Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are fools on the Left who overaccuse (the sorts who called Maher a racist, the campus crybabies who ban speakers, the Huffpo demographic, etc.). They dilute the claims of the serious people behind things like BLM. The opportunists on the Right lump them all together and use the weak grievances to suggest all grievances are frivolous or overwrought.

A variant of the same shit exists on the Right. The crazies screaming things like "Socialist" or "secret Islamist" ruin everything for the moderates.

We need to rid both sides of the frivolous and crazy people and focus on the serious people.

It's a pipe dream, I know.

But the extremists will learn, soon enough, that when you go around firing off harsh indictments in every situation, and where they don't really fit, it's like pointing a gun at a bear. If you miss, or merely wound and anger, you've got a serious fucking problem.

When everything is [insert offense here]ism, nothing is. Everyone is desensitized, and things previously in the sphere of deviancy, like Charlottesville, are mainstreamed.

There are foolish people who say stupid things. If you think we need to focus on the serious people, then a post complaining about unspecified foolish people who have said unspecified stupid things doesn't seem to be the way to go. Unless you wanted to elicit the reaction you got.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The more vehemently and childishly you oppose a point, the more credible it usually is.

You took a complex point, repackaged and simplified it, and then offered an infantile reply. You're well intentioned, but you waste bandwidth.

You used a lot of unnecessary words to re-package a Fox News-style victim blaming talking point. That's not complex.

"I'm a white dude and I think women and people of color really screwed up by pointing out all the sexism and racism" is not nuanced.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You used a lot of unnecessary words to re-package a Fox News-style victim blaming talking point. That's not complex.

"I'm a white dude and I think women and people of color really screwed up by pointing out all the sexism and racism" is not nuanced.

So if there are a lot of people who are sexist and racist, and there's a political cost to pointing it out, how do you decide when it's OK to pay that price and when it's not? Is it possible that Trump got elected in part because of how Democrats answered that question?

I don't know what the answers are to those questions, and am not asking them rhetorically.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(the sorts who called Maher a racist

Maher is a well-documented anti-Muslim bigot. That you refuse to see it does not make it not so.

He's also reportedly a giant misogynist according to a number of female comics who have worked with him but refuse to do so now.

the campus crybabies who ban speakers

I will never understand why people care what students do on campus. One of the lib/centrist commentators (Chait??) argued that what happens there inevitably spreads to the broader culture, which is absurd on its face if you went to college. ETA: Mighta been Barro.

Anyway, kids protesting stuff is how it's supposed to go, and how it has gone for generations. Sometimes they go so far as to deny a particular speaker an opportunity to speak in a particular place. So what?

the Huffpo demographic

Don't even know what this means.

They dilute the claims of the serious people behind things like BLM.

Have you asked the people behind things like BLM whether people accusing Maher, doig campus de-platforming and "the Huffpo demographic" are things they feel dilute their claims? Because I think you'll find a fair amount of overlap between the first two groups and BLM (no idea what the third is). Especially the second one.

A thing that I think a lot of people who don't participate don't understand is the degree of overlap and coordination there is among social justice activists. None of this stuff is just spontaneous.

The opportunists on the Right lump them all together and use the weak grievances to suggest all grievances are frivolous or overwrought.

They will do that no matter what the grievance is. They always have. They do it because people like you buy it.

The crazies screaming things like "Socialist" or "secret Islamist" ruin everything for the moderates.

How? What has the right wanted to achieve that it was prevented from achieving because of fringe crazies alienating people outside its coalition?

It's a pipe dream, I know.

So is trying to get people to see their privilege and realize that they are not qualified to opine on which grievances they don't face are trivial.

Everyone is desensitized, and things previously in the sphere of deviancy, like Charlottesville, are mainstreamed.

Again, this does not square with the history of the period of roughly the birth of chattel slavery to 1964 (and later) during which things like Charlottesville were very much mainstreamed. That alone is enough to undermine the credibility of your purported causal relationship.

Anyway, your "economic malaise causes nationalist extremism" argument vastly more convincing than this one.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So if there are a lot of people who are sexist and racist, and there's a political cost to pointing it out, how do you decide when it's OK to pay that price and when it's not?

I don't think there's a meaningful political cost to pointing it out. Anyone who is offended by having to hear about it is already lost.

If there is a political cost, then it's a question of priorities. Personally, I think you need to be able to name sexism and racism to be able to fight them, and fighting them is worth potentially losing (see the ongoing Dem party divide over "identity politics").

