Forums

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Two reasons. First is the language issue I noted. I'm still trying to think of a name we should call people who truly believe other races are inferior and do things purposefully to keep other races at disadvantages. There has to be some word developed to describe these people to differentiate them from people who are simply generally racist as a result of being in a racist society. Those people do need a moniker to note the special heightened level of scorn they deserve.

Second, the views on the right and the left regarding racism are so divergent that to hear both sides, one of which is here, is fascinating. I have exposure to a number of conservatives, a number of whom are intellectuals (including Beltway sorts, and the types you'd find a National Review gathering). (Don't say there are no conservative intellectuals. That's an idiot trope and we all know it.) The views of racism you hear about in those circles are 180 degrees different than those you'd hear here. If I said things you say here there, I'd be laughed at. I avoid saying many things I hear from those sorts here because people here would laugh at those sentiments.

It's amazing to hear how far apart people can be.

On the other side of this debate are a bunch of arguments that fasten together in various ways:

-Wokeness is just victim fetishization
-Metoo, Wokeness, Democratic Socialism's emergence are signs of a declining society, with analogues in every previously collapsed society
-Metoo, Wokeness, Environmentalism are new secular religions (I agree with this to some extent, in regard to certain people - a sentiment best articulated by Alain de Botton elsewhere)
-This is all just a play for a bigger piece of the economic pie via redistribution
-Social media is connecting disenchanted people

Pinballing between these camps can render one schizophrenic. I have a natural skeptics' inclination to everything, so I find myself arguing a lot. I tend to fall more into this camp, but when I think something sounds a bit extreme, or when I think there's more of a "religious" or "movement" type of belief in a sentiment than factual proof, I can't help trying to pick apart the proponent's argument.

One side is critical of the status quo and wants change. The other side seeks to rationalize the status quo and thus must either deny that inequity exists or justify it.