EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 662
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18412 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:23 Jockmcplop wrote: I often see this in discussion of racism. It is assumed regularly by many people on the hard left that racism is more about power than discrimination, for example. In this sense, racism becomes that thing that white people do to other races by existing in a society that favours white people, instead of being just racism. There's been countless misunderstandings caused by this gap in definitions in the various iterations of this thread. It means that so called 'reverse racism' is no longer viable as a concept, as well as meaning that people innocent of racism are deemed racist because they are white. See that Youtube video 'All white people are racist' that caused a storm (I can't remember who made this). It uses a definition of racism that is tailored to the argument that all white people are racist, so you can't argue against it. Be aware that I am talking about the hard left here, not your average leftist. Its a small group that are overrepresented in online discussion. Its also something that's been done to death in this thread, so I'm not that bothered about going over it again and again. I stick by my opinion on it though, its just bad for discussion, counter productive, and alienating for your average person. I think you might be mixing up concepts. There *is* such a thing as white privilege. You don't have to be a racist to benefit from that, but you do have to be white. Just as in certain (far fewer) contexts there is black privilege. There is also male privilege, straight privilege (and the far less useful female, and queer privileges), and I'm sure you can think of a couple more. I can see how simply *not acknowledging* that white privilege exists can be seen as racist. But you cannot be racist just for being born white and thus inherently benefiting from that white privilege. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: people aren't claiming that it's okay to use monkey to describe black people, they claim that monkey wasn't used because the guy in question was black. And it’s a common phrase in parts of the country that is regular used for screwing something up, particularly foolishly and inartfully. In fact, if you’re wanting to go with “the last thing we need to do is fuck this up” sentiment, and think midway to that part that it’s a little too profane for the audience, you go with “monkey this up” as a euphemism. And it’s the last thing we should do [as Floridians] is monkey this up by embracing a socialist agenda. It’s people that looks at 4-D chess arguments with Trump, and say “That looks fun, let’s adopt it for our use.” | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: people aren't claiming that it's okay to use monkey to describe black people, they claim that monkey wasn't used because the guy in question was black. To what would be your response and thought on people who claim it is not a dog whistle to use "monkey this up" in such a manner by an American politician on TV? ______ On August 31 2018 22:37 JimmiC wrote: I'm saying that your average american does not put it nearly the effort it would take, and many don't even have the horse power to understand why it would be racist. So the Dog whistle calling them isn't that they understand it to be racist, but rather that they think the other side is being petty and making shit up, pulling them together. I get Fava's point and it is a good one. I just think that people really underestimate what the average and below average in both political interest and intelligence are capable and willing to understand. So would you say that those who are interested in politics well and above the average person (like an actual politician for instnace!) claim that this isn't a dog whistle is in fact do not have the requisite mental horsepower that is well below average in intelligence? Case in point Danglars, who is insisting that the phrase is in fact a real and legitimate phrase, as opposed to one that happens to sound similar to real and legitimate phrases. Apparently the career politician with his team of advisors cannot think to use the phrase "muck this up", or "faff up" or "flap up" or any hundreds of identikit phrases, it just happened to be "monkey this up" which isn't an actual real phrase. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That would be a misunderstanding of terms. There is the "concept of sytematic racism" and there is racism as the word is commonly used and understood. For some reason certain peoples do use the word "racism" to mean "concept of sytematic racism", which I think is absolutele balderdash, and in this case it would be the fault of those users trying to change the meaning of the word (unsuccessfully). I don't know about this youtube video, I automatically assume any information that isn't in an efficiently transmitted format as trash. Perhaps we just get our politics and areas of discussion from different sources Jockmcplop. I agree its a problem with the language, not the concepts. I argued along the same lines as you the last time I discussed this here, that some people deliberately collapse things like 'systemic racism' or 'institutional racism' down into the word racism, because it generates more controversy. This was my original point, that when people do this, and it happens alot (have a search for Munroe Bergdorf), it alienates everyone who uses the language properly, and stops them from taking part in the discussion. I think we may well get our ideas from different sources. I do follow the so called 'culture wars' that are happening across the