The normaliser? Nah.
A normaliser? For sure. But if y'all want to keep scolding those moralising progressives, that tracks. Especially for some. Or muddying the water by suggesting a lack of context? That also works.
Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
- Status
A normaliser? For sure. But if y'all want to keep scolding those moralising progressives, that tracks. Especially for some. Or muddying the water by suggesting a lack of context? That also works.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
It's part of their culture.
They're trying to be edgy.
*sigh*
Are you effing serious?!?
I'm going to go back to reading all the thoughtful comments on the thread (thanks @Akka and @Gorbles and @Birdjaguar ) and thinking about thoughtful ways I can respond, comment, thank them, etc.
This thread is having a really good discussion. Your post is just... I'll just say it's not contributing and leave it at that.
I mean that seems what your implying even if your not being direct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Senethro
Overlord
Very often true.
I figure there has to be something more. Like, this is the only realistic extent they have for self expression, so they kind of have to take it.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I'm just considering that once it's getting elected president, it probably qualified as normative a bit earlier?
I personally think this is a difference between TV meatspace and online cultures. At least a big part of it is.
Narz
keeping it real
Sure but just because he can get away with that doesn't mean the left can and should follow the same plan.
I think it's fair to say normalisation has been happening for some time, but at the same time, that he's also made it worse in the interim. Or more normal.
Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris aren't "the left". We're talking about the US election, where even by US political standards, whatever left wing exists in the Democratic Party, isn't what gets nominated for POTUS.
Regardless, you're the one who said dumping on people doesn't work as a strategy. Evidently, it does, because Trump is at least not failing miserably with it (whether he wins or loses). There's no "should" or "should not", just as "does it work" or "does it not work". "should" the Democrats do X is a very different argument.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,500
The most salient split in American society at present is not that between the left and the right, as conventionally understood (though it is not unrelated to that polarity). It is the difference between people who believe that when we speak we should be sensitive to various forms of social inequity and people who are unwilling to observe any such principle.
Now, this is really a more substantial split than it would seem if one just casts it as about speech taboos. The left’s insistence that language should be sensitive to social inequities is grounded in a belief that society systematically advantages some groups and systematically disadvantages other groups.
Although it manifests in concerns over language, there's a much more politically consequential battle being waged underneath the language concerns. The stakes of the battle are enormous. Each side (in its way) recognizes that and it is what has made language such a charged issue.
The driver is the left's understanding that advantage is structurally produced and maintained. Racism, for example, isn't just one individual hating another person because of their race. Rather, various interlocking and mutually-supportive and -sustaining structures that (all other things being equal) tend to advantage white people and disadvantage people of other races—such structures pervade our society.
The concept of structural racism has at least these two consequences for people who accept it. First, more things are “racist” than used to be the case. In the past, one would use the word “racist” primarily to describe violence or hatred directed toward somebody of another race. Now, anything that, unchecked, would have the effect of reinforcing and perpetuating the inequitable societal systems by which whites tend to be advantaged is “racist.” Second, one of the things that is known to perpetuate the structural advantaging of whites is leaving instances of structural racism unchallenged. If someone on the left hears a comment that emerges from structural racism and would perpetuate that structure, that person feels complicit unless he or she speaks out and therefore duty-bound to challenge the comment, and righteous in doing so.
Those two things together mean that people who have acknowledged the existence of structural racism frequently label various comments and actions as “racist.”
Void and Narz and Ordnael are testifying to how this is experienced. For the population that has not accepted the concept of structural racism (either because it has not been explained to them or because they resist* it), this means two things. First, they are being called racist for behaviors, or attitudes or comments of theirs that do not fit the old definition of racism. And second, they experience that calling out as though they are being charged with the old definition of racism: violence or hatred of minorities. And remember, that old definition was something an individual was guilty of, so they feel they are being condemned as an individual and for something as severe as inflicting violence on another human being. And if they know themselves to be innocent of that form of racism, as most of them probably are, then the charges feel baseless as well as severe.
*Now, let me hasten to note that resistance to the idea of structural racism is not just a neutral matter of not having been persuaded by a particular idea in the marketplace of ideas. Most white people who refuse to acknowledge that numerous aspects of our society have the effect of advantaging whites do so precisely because they are advantaged by that system (and they feel that advantage slipping away) (not least by virtue of the system’s being spotlighted) (but also, they don't feel advantaged at all, in the ways that most matter (because all other things aren't equal), so they are hesitant to acknowledge that in this one way they are). This is the real political battle that lies underneath the language concerns: a struggle over how long whites can retain the advantage they’ve traditionally enjoyed. Few people willingly surrender any scrap of relative power they enjoy, and simply to acknowledge the existence of structural racism is a step toward its dismantling. So this fight will be a fight--no way around it.
But it does explain the appeal of Trump. One, he communicates "I won't judge you." And two, he presents himself as the Great Defier of Those People Who Want To Tell You What You Can And Cannot Say.
Still probably a third of what I should write, but I do have other responsibilities
Now, this is really a more substantial split than it would seem if one just casts it as about speech taboos. The left’s insistence that language should be sensitive to social inequities is grounded in a belief that society systematically advantages some groups and systematically disadvantages other groups.
Although it manifests in concerns over language, there's a much more politically consequential battle being waged underneath the language concerns. The stakes of the battle are enormous. Each side (in its way) recognizes that and it is what has made language such a charged issue.
The driver is the left's understanding that advantage is structurally produced and maintained. Racism, for example, isn't just one individual hating another person because of their race. Rather, various interlocking and mutually-supportive and -sustaining structures that (all other things being equal) tend to advantage white people and disadvantage people of other races—such structures pervade our society.
