Senethro
Overlord
Guy who thinks American influenced views and lenses are incorrectly seeing racism when examining issues outside USA somehow can't see the racism in USA. Hmmmm.
Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
- Status
Guy who thinks American influenced views and lenses are incorrectly seeing racism when examining issues outside USA somehow can't see the racism in USA. Hmmmm.
Enlighten us, oh wise sage, on what actually is happening if you're so sure it's not mostly racism
Akka
Moody old mage.
No mate you're right, it's all (always and only) about -ism and -phobe. No need to look further, we have it all figured already.
Now get youself a pat on the back for your staggering insight, and a good night of rest after such strenuous thinking.
Voidwalkin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,708
It's as much about influential leftist thinkers broadening the definition of what is racist and then using it to hammer those with different policy preferences as it is actual racism.
It can be observed when noting the glee Trump supporters have when he pays no mind to such standards.
Immigration is where this expresses itself most regularly. I doubt any policy other than fully open borders would be shielded from such criticism.
Snowygerry
Deity
That works both ways I suspect, Trump is so arrogant and annoying he may well cause people to vote that normally wouldn't bother.
He is even annoying when he isn't president
Looking over the poll here in this thread, there are a lot foreigners hoping for a Trump win apparently, that may well be schadenfreude.
The correct time to predict the result is 0200 hrs. my time...
He is even annoying when he isn't president
Looking over the poll here in this thread, there are a lot foreigners hoping for a Trump win apparently, that may well be schadenfreude.
The correct time to predict the result is 0200 hrs. my time...
Last edited:
Noted conservative opinion on leftism has been noted. It'll be interesting to see what Akka thinks of this view, coming from a US conservative.
Senethro
Overlord
The problem is no-one can articulate a better future that enough people are willing to give.... uhhhh.... plausibility? Credence? Everything's so fake that hope (Any kind) looks fake too.
We've exorcised all the old ghosts, especially the grand ones, and have accepted cheap amazon deliveries in their place.
We've exorcised all the old ghosts, especially the grand ones, and have accepted cheap amazon deliveries in their place.
Thank you!
Here are my test results.
Forks might be racist:
Food writer sparks outrage after claiming knives and forks are racist
Joshna Maharaj says teaching children not to use their hands to eat is "dripping with the control and shame of colonisation"
www.mirror.co.uk
Computers are definitely racist (well, that one is not surprising):
When computers are racist
How to stop building racial bias into the digital future
Computer science has a racism problem: these researchers want to fix it
Black and Hispanic people face huge hurdles at technology companies and in computer-science education in the United States, with far-reaching consequences for science and all of society.
www.nature.com
Can a machine be racist? Artificial Intelligence has shown troubling signs of bias, but there are reasons for optimism
The rise of AI raises the complicated question of how we might guide it towards ethical and political ends.
theconversation.com
Shoes could be racist:
The Racial Divide on ... Sneakers
What the history of footwear reveals about a cultural divide -- and the appropriation of African American style.
www.theatlantic.com
Cameras (and photography in general) are also racist:
The Racial Bias Built Into Photography (Published 2019)
Sarah Lewis explores the relationship between racism and the camera.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90906918/photography-is-inherently-racist-can-new-technology-change-that
Not even going to Google " is TV racist?" ... you get the picture already.
Senethro
Overlord
No. The objects are not racist. The cultural values attached to them and how they are employed can be racist.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,447
Nah, you gotta carry it through and tell us what the findings are on whether Man. or Woman. is more racist!
Of course. But it still sort of demonstrates how racism has become an explanation to anything and nothing simultaneously. I think.
Tell me, of your articles listed, do you agree or disagree with any of them?
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,036
Wanting someone to win, and thinking someone will win, are different.
Many foreign governments hold US treasuries. If Trump wins and inflation rises, rates go up, bond prices go down.
Snowygerry
Deity
The wish is the father of the thought, few people can honestly entertain thoughts that are not also desires.