internet, because I think they are as influential as they are stupid. On August 31 2018 22:39 Acrofales wrote: I think you might be mixing up concepts. There *is* such a thing as white privilege. You don't have to be a racist to benefit from that, but you do have to be white. Just as in certain (far fewer) contexts there is black privilege. There is also male privilege, straight privilege (and the far less useful female, and queer privileges), and I'm sure you can think of a couple more. I can see how simply *not acknowledging* that white privilege exists can be seen as racist. But you cannot be racist just for being born white and thus inherently benefiting from that white privilege. Look at the example above, of the Munroe Bergdorf controversy, and the amount of support she got from the left after making the very simple claim 'All white people are racist'. I'm not mixing up concepts, I am responding to other people who are deliberately mixing concepts up. I think my points here are valid. Unfortunately I know where this goes next. If I keep arguing this point someone will eventually say something like "its interesting that you are arguing about the definition of racism instead of arguing against the racists". I've been through this too many times  SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_Bergdorf_race_row_incident Basically Bergdorf said that all white people were guilty of racial violence. This is racist, but the support she got was from people who defined racism poorly. She then went on to explain herself on TV, and used the correct terminology, talking about white privilege and institutional/systemic racism, which was much more acceptable. The problem here, is one of language, not a conceptual problem. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:58 JimmiC wrote: I agree with this, if I was a judge in a "do I think he is racist camp" my vote would be yes. My point (which may not be a good one) is that I think bringing it up and making a big deal out of it is not a great strategy. Because, for all the racists who didn't get it, now they do and will support him. Those who are not racists but lack the ability or will to go through the steps read all the evidence and so on, will think he's being picked on and it will give him some sort of martyr like status. Its like preaching to the already converted while pushing away the not converted, if that makes sense. edit: nope, sorry; i did in fact NOT understand. at the time. i do now. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12502 Posts
I mean come on. There are no trolls under those bridges. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18412 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:50 Jockmcplop wrote: I agree its a problem with the language, not the concepts. I argued along the same lines as you the last time I discussed this here, that some people deliberately collapse things like 'systemic racism' or 'institutional racism' down into the word racism, because it generates more controversy. This was my original point, that when people do this, and it happens alot (have a search for Munroe Bergdorf), it alienates everyone who uses the language properly, and stops them from taking part in the discussion. I think we may well get our ideas from different sources. I do follow the so called 'culture wars' that are happening across the internet, because I think they are as influential as they are stupid. Look at the example above, of the Munroe Bergdorf controversy, and the amount of support she got from the left after making the very simple claim 'All white people are racist'. I'm not mixing up concepts, I am responding to other people who are deliberately mixing concepts up. I think my points here are valid. Unfortunately I know where this goes next. If I keep arguing this point someone will eventually say something like "its interesting that you are arguing about the definition of racism instead of arguing against the racists". I've been through this too many times SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_Bergdorf_race_row_incident Basically Bergdorf said that all white people were guilty of racial violence. This is racist, but the support she got was from people who defined racism poorly. She then went on to explain herself on TV, and used the correct terminology, talking about white privilege and institutional/systemic racism, which was much more acceptable. The problem here, is one of language, not a conceptual problem. Okay, I see your point. Going off wikipedia, a quote from her: She insisted that people should avoid dictionary definitions of "racism" because they were "written a very long time ago and not by a person of colour"; instead she said that people should use the word "racism" only for "a whole system" upholding the social dominance of white people over people of colour through societal phenomena such as white privilege. This seems rather strange. I think a system can be *unfair*, but only people can be racist. Any other definition just doesn't seem to fit the bill. As above, though, if sufficient evidence is provided that a system is unfair towards people of color, and and someone refuses to even admit that this is the case (let alone think about changing it), then that person may be racist (he could also be ignorant, or just plain a dick. I'm not sure it really matters). | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28876 Posts