We definitely learned that there's little political cost to being pretty openly racist and sexist though, so maybe that implies the inverse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think there's a meaningful political cost to pointing it out. Anyone who is offended by having to hear about it is already lost.

If there is a political cost, then it's a question of priorities. Personally, I think you need to be able to name sexism and racism to be able to fight them, and fighting them is worth potentially losing (see the ongoing Dem party divide over "identity politics").

We definitely learned that there's little political cost to being pretty openly racist and sexist though, so maybe that implies the inverse.

I think Sebby's point might be that calling ALL Trump supporters, or people at least considering voting for him, racists/sexists could have turned some of the voters who are not white nationalists towards Trump. Perhaps he is thinking of someone who is worried about some of the apparent hate from Trump, but more worried about something Hil might do.

But there was plenty of political cost to Trump's hate. I'm not the only person who voted for Hil, because em is very very bothered by the hate (and other shit).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think there's a meaningful political cost to pointing it out. Anyone who is offended by having to hear about it is already lost.

In law school that was called fighting the hypothetical.

If there is a political cost, then it's a question of priorities. Personally, I think you need to be able to name sexism and racism to be able to fight them, and fighting them is worth potentially losing (see the ongoing Dem party divide over "identity politics").

Maybe Sebby's point is that you want the bigots to vote for Democrats so that you can do a bunch of stuff, including particular things to oppose bigotry.

We definitely learned that there's little political cost to being pretty openly racist and sexist though, so maybe that implies the inverse.

Unclear. Seems like it's too soon to say for sure. But part of this, I think, means figuring out how to use the issue to fracture Trump's coalition and win battles, rather than just feeling like calling someone a racist is the end of the exercise.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think Sebby's point might be that calling ALL Trump supporters, or people at least considering voting for him, racists/sexists could have turned some of the voters who are not white nationalists towards Trump.

This is not what he said.

There are definitely people who insisted that people were calling all Trump supporters racist/sexist and cited that as part of their support for Trump. Given that pretty much nobody was calling all Trump supporters racist/sexists it's difficult not to view this is post hoc justification.

Mind you, some of those people are probably actually incapable of seeing the difference between "voting for Trump is at minimum expressing indifference about his worst tendencies" and "you're racist for voting for Trump." But a lot of them are being willfully blind.

But there was plenty of political cost to Trump's hate. I'm not the only person who voted for Hil, because em is very very bothered by the hate (and other shit).

He still won, but fair point, lots of votes he could have competed for were lost to him. Just not enough to make a difference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is not what he said.

There are definitely people who insisted that people were calling all Trump supporters racist/sexist and cited that as part of their support for Trump. Given that pretty much nobody was calling all Trump supporters racist/sexists it's difficult not to view this is post hoc justification.

Mind you, some of those people are probably actually incapable of seeing the difference between "voting for Trump is at minimum expressing indifference about his worst tendencies" and "you're racist for voting for Trump." But a lot of them are being willfully blind.



He still won, but fair point, lots of votes he could have competed for were lost to him. Just not enough to make a difference.

Hank's close. I am saying people need to think before knee-jerking to, "That's racist!" or "That's sexist!"

When every slight is racist or sexist - and a lot of dumb people on the Left take that approach - the indictment loses all meaning.

Maher is an excellent example. He is not a racist. He used a term he had no license to use. But it was not a racist act. It was, in fact, intended to be ironic -- to make fun of racists. Ice Cube got it. Almost every black person got it. They took him to task for using the word recklessly, as they should have. But frivolous thinkers like you? Their first response is, "He's a sexist! A bigot! A racist!"

Most of the dimwits on the Left who do this dumb shit are clueless white kids. I suspect Black people level the charge more judiciously because they have a reverence for the concept.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In law school that was called fighting the hypothetical.



Maybe Sebby's point is that you want the bigots to vote for Democrats so that you can do a bunch of stuff, including particular things to oppose bigotry.



Unclear. Seems like it's too soon to say for sure. But part of this, I think, means figuring out how to use the issue to fracture Trump's coalition and win battles, rather than just feeling like calling someone a racist is the end of the exercise.

My point is accuse where it's warranted. Stop trivializing racism and sexism by suggesting almost any act or omission stems from them.

We have a board full of quasi-nude shots on this very site. All women. Does this make us sexist? I told GWNC she has a great ass. Am I sexist? Is she contributing to patriarchy by using the pic?

A lot of dumbass fucks who seem to get a lot of airtime on TV these days would say we're all sexists. Sincerely, they would. It's nuts.