Senethro
Overlord
Sure, but what has that got to do with measures of household wealth or educational attainment?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
this conversation is already about different things.
is everything racist? Othering is demonstrably proven to be near universal in humans. as in observed by anthropologists and some modern brain science has afaik confirmed it. the question isn't whether it's there, it's the degree of it, and how you deal with it.
we're post-european-colonization, with most modern industry having roots in that period, and all that being tied up in a specific thought system that was, well, pretty racist. traces are bound to remain and recognizing the traces does not make you an aggressive social justice warrior; dismissing the traces, or declining that things should be changed have a range of reason of what it can make you, but it ranges from racist to stupid (and for the latter, only dems are serious about public education, reps plan to gut it). the opinions about things not being racist wouldn't matter if it didn't have material consequence in the world, whether domestic or international.
anyways. this exchange sprung from akka grumbling and pretending to be coy when asked about something true that the democrats didn't understand about magawhatever. there was an exchange just earlier in the thread where he spelled out that it was grievance votes over the "wokes" being tiring or themselves too zealous or whatever. now, i asked akka who the "wokes" were. he didn't respond.
so who are the "wokes"? another tangent. the thing is that within this purpoited leftist academia, most of the research is descriptive, structural, and bluntly a little boring. but there's always one person among like 20 that reads the descriptive analysis as prescriptive and then goes, like, "shoes are racist - we should ban shoes", and they're usually very loud. (i'm on my phone doing something so i haven't read the article, but the particulars of that article isn't relevant as to this point, replace the article with anything.) that is then farmed throgh the media mill as outrage news, for people to gawk at over its absurdity, because they too think of newspaper statements as innately actionable or prescriptive or whatever.
but while we compare to the news here, most leftist academia that discusses racism is actually more like the news talking about the weather. it's descriptive and observant as to forces we know are real. the difference of course is that we don't have weather machines, but clothes production is usually farmed out to having a lot of brown people working in decrepit poverty somewhere. so there's four groups of people here. those that describe that abhorrent conditions of clothes production (with the implication that something should structurally be changed), those that know about clothes production and are really loud about it, those that enjoy the fruits they gain from the poverty but are indifferent to the material conditions of the brown people they subsist on, and those that actively relish in the status quo of subservient browns.
like, you may impoverish some brown people for reasons that are overt or structural, but in the end, the material reality is your indifference to a group because of melanin. so someone saying something you do or enjoy is racist doesn't make you hitler; you may think the left or the "wokes" have muddled the line between othering and overt racism too much, that for the third group, it's just indifference or ignorance; you're then also admitting that your own voter base is too stupid to recognize what's materially going on, which i'm not sure is as big of an argument as you think it is.
and of course, for the left and thread topic, how that should be rhetorically handled to pull voters is indeed something the democrats are bad at, but it's not because they don't know some people on the left can be very grating to listen to.
and i really have to go, but it returns to the "wokes" thing. because the "wokes" thing as grievance votes among the right makes sense if you're talking about shoe boycotters or yelly twitter types or whatever. but the democrats are post-clinton capitalist types. they are not the "wokes" you make them out to be. if you grievance vote against the dems over a subset of academics, that's not the gotcha you think it is.
is everything racist? Othering is demonstrably proven to be near universal in humans. as in observed by anthropologists and some modern brain science has afaik confirmed it. the question isn't whether it's there, it's the degree of it, and how you deal with it.
we're post-european-colonization, with most modern industry having roots in that period, and all that being tied up in a specific thought system that was, well, pretty racist. traces are bound to remain and recognizing the traces does not make you an aggressive social justice warrior; dismissing the traces, or declining that things should be changed have a range of reason of what it can make you, but it ranges from racist to stupid (and for the latter, only dems are serious about public education, reps plan to gut it). the opinions about things not being racist wouldn't matter if it didn't have material consequence in the world, whether domestic or international.
