Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

[Patine]

You being a social worker doesn't mean you have the authority to speak on a systemic level, especially when we start talking about countries that aren't your own, @Cloud_Strife

Likewise, you're taking your [I]personal[/I] belief that you live in some kind of post-racial culture where all demographics have it equally as bad, and projecting that onto the state of the . . . country? World? Unsure. One of the two, to then justify your speaking down to Cloud about what a "groove" they're stuck in.

Oh, so I don't "have the authority to speak on a systemic level, especially when we start talking about countries that aren't your own," - but you, and those on this thread who more or less agree on your broad points of view can? Did you really not proof read that blatant and glaring hypocrisy and double-standard you just typed there. Also, how many South Africans have any you actually spoken to in person who have been candid about affairs back home - I've spoken to five (two White and three Black), and it seems the situation really isn't as simple at all on a "Black" and "White" as you and certain other posters have been going about should be axies of redress, and take into account the finer grained details of affairs - because you're viewing them like how the racial struggles unfold in your own countries and projecting to a country that is not your own. I have not actually stated once that "a pure post-racial culture where all demographics have it equally as bad," exists - if you read my, which you didn't quote, so I'm not even sure you did fully, I used a whole bunch of qualifiers to my terms to say that things were not as they were in '60's, which seemed to the extreme @Cloud_Strife, but I didn't actually say racism was "erased" or not present. But it seems even acknowledging any societal progress in institutional racism seems to be attacked as tantamount to denying racism at all. As for South Africa, all I've said there, which I seem to be constantly attacked for (based on a lack of understanding and education of the situation and assumption certain dynamics must, by default, be the same as in the U.S.), is that, in their case, addressing socio-economic imbalance and injustice on a racial level of just "Black" and "White" is unproductive there, as the situation is more fine-grained and is not the same in it's history, or today, really at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

As well you should. The problem with so much of the extreme left, and the obsession about racial groups without regard for little things like details is an obsession of the extreme left, is that they are manifestly racist.

If emphasising race over class is characteristic of left-wing thought, and the further left you go, the more prevalent this is- as I take to be the implication here- then why has Bernie Sanders been so frequently criticised by moderate liberals for emphasising class over race? If the left are preoccupied with race to the exclusion of class, if this is a emphasis characteristic of the far-left fringe, then how could Sanders alleged preoccupation with class to the exclusion of race become such a popular avenue of attack for moderate, anti-leftist, and pro-establishment liberals?

Or do you imagine that Clinton and Biden are to the left of Sanders, and Sanders, correspondingly, to the right of Clinton and Biden?

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, so I don't "have the authority to speak on a systemic level, especially when we start talking about countries that aren't your own," - but you, and those on this thread who more or less agree on your broad points of view can? Did you really not proof read that blatant and glaring hypocrisy and double-standard you just typed there.

For the fourth time of misquoting me, you're going to have to point out where I did. You went silent two out of the past three, so I'm not holding out much hope for this time either.

 

[Oerdin]

Unfortunately, at least with the American left who self identify as communist or socialist, yes, their obsession has shifted from class to race. Yes, I know that contradicts the old Marxist ideology but it remains true. Those guys are all about intersectional identitarianism these days; which shows they remain as dumb and clueless as ever.

 

[Gorbles]

You literally just repeated the same thing you said previously, while not answering Traitorfish's questions, @Oerdin.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unfortunately, at least with the American left who self identify as communist or socialist, yes, their obsession has shifted from class to race. Yes, I know that contradicts the old Marxist ideology but it remains true. Those guys are all about intersectional identitarianism these days; which shows they remain as dumb and clueless as ever.

That's really not what I asked.

Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont, I) is among the most prominent left-wing politician in the United States, and the most prominent American to explicitly identify themselves as a socialist.

Sanders has been criticised by Clinton- or Biden-aligned moderates for an alleged emphasis on class to the exclusion of race.

If the left was preoccupied with race to the exclusion of class, then why is their most prominent representative, Senator Sanders, perceived as being more class-focused and less race-focused than moderate Democrats?

If the preoccupation was race to the exclusion of class is characteristic of the left, and contrasts the left with the centre, then why do centrists find political mileage in criticising Sanders for his alleged emphasis on class over race?