Ty makes a good point. There is no way to stop the dumb from overreaching. But those of us with brains can be a bit more careful. We can draw lines regarding where it is proper to call someone an [insert offense]ist, and where such a charge is ridiculous.

But don't let me guide you, Adder. (I only happen to run into loads of conservatives on a regular basis.) You know everything. You don't need advice. Your college sophomore year view of these things is all you need to know. And as we can all see, it's working just great for you and everyone else who simplifies and generalizes like you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think there's a meaningful political cost to pointing it out. Anyone who is offended by having to hear about it is already lost.

If there is a political cost, then it's a question of priorities. Personally, I think you need to be able to name sexism and racism to be able to fight them, and fighting them is worth potentially losing (see the ongoing Dem party divide over "identity politics").

We definitely learned that there's little political cost to being pretty openly racist and sexist though, so maybe that implies the inverse.

There's a HUGE political cost to being openly racist. Trump is a dead man walking.

He cried wolf at everything. Every criticism, however small, was a major event, an attack on him. Everything was the fault of Fake News, and a media out to get him. He's the eternal victim at all times, never wrong, never reflective.

And now no one is riding to his rescue. He's on an island with a pack of crazy white supremacists.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So if there are a lot of people who are sexist and racist, and there's a political cost to pointing it out, how do you decide when it's OK to pay that price and when it's not? Is it possible that Trump got elected in part because of how Democrats answered that question?

I don't know what the answers are to those questions, and am not asking them rhetorically.

This was along the lines of the reaction I sought. An argument of degree rather than absolutes.

I know, I know: That's no fun!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is not what he said.

There are definitely people who insisted that people were calling all Trump supporters racist/sexist and cited that as part of their support for Trump. Given that pretty much nobody was calling all Trump supporters racist/sexists it's difficult not to view this is post hoc justification.

Didn't Hil say his supporters were a bunch of deplorables? I took it to be a blanket attack.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When every slight is ...... sexist - and a lot of dumb people on the Left take that approach - the indictment loses all meaning.

Well, Trump is pretty fucking sexist, and I'd like to say the women I am closest to find him deplorable. My wife/daughter and DIL HATE him, but my sister and two 20 somethings nieces voted for him. Crazy. But point is there was certainly some pretty blatant sexism floating around.

Still, reading the FB, I'm glad I'm not dating anymore. There are women posting memes/blog posts about what a thinking man should do, and it is about impossible to follow it. And I'm pretty advanced. I get women feeling threatened. Example- when I run, if a woman is running at the same pace I speed up to not run next to her. But there is a lot of extreme out there about what is improper, that is beyond anything I could possibly have anticipated.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hank's close. I am saying people need to think before knee-jerking to, "That's racist!" or "That's sexist!"

Yeah, and I'm telling you they are thinking and that it's super dismissive of you to assume they are not.

Maher is an excellent example. He is not a racist. He used a term he had no license to use. But it was not a racist act.

You know what, I even forgot about that part. Yes, it was a racist thing to say, which yes, is a racist act.

What you mean to say is you think it was a small act of racism that can be forgiven (joking, whatever).

I agree it was a small act of racism that can be forgotten (indeed I did) that doesn't matter much because he was already trash anyway for lots of other reasons. I don't watch and I won't watch.

It was, in fact, intended to be ironic -- to make fun of racists.

No it wasn't. It wasn intended to get a laugh out of the shock of him using an antiquated, racially-charged term. There's no commentary on racists anywhere in the vicinity.

Almost every black person got it.

1. Paging Thurgreed (pretty sure he did not say he got it on these pages), and more importantly,

2. Where's your polling, man?

Their first response is, "He's a sexist! A bigot! A racist!"

He's a sexist because he's (reportedly) regularly demeaning to women who work for/with him, according to many witnesses. He's a bigot because he regularly says bigoted things about Muslims, on the tv and everything.

I don't know that he's deeply racist, but he certainly said one racist thing.

Your thing is you think that saying something or someone is racist is to dismiss it as having any value. I see it as the racist part is something that needs to change, regardless of whatever other value that thing has. We're literally all at least a little racist.

You value Maher (as yet another display of your appalling taste - that program is unwatchable regardless of your view on the man himself), thus he can't be racist. And you're calling other people dimwits?

Most of the dimwits on the Left who do this dumb shit are clueless white kids. I suspect Black people level the charge more judiciously because they have a reverence for the concept.

The more you talk, the more it's clear that you know nothing at all about the people involved in social justice work. I have barely any insight into myself, but if you stop and listen to people, you might realize how clueless you are.