euphemize it.
-

Lance Cockstrong said...

Not necessarily the only way just the only way you know of which is all that matters to you ... typical right wing ... if you were an Old Black Fart you might see it differently

Lt.Commander Johnson said...

Yeah, Pilot X.

Your Union/Federal hero, Phillip (the only good Indian is a dead Indian), Sheridan, just loved him some Injuns.

Why don't we tear down his statue in DC?

I don't actually expect an answer, except for Queenie and her insults, by various names.

Just another White Old Fart said...

@ Lance Cockstrong

- Well, there is what matters to one generally, and what matters to one personally. White people who are unable to see past the personal are the people who feel "oppressed" because they no longer have free rein to treat Black people, and all other "non-White" people, like prey and property.
- I don't know whether you're saying I'm "typical right wing", or whether extreme self-centered hatred of others is typical right wing - I hope it's the latter, because I'm not typical, and I most certainly am not 'right wing'.
-
- Meanwhile, of course I'd see things differently had I been born Black. But I wasn't - and I started posting as "white old fart" to be totally up-front about that fact, about the most basic foundation of my viewpoint.
- If that makes my posting here wrong, bad, irritating, or unwanted by Mr. Field and/or those who support him, hey, I'll respect that and STFU.
-


PilotX said...

"Why don't we tear down his statue in DC?"

Not my hero. As Chuck D would most likely say, most of my heroes don't have statues.

Basso e Grasso said...

It's okay to be White.

Lance Cockstrong said...

The inability to recognize that the world does not revolve around you is what is characteristic of right wingers. That is not to say that that trait is exclusive to right wingers. No one is telling you to STFU. That is also characteristic of right wingers ... they win the debate if they shut you up (me personally I have been shitlisted on several right wing websites). But if everyone cannot/will not see past their own frame of reference what is the point of everyone carrying on a conversation with themselves? Your concept of what matters generally vs personally escapes me but I'll assume it is your way of saying that white people have achieved post-racist nirvana status and so to the extent that racism still exists is the responsibility of the minority community.

Richard Spencer said...

It's okay to be White.

No it's not.

Anonymous said...

Everything is alright when everything is all white......

Anonymous said...

Everything is alright when everything is all white......
-------------
Except music, dancing, parties, the NFL, the NBA, movies, fashion..........

Just another White Old Fart said...

Anonymous Lance Cockstrong said...

Your concept of what matters generally vs personally escapes me but I'll assume it is your way of saying that white people have achieved post-racist nirvana status and so to the extent that racism still exists is the responsibility of the minority community.

10:04 PM


- You have missed, misunderstood, and misrepresented my point so completely that it's dumbfounding.
- I have to assume it's deliberate on your part, because I find it difficult to believe that anyone could actually be dense enough to misconstrue everything I've been writing so badly that it's taken to mean the exact opposite of everything I've been saying.
-
- Spitting on the very people who support the fight for "Liberty and Justice for all" is not smart.
-

Anonymous said...

Old White Fart,

Insisting on freedom for aggression is asking for anything but freedom.  You're asking for tyranny.

Just another White Old Fart said...

Ninny Ass Mouse:
- I have never, and do not, in any way "insist on freedom for aggression" - it's either incredibly stupid, or else incredibly malevolent and libelous, to claim that I've ever done so.
-