The concept of structural racism has at least these two consequences for people who accept it. First, more things are “racist” than used to be the case. In the past, one would use the word “racist” primarily to describe violence or hatred directed toward somebody of another race. Now, anything that, unchecked, would have the effect of reinforcing and perpetuating the inequitable societal systems by which whites tend to be advantaged is “racist.” Second, one of the things that is known to perpetuate the structural advantaging of whites is leaving instances of structural racism unchallenged. If someone on the left hears a comment that emerges from structural racism and would perpetuate that structure, that person feels complicit unless he or she speaks out and therefore duty-bound to challenge the comment, and righteous in doing so.
Those two things together mean that people who have acknowledged the existence of structural racism frequently label various comments and actions as “racist.”
Void and Narz and Ordnael are testifying to how this is experienced. For the population that has not accepted the concept of structural racism (either because it has not been explained to them or because they resist* it), this means two things. First, they are being called racist for behaviors, or attitudes or comments of theirs that do not fit the old definition of racism. And second, they experience that calling out as though they are being charged with the old definition of racism: violence or hatred of minorities. And remember, that old definition was something an individual was guilty of, so they feel they are being condemned as an individual and for something as severe as inflicting violence on another human being. And if they know themselves to be innocent of that form of racism, as most of them probably are, then the charges feel baseless as well as severe.
*Now, let me hasten to note that resistance to the idea of structural racism is not just a neutral matter of not having been persuaded by a particular idea in the marketplace of ideas. Most white people who refuse to acknowledge that numerous aspects of our society have the effect of advantaging whites do so precisely because they are advantaged by that system (and they feel that advantage slipping away) (not least by virtue of the system’s being spotlighted) (but also, they don't feel advantaged at all, in the ways that most matter (because all other things aren't equal), so they are hesitant to acknowledge that in this one way they are). This is the real political battle that lies underneath the language concerns: a struggle over how long whites can retain the advantage they’ve traditionally enjoyed. Few people willingly surrender any scrap of relative power they enjoy, and simply to acknowledge the existence of structural racism is a step toward its dismantling. So this fight will be a fight--no way around it.
But it does explain the appeal of Trump. One, he communicates "I won't judge you." And two, he presents himself as the Great Defier of Those People Who Want To Tell You What You Can And Cannot Say.
Still probably a third of what I should write, but I do have other responsibilities
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
That's a really long way(and probably better) of pointing at the difference between a collegiate(specific educational frame required) theoretical communal form of talking and the form of practicable call to individual action, isn't it?
It's also a, "you're just fighting to keep people down, even if you don't admit to it" argument, that is going to come, naturally, from those more advantaged and educated pointing at those, generally, with less of both. It's not a winning argument I don't think. It's not a winning zeitgeist. It's a call to innate racial conflict on the basis of history.
It's also a, "you're just fighting to keep people down, even if you don't admit to it" argument, that is going to come, naturally, from those more advantaged and educated pointing at those, generally, with less of both. It's not a winning argument I don't think. It's not a winning zeitgeist. It's a call to innate racial conflict on the basis of history.
Last edited:
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,500
Well, of course education is 1) itself inequitably distributed in our society and 2) one of the chief, if not the chief, societal mechanisms for perpetuating various forms of advantage (but also, 3) no inconsiderable tool for challenging privilege; it is only the master's tools that will dismantle the master's house).
Your "call to action" is the 2/3 I didn't get written, and the part that in fact most interests me. Be careful or you may get it . . . in colloquial dialogue form . . and with yourself as a central character!
(Oh, and we collegiate types are nothing if not long-winded.) (Well, this one is anyway). I use the collegiate form because the content of that post is something that I've been trying to say to myself for a while, and the way I talk to myself is in collegiate form.
Last edited:
But he has Jewish voters even though he says that Nazis are good people, LatinAmerican voters even though he says they're rapists and drug dealers, and so on.
Somehow people add a ‘but he doesn't mean me’ to it and go on.
Rush Limbaugh began the process of "own the libs" and dividing USians as normal in the 1990s. FoxNews strengthened it and Trump capped it off with full fascism. Trump added to it with a full blown assault on the truth by never telling the truth and projecting his lies on to his enemies.
EnglishEdward
Deity
There is a tendency for people in particular clan, colour, language, national, religious and rebel etc etc groupings to be biased in favour of those they see as in their own grouping.
A simple division into white and non white where only the white is considered to have the structural advantage is often seen by many whites as anti-white.
And we know from Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda that it it not only whites who can be....
I'd much prefer if people had used a terminology of structural bias rather than structural racism.
Amongst other things it would have meant a clearer distinction between personal racial hatred, and discrimination, and the inequity of institutions and structures.
A simple division into white and non white where only the white is considered to have the structural advantage is often seen by many whites as anti-white.
And we know from Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda that it it not only whites who can be....
I'd much prefer if people had used a terminology of structural bias rather than structural racism.
Amongst other things it would have meant a clearer distinction between personal racial hatred, and discrimination, and the inequity of institutions and structures.
Give us a shout when you make a "historical politics in African countries" thread, as this one's about the upcoming US election.
Moderator Action: Let's not stray too far from the election at hand please.
It would explain why so many people still vote for Trump.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Well that is probably half why George Bush beat Al Gore.
SCOTUS decided the election not the voters.
Klaus Hergersheimer
Emperor
They could have done that when Jeff Bezos first took over the paper; I've no doubt many did at the time.
But when that opportunity then passed, management was free to make its decisions.
I just think this expectation that people didn't get their chocolate dessert or whatever when they were drooling for it in anticipation is a little childish. "Oh, you didn't endorse my guy? well bleep you then!"
c'mon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