 

[Patine]

For the fourth time of misquoting me, you're going to have to point out where I did. You went silent two out of the past three, so I'm not holding out much hope for this time either.

I'll make you a deal. I'll dig up all the incriminating of yours on you, when you dig you up all the incriminating of mine on me. Let's either have a contest of hanging each other on our words, and see who gets hung higher, or we can just drop the whole matter and all the implied baggage and move forward in this conversation like adults.

 

[Gorbles]

I'll make you a deal. I'll dig up all the incriminating of yours on you, when you dig you up all the incriminating of mine on me. Let's either have a contest of hanging each other on our words, and see who gets hung higher, or we can just drop the whole matter and all the implied baggage and move forward in this conversation like adults.

I literally already asked you for evidence of my alleged hypocrisy due to my invocation of a position of some kind of authority on the subject. There doesn't need to be a deal, especially given your past behaviour. Either you can back up your personal derail, or you can't.

I've already presented my argument, right? You're relying on your personal experience to dictate an underlying set of assumptions about South Africa in general. You back this up with prideful assertions about your historical knowledge (which you have done, in this thread), but you get incredibly incendiary as soon as people point out the flaws in your understanding or general approach.

You literally - in the post I replied to previously - invoked both your job and where you're working as a qualifier for the context of these arguments you're making. You made the uncited, unverified claim that a poor white person was no less likely to be accosted by authority than named racial minorities. The context for this claim was Edmonton, Canada. Not South Africa. Not any specific named place in South Africa. Nevermind the incredulous nature of the claim itself, you completely failed to relate it to the general context (of South Africa, as has constantly been discussed in this thread) and you also used it to attack another forum member as to the limits of their thinking.

And then you get mad because I criticise yours? At least be consistent here, instead of throwing out "hypocrisy" as an (ironic) deflection!

 

[NovaKart]

Some people on CFC use the word literally too often.

That's really not what I asked.

Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont, I) is among the most prominent left-wing politician in the United States, and the most prominent American to explicitly identify themselves as a socialist.

Sanders has been criticised by Clinton- or Biden-aligned moderates for an alleged emphasis on class to the exclusion of race.

If the left was preoccupied with race to the exclusion of class, then why is their most prominent representative, Senator Sanders, perceived as being more class-focused and less race-focused than moderate Democrats?

If the preoccupation was race to the exclusion of class is characteristic of the left, and contrasts the left with the centre, then why do centrists find political mileage in criticising Sanders for his alleged emphasis on class over race?

Maybe it’s a silent majority thing? A lot of dialogue on the left focuses on race, seems like more than class, but maybe people aren’t voting that way as much.

Look at how the right and left focus on trans issues way more than most people will probably deal with it in their own lives.

 

[Gorbles]

Some people on CFC use the word literally too often.

While we all have our idiosyncrasies, I don't think you're anyone to complain how often people should be using words

 

[Patine]

I literally already asked you for evidence of my alleged hypocrisy due to my invocation of a position of some kind of authority on the subject. There doesn't need to be a deal, especially given your past behaviour. Either you can back up your personal derail, or you can't.

I've already presented my argument, right? You're relying on your personal experience to dictate an underlying set of assumptions about South Africa in general. You back this up with prideful assertions about your historical knowledge (which you have done, in this thread), but you get incredibly incendiary as soon as people point out the flaws in your understanding or general approach.

You literally - in the post I replied to previously - invoked both your job and where you're working as a qualifier for the context of these arguments you're making. You made the uncited, unverified claim that a poor white person was no less likely to be accosted by authority than named racial minorities. The context for this claim was Edmonton, Canada. Not South Africa. Not any specific named place in South Africa. Nevermind the incredulous nature of the claim itself, you completely failed to relate it to the general context (of South Africa, as has constantly been discussed in this thread) and you also used it to attack another forum member as to the limits of their thinking.

And then you get mad because I criticise yours? At least be consistent here, instead of throwing out "hypocrisy" as an (ironic) deflection!

Wait, wait. You've just stated that when I give a viewpoint, it's an OPINION. When others here point out "flaws" in it, if I'm reading currently, the "flaws" pointed are OBJECTIVLEY true not opinion, by the tenor and phrasing of the sentence, at least. And, if I may ask, who in this thread has said they were from South Africa? Why is your point of view of a country you're not from and your opinions on should be done inherently superior to mine? Neither of us are from South Africa. From whence does YOUR objective moral high horse, towering over me, arise?