People who voted Obama can still be racist, but they are clearly not so racist that they can't vote for a black candidate. But if you tell those people that they are racists, while they think 'what, I'm not a fucking racist, I voted for Obama twice', I think the likelihood of that happening decreases. And I think for political discourse to have a chance at improving, we actually need to accept people's explanations rather than cynically look for more nefarious reasonings for their word choices - even when our personal perspectives makes it seem unlikely that their personal explanation is genuine. I mean I definitely understand why americans have a much more antagonistic political attitude than I do - when the trumpian gop is the opposition then 'civilly losing' isn't really an option. it's either a glorious victory or a humiliating loss. I mostly just feel like this whole discussion is a distraction that detracts focus from issues that are far more substantial - as mentioned earlier, if DeSantis is a racist and his opponent is a black man, it would make sense that their political platforms with regard to racial issues greatly differ, and I'd like to see more focus on those issues rather than the words DeSantis used. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:50 Jockmcplop wrote: I agree its a problem with the language, not the concepts. I argued along the same lines as you the last time I discussed this here, that some people deliberately collapse things like 'systemic racism' or 'institutional racism' down into the word racism, because it generates more controversy. This was my original point, that when people do this, and it happens alot (have a search for Munroe Bergdorf), it alienates everyone who uses the language properly, and stops them from taking part in the discussion. I think we may well get our ideas from different sources. I do follow the so called 'culture wars' that are happening across the internet, because I think they are as influential as they are stupid. Look at the example above, of the Munroe Bergdorf controversy, and the amount of support she got from the left after making the very simple claim 'All white people are racist'. I'm not mixing up concepts, I am responding to other people who are deliberately mixing concepts up. I think my points here are valid. Unfortunately I know where this goes next. If I keep arguing this point someone will eventually say something like "its interesting that you are arguing about the definition of racism instead of arguing against the racists". I've been through this too many times SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_Bergdorf_race_row_incident Basically Bergdorf said that all white people were guilty of racial violence. This is racist, but the support she got was from people who defined racism poorly. She then went on to explain herself on TV, and used the correct terminology, talking about white privilege and institutional/systemic racism, which was much more acceptable. The problem here, is one of language, not a conceptual problem. I think nowadays only people on the right would agree that what you describe is also racism. I know too much about you to ask you to join us, but I can hope you can help the left cure its modern racism double-speak. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:52 JimmiC wrote: I'm saying that if you had a person that you suggest in a one on one, or group over beers discussion you could likely lead them to the conclusion that you are looking for. But that if you pump it out all over media in a big dramatic way filled with outrage you are likely doing more harm than good and not convincing people of your position but rather make them dig in and not be open to more clear and easy to understand positions later. As for Danglers, I think he basically has PTSD and is unwilling to give an inch and is always looking and worried if a trap is being set and if he gives an inch people will jump down his throat with SEE. There are people here who are actively looking to "get him" and so you get these responses. I also think Danglers is actively looking to "get" others. Often I don't think this thread is about learning or sharing opinions so much is looking for the "gets". *my opinion only I could be completely wrong just my observations. Nah, I share an argue my sincere political beliefs. It is a symptom of caustic political discourse that people accuse others of basically having PTSD. It’s the best thing really for my points. People want to put Trump in this “unprecedented” box for civility, then turn around and accuse their political opponents of having PTSD. I think Trump just brought out more people from the left with disgusting political takes, and people don’t like that kind of exposure, so must justify it with wilder and wilder rationalizations. You can join the right, or join the side that thinks you have PTSD for your political opinions. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28876 Posts
On August 31 2018 23:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Such a course of action will allow such usage of words to be renormalised into political discourse and by extention the rest of society. This is not theoretical. First it was, there are some fine people marching with nazis, then xxx are animals, and now USA has detention camps where thousands of children have been isolated and some have gone missing. I think focusing on how DeSantis is a staunch Trump supporter and using that to connect him to supporting a policy of detaining children is a much more powerful statement than saying that he's a racist because of two phrases he used. I'm also not saying we shouldn't call out this. I'm saying we must be careful not to call it out in a way that makes it seem like every man who calls a black man articulate is a racist. I feel like the latter is to some degree happening, and I really understand how this can alienate some people. Most are much less word-conscious than the people posting on this board are. | ||
| ||
