|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 10 2017 12:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:
The entire Coates piece is a critique of white identity politics. At no point does he advance any kind of black identity agenda in any way. No, attacking white identity politics does not make you pro black identity politics without some further showing.
You can't be serious posting any of this. Not only do the arguments and methodology of the article make it abundantly clear that Coates is all in on black identity politics, but a mere cursory look at his other writings and views makes the conclusion irrefutable.
|
Man it's really funny seeing white people act up once they're not in charge of setting the playing field and the rules of change and / or discussions.
"That's not how things work", "That's simply not acceptable" simply discredits their entire blockade of progress.
Were they themselves in the position of PoC's bodys would be hanging from the trees a plenty.
|
On September 10 2017 18:18 Artisreal wrote:
Man it's really funny seeing white people act up once they're not in charge of setting the playing field and the rules of change and / or discussions.
"That's not how things work", "That's simply not acceptable" simply discredits their entire blockade of progress.
Were they themselves in the position of PoC's bodys would be hanging from the trees a plenty.
Um, what? This seems not only deliberately provocative but also completely random.
|
It's perfectly contextual if you read the last page.
And what's rather deliberately provocative is dismissing the struggle of PoCs/LGBT to receive equal treatment as not imperative to (white) politics.
|
On September 10 2017 18:18 Artisreal wrote:
Man it's really funny seeing white people act up once they're not in charge of setting the playing field and the rules of change and / or discussions.
"That's not how things work", "That's simply not acceptable" simply discredits their entire blockade of progress.
Were they themselves in the position of PoC's bodys would be hanging from the trees a plenty.
I would not be the slightest bit surprised if there were some posters here with strange fruit in their familial/historic photo albums.
|
Until Coates drops his "symbolic reparations are the only way" schtick, he is a sub-par advocate for real progress.
|
On September 10 2017 20:47 farvacola wrote:
Until Coates drops his "symbolic reparations are the only way" schtick, he is a sub-par advocate for real progress.
I'm betting on the ~75% of the world that isn't white agreeing that it's a white people problem, before enough white people realize the error of their ways.
But hey, the night is young, maybe they get it before that happens, but I doubt it.
|
White people problem or not, whatever that means, claiming to be an advocate for racial justice while fighting against any real substantive reparations and propping up Clintonite attitudes toward welfare is a crock of bullshit.
|
On September 10 2017 20:59 farvacola wrote:
White people problem or not, whatever that means, claiming to be an advocate for racial justice while fighting against any real substantive reparations and propping up Clintonite attitudes toward welfare is a crock of bullshit.
What I mean to say is that if exploiting people is the way to success it's only a matter of time before most of the world realizes exploiting white people benefits the most people (also a diverse group), as opposed to the inverse of exploiting people of color (all of American history).
EDIT: I have my beefs with Coats but I'd hardly mention him in what I view as impediments to progress regarding racial justice.
But I get he makes white people very uncomfortable and he capes more for capitalistic ideas (probably not unrelated to not being poor) than I'd like, but most of the critique I've seen is silly.
|
Haha, GH the incrementalist Coates fan, that's a nice title.
|
Cops/leadership have a third try (fourth maybe) to get it right. Mainstream conservative pundit with a yarmulke coming to campus upon invitation. Berkeley has already sent school-wide email that counselors are standing by for those impacted by his speech.
|
Isn't Shapiro more of an idiot then a conservative. Maybe they won't be offended this time.
Is that counselors are standing by line sarcasm?
|
Many of Danglars' "y'all are just echo chamber bullying me and all other conservatives with your hurtful words" spiels seem clearly inspired by Shapiro talks, so I'd assume that he doesn't think he's an idiot. They also both like to talk about constitutional law as if they were constitutional scholars.
I also like the part where Dangles points out that Shapiro is "with a yarmulke" as if that stands as anything other than "look at how they treat my friend the jew!"
|
No, it's in the article:
The university also is offering counseling to students and faculty worried about the event, which is being held at the invitation of the Berkeley College Republicans.
“We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging,” Alivisatos said in the memo posted on the university’s website. “No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe.”
The last line is pretty ironic given what happened previously when conservative speakers were to give talks.
|
On September 10 2017 18:26 Artisreal wrote:
It's perfectly contextual if you read the last page.
And what's rather deliberately provocative is dismissing the struggle of PoCs/LGBT to receive equal treatment as not imperative to (white) politics.
It is not contextual at all. It is grossly incorrect and belies a very poor understanding of the criticisms of Coates' argument.
|
On September 10 2017 23:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't Shapiro more of an idiot then a conservative. Maybe they won't be offended this time.
Is that counselors are standing by line sarcasm?
Shapiro isn't an idiot at all. He is very bright. He falls into line more with traditional conservatism than I'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one of its most intelligent proponents.
|
I feel like a few of the folks who feel that speaking out against white identity politics are kind of being what they claim to hate in conservatives who want to "stick it to the liberals." Using crowd wisdom as an indication of correctness, being excited about how uncomfortable it makes "whitey" that it's like that, and so on. It almost seems like obtuse framing of an issue in terms of entity X is alright even if it's obtuse as long as, you know, fuck X anyways.
|
On September 11 2017 01:11 LegalLord wrote:
I feel like a few of the folks who feel that speaking out against white identity politics are kind of being what they claim to hate in conservatives who want to "stick it to the liberals." Using crowd wisdom as an indication of correctness, being excited about how uncomfortable it makes "whitey" that it's like that, and so on. It almost seems like obtuse framing of an issue in terms of entity X is alright even if it's obtuse as long as, you know, fuck X anyways.
I've read this about 5 times and I'm still having trouble parsing it. I think you're accusing... someone of hypocrisy for saying/doing things "just to stick it to whitey" while criticizing conservatives for saying/doing things "just to stick it to liberals." Do you think Coates is doing this? He doesn't seem like a provocateur to me, and most of his criticisms aren't pithy enough to be designed just to get a rise out of opponents. His descriptions of Trump are the only ones that really seem designed as zingers.
|
Coates is making a crap argument about how every problem is just racism because white people, and cherry picking in a very deliberate, systematic, and dishonest way to do so. But I don't know him well enough to say why. However, when people (in this thread) jerk off to the idea that "talking racism should make people uncomfortable" as if that is some form of virtue, then yeah, that starts to look like hypocrisy.
|
What if it's not "making racists uncomfortable is good," but rather "any framing of the issue that doesn't make white people uncomfortable would have to be too declawed to make any meaningful progress?" This isn't necessarily just a schadenfreude sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