 

[Gorbles]

Wait, wait. You've just stated that when I give a viewpoint, it's an OPINION. When others here point out "flaws" in it, if I'm reading currently, the "flaws" pointed are OBJECTIVLEY true not opinion, by the tenor and phrasing of the sentence, at least. And, if I may ask, who in this thread has said they were from South Africa? Why is your point of view of a country you're not from and your opinions on should be done inherently superior to mine? Neither of us are from South Africa. From whence does YOUR objective moral high horse, towering over me, arise?

Where did I say I have any horse, let alone a moral one? Also, props for misreading, but I didn't say anyone said they were from SA. But it's been the running context throughout the thread and one you flexed your own (admitted) historical prowess on. That said, if you don't understand why there might be a difference between your personal life experience in Edmonton and anyone's experience anywhere else in the globe, then we can just circle back to one of our first interactions in the thread, where I suggest you might not know as much as you claim to.

And before you get all high and mighty again, the claims about your knowledge are things you have made. I'm just holding you to them.

PS: claims about moral high horses make five attempts at the personal angle, thus proving you completely incapable of refraining from doing so. You've provided no evidence for the past X claims about me, personally, and have just attempted to move the goalposts a little further each time, without actually responding to points made. I'm bowing out again - I don't know if it's me, or what, but you literally - not metaphorically - cannot see how you're acting here, for whatever reason.

 

[Patine]

Where did I say I have any horse, let alone a moral one? Also, props for misreading, but I didn't say anyone said they were from SA. But it's been the running context throughout the thread and one you flexed your own (admitted) historical prowess on. That said, if you don't understand why there might be a difference between your personal life experience in Edmonton and anyone's experience anywhere else in the globe, then we can just circle back to one of our first interactions in the thread, where I suggest you might not know as much as you claim to.

And before you get all high and mighty again, the claims about your knowledge are things you have made. I'm just holding you to them.

PS: claims about moral high horses make five attempts at the personal angle, thus proving you completely incapable of refraining from doing so. You've provided no evidence for the past X claims about me, personally, and have just attempted to move the goalposts a little further each time, without actually responding to points made. I'm bowing out again - I don't know if it's me, or what, but you literally - not metaphorically - cannot see how you're acting here, for whatever reason.

"Knock, knock, on the door,
There's nobody in here,
Look in the mirror my friend,"

-"It's What You Say," by the Dave Matthew Band (who, incidentally, are from South Africa).
And with that quote (and I really don't care whether or not you puzzle out what I mean by), I am done banging my head on the wall with you.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe it’s a silent majority thing? A lot of dialogue on the left focuses on race, seems like more than class, but maybe people aren’t voting that way as much.

Who's participating in this dialogue, though? The strongest intersection of "further left" and "any meaningful presence in the public discourse" is the "Bernie Bro"/Chapo Trap House/Jacobin milieu, who talk about class pretty constantly, while the centre-left talks about class only sparingly if at all, and in vague terms of an electoral puzzle rather than a social reality. However, discussions of racial justice are pretty common topic for discussion across the broad sweep from centre to far left, and, past a certain fairly close-to-centre point, don't grow any more narrow or shrill as you go further left.

(I'd say that the most strident "race-first" voices tend to be to the left of Clinton/Biden and to the right of Sanders, but that they tend to align more naturally with Clinton/Biden because their political practice is based around a model of state-sponsored "community leadership" which is by design compatible with the top-down technocratic management, but clashes with the Sanders emphasis of popular mobilisation around labour and economic issues.)

The fact is, and he can deny this if he likes, Oerdin is not working from any empirical observation that the "extreme left" are narrowly focused on race to the exclusion of class. He doesn't have a coherent concept of who constitutes "the left", and he doesn't have coherent concept of what constitutes political extremism. What he is telling us is that discussions of racial injustice make him, personally, more uncomfortable than discussions of economic injustice, and that we should organise our public discourse around his personal comfort. "Extreme left", here, simply means "people who make me, Oerdin, most uncomfortable", and this leads him to the frankly puerile position of saying that Bill Clinton was markedly to the left of Vladimir Lenin.