anyways. this exchange sprung from akka grumbling and pretending to be coy when asked about something true that the democrats didn't understand about magawhatever. there was an exchange just earlier in the thread where he spelled out that it was grievance votes over the "wokes" being tiring or themselves too zealous or whatever. now, i asked akka who the "wokes" were. he didn't respond.
so who are the "wokes"? another tangent. the thing is that within this purpoited leftist academia, most of the research is descriptive, structural, and bluntly a little boring. but there's always one person among like 20 that reads the descriptive analysis as prescriptive and then goes, like, "shoes are racist - we should ban shoes", and they're usually very loud. (i'm on my phone doing something so i haven't read the article, but the particulars of that article isn't relevant as to this point, replace the article with anything.) that is then farmed throgh the media mill as outrage news, for people to gawk at over its absurdity, because they too think of newspaper statements as innately actionable or prescriptive or whatever.
but while we compare to the news here, most leftist academia that discusses racism is actually more like the news talking about the weather. it's descriptive and observant as to forces we know are real. the difference of course is that we don't have weather machines, but clothes production is usually farmed out to having a lot of brown people working in decrepit poverty somewhere. so there's four groups of people here. those that describe that abhorrent conditions of clothes production (with the implication that something should structurally be changed), those that know about clothes production and are really loud about it, those that enjoy the fruits they gain from the poverty but are indifferent to the material conditions of the brown people they subsist on, and those that actively relish in the status quo of subservient browns.
like, you may impoverish some brown people for reasons that are overt or structural, but in the end, the material reality is your indifference to a group because of melanin. so someone saying something you do or enjoy is racist doesn't make you hitler; you may think the left or the "wokes" have muddled the line between othering and overt racism too much, that for the third group, it's just indifference or ignorance; you're then also admitting that your own voter base is too stupid to recognize what's materially going on, which i'm not sure is as big of an argument as you think it is.
and of course, for the left and thread topic, how that should be rhetorically handled to pull voters is indeed something the democrats are bad at, but it's not because they don't know some people on the left can be very grating to listen to.
and i really have to go, but it returns to the "wokes" thing. because the "wokes" thing as grievance votes among the right makes sense if you're talking about shoe boycotters or yelly twitter types or whatever. but the democrats are post-clinton capitalist types. they are not the "wokes" you make them out to be. if you grievance vote against the dems over a subset of academics, that's not the gotcha you think it is.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Let's just clear a few things here.
1) There was nothing coy about my wondering. There IS a very serious danger when someone so openly incompetent and dangerous as Trump can manage to keep above-45% level of support despite everything he has done. It NEEDS to be understood, both because it endangers democracy and because it's so seemingly absurd it hints that we are missing something pretty big. I wasn't at all playing the guessing game, it's really something I've been scratching my head about for years. Sure I have some ideas about some reasons (including the next point), but I'm doubtful they could explain the entirety of the phenomenom.
The only thing I'm sure of, is that democracy simply can't survive having half the population hating, not understanding and being hated and not understood by the other half. And let's remember that if democracy dies, the most probable dictatorship will be the fascist one. Actual fascist.
2) As said above, I doubt that the grievance vote alone is the sole reason why Trump manages to consistantly stay afloat despite being so abysmal bad. That doesn't prevent to understand said grievance vote, and hopefully make people on the other side aware that they act quite a bit like Trumpards themselves, both being stuck in their cult-like mentality where reality bounce off the ideology shield.
3) You already posted a whole thread about "what is woke", in which you came in determined to find only "woke is a dogwhistle term from the right" and came out determined to only have found whatever confirmed your premade opinion. If you want answers, the thread is still here and you can still peruse it, but I'm not going to waste time repeating what you already tried to rationalize away.
You should probably stop mocking posters that provide you with an answer that helps understanding, then.
Or you can continue to do so, I guess. Your choice.
Man, the irony here is in danger of requiring medical attention.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