 

[Gorbles]

"Knock, knock, on the door,
There's nobody in here,
Look in the mirror my friend,"

-"It's What You Say," by the Dave Matthew Band (who, incidentally, are from South Africa).
And with that quote (and I really don't care whether or not you puzzle out what I mean by), I am done banging my head on the wall with you.

Oh don't get me wrong, as cute as the condescension is, I'll be back the next time you try a laughably-incorrect claim. I'm just learning to disengage better, because your provocations are in no way as ideologically-neutral as you profess them to be

 

[Hygro]

Traitorfish stop comparing Clinton to Biden

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, it was apparently the intended connotation. Since you apparently really don't get it, the core idea that some people are inherently superior to others has historically shaped our societies in ways that even you liberals and libertarians agree are transparently unjust and we lefties think that idea is still running around loose to an alarming degree. That is what the phrase "your betters" was alluding to in Senethro's post.

To clarify, there is such a thing as "inherent superiority", in limited scope. People inherently have more physical potential (athletic ability) or cognitive ability. There is nothing you could have done in your lifetime to break the 100m dash record. You could get pretty fast, but you'd never challenge the best times no matter what you did. Very few people ever even have the potential for that. Fewer still approach realizing it.

That quickly becomes useless when trying to evaluate people as a whole...most professions don't require top 0.1% talent from birth and most don't even have solid objective measures to determine that (including the most lucrative ones which tend to be dynastic or opportunistic). Try evaluating what makes a good lawyer "objectively" for example. It's a lot harder than measuring distance/time!

So we agree that among healthy individuals wealth has either no or very poor correlation with capability, and is often used as a substitute for it wrt success rate. So "betters" in the context used didn't carry the superiority context for me when I read it, because the only thing "superior" in that context is the amount of money someone has.

~~~

Also note that while the world isn't fair (wealth has a large luck/component independent of a particular person's actions), arbitrarily taking stuff also isn't fair. So we should still prioritize models that leave people better off on average in a country.

What's truly sad is that this deference to the wealthy actually hurts himself as well as his own.

As it stands, rather than "deferring" to the wealthy they seem to have less interest in taking more of my money and allocating it to things I don't believe will improve either my living situation or the situation for people in the US in general. Though as there is no major political party that actually operates on policy rather than tribalism in the US, I don't really have a "side" to take.

You being a social worker doesn't mean you have the authority to speak on a systemic level, especially when we start talking about countries that aren't your own, @Patine. I'm surprised nobody's picked up on your arguments to authority, considering we have more than a few people that are keen on noting such things.

It's an anecdotal fallacy rather than argument from authority (his claim is based on his own observations). But there's not a lot to say since it's a fallacy attempting to reject a fallacy.

Likewise, you're taking your personal belief that you live in some kind of post-racial culture where all demographics have it equally as bad

If everyone actually acted on a post-racial belief structure, there wouldn't be racism any longer. People don't act that way, unfortunately.

 

[Oerdin]

That's really not what I asked.

Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont, I) is among the most prominent left-wing politician in the United States, and the most prominent American to explicitly identify themselves as a socialist.

Sanders has been criticised by Clinton- or Biden-aligned moderates for an alleged emphasis on class to the exclusion of race.

If the left was preoccupied with race to the exclusion of class, then why is their most prominent representative, Senator Sanders, perceived as being more class-focused and less race-focused than moderate Democrats?

If the preoccupation was race to the exclusion of class is characteristic of the left, and contrasts the left with the centre, then why do centrists find political mileage in criticising Sanders for his alleged emphasis on class over race?

They are preoccupied by race as evidenced by intersectional identitarianism being the heart and soul of the left these days. It has become something of a running joke. The professional politician class does try to hide it a bit but you see it every day and they love to pander to it at most opportunities.

 

[Gorbles]

And you've just repeated the same thing for the third time.

I can only assume you don't talk to any leftists, or anyone reasonably close to what could be described as a leftist. Class is a huge part of modern leftist critique, but obviously it's not the only thing. This just reads like the stereotypical notion that people can't care about more than one thing at the same time.

 

[Lexicus]

To clarify, there is such a thing as "inherent superiority", in limited scope.

Oh okay, so we're now back to "pretty damn sinister."