Imagine that you manage a restaurant, and suddenly during the evening shift a middle-aged woman stands up, points to another diner, and yells “Murderer!” She loudly appeals to everyone to help her restrain and punish this supposed murderer. (Think
"I'd suggest that to look at the association between American rightism and racism, we would better look at the clear socialists and clear rightists."Okay. First, substitute "Free market capitalism" for "rightism" since we agree that the left-right continuum most sensibly aligns with the degree to which resources move in response to political command versus market processes. Are you familiar with Plessy versus Ferguson? The streetcar company opposed State-mandated segregation. Southern blacks opposed the first Federal minimum wage legislation (according to Walter Williams, __The State Against Blacks__). Who supports admission quotas for State universities? If GPA and SAT scores determined admissions, East Asians, South Asians, and Jews would dominate the Berkeley and CCNY freshman classes (and that wouldn't bother me at all).
Please read some of my comments in this thread to ascertain whether I'm against using the term racist.
It would advance intelligent discussion if people paid attention to the manner of debate and not just the substance. It's a question of whether the label "racist" is the beginning or end of the discussion.
You're right in that it's hard to demonstrate that Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on racism. However, one of his important allies, William F. Buckley, stated clearly the essential white tribalist stance: "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically."
Wilson was an enemy of the Russian Revolution and an express hater of socialism. We obviously disagree on how to categorize "progressivism," but I'd suggest that to look at the association between American rightism and racism, we would better look at the clear socialists and clear rightists.
It's usually the left that plays "you're not allowed to use that word" type games. Playing tone police and denying people language as a means to deny them the ability to effectively debate. If racists are racist then not being allowed to call them racist makes it harder to talk about the problem.
I don't think Scott was saying we should all spread angry memes. He was describing how inevitable these memes are. Two years later he is asking for it to stop.
He does not say that they are digging their own grave, on the contrary he is saying that it is the only way to gain publicity despite it also turning a significant proportion of the audience off.
The free marketer--socialist continuum is the only sensible interpretation of the right/left classification. Other issues (e.g., abortion, defense policy, rules of evidence in criminal trials, etc.) are perpendicular to and independent of this continuum. Some communist countries criminalized abortion and some mandated abortion, for example.
Wilson was a progressive Democrat (i.e., a socialist). He brought Jim Crow to Federal employment. That's easy to establish.
Where do you get that Senator Goldwater was a racist? I doubt that you can find any support for that contention.
I'm a devout materialist (fan of Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, and Daniel Dennett), and free marketeer (Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, P. T. Bauer, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams). I support freedom of association and freedom of contract. If you prefer to date South Asian women or black men, that is, quite literally, your business. Not mine. If a restaurant owner prefers to employ, or serve, only gay, vegetarian, left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his (or her) business. Not mine.
Between (a) "forbidden" and (e) "mandatory" there's room for (b) "we don't recommend it but we won't stop you", (c) "who cares?" and (d) "we recommend it but we won't make you". A society is free to the extent that the legal environment leaves room for b, c, and d.
I'm using your framework: rightists are, like Woodrow Wilson, antisocialists (with emphasis on the most strident antisocialists). If that doesn't include you, please excuse my misinterpretation.
(There have been racist socialists - but very rarely. Example for racist rightists:The leading anticommunist of a previous generation, Barry Goldwater, was also the leading racist.)
What do you mean by "right" and "you guys"? Consider this electoral map: ...Coolidgehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
"I recall fighting you guys when you were on the side of Jim Crow."Then you're old enough to remember that Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to Federal employment.
"Calling out racism" = Shaming racists for their beliefs (Am I wrong?)
When the elites shamed ordinary people as racists, they helped produce Donald Trump. What does it take to show "antiracists" that they must rebut racist viewpoints, not "call them out." It's the "calling out" that deserves shaming.
I'm not someone who has been casual about calling people racist in the past. But I have absolutely no problem calling the alt-right racist. Because it is. We shouldn't be afraid to call out racism when it genuinely exists, no matter how many stupid people in the past have cried racism over stupid things.
In modern American English, "racist" means "Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist". Three questions: 1. What systematic genetically-determined differences between regional varieties may one posit without earning the description "racist"? 2. Why suppose that nervous system function varies less between regional varieties of human than does, say, dentition, skeletal anatomy, digestive system function, or immune system function? 3. Does anyone else find remarkable that the issue that most incites proudly anti-racist academics (IQ) is precisely the basis for their claim to exalted status (elevated tax-subsidized salaries for tenured indoor work with no heavy lifting)? "I'm really smart, so everyone should subsidize my lifestyle (and, everyone is as smart as me)." Cognitive dissonance much?
Seriously, Paul Ryan was even saying Trump's Curial comment was racist. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/... WHAT SORT OF METAPHYSICAL PROOF DO YOU PEOPLE REQUIRE TO PROVE RACISM? I think this whole exercise in electing Trump has basically just proved that the anti-racist norm is actually much weaker than we thought... It seems a ton of people are basically like, "meh, blacks are ok, racists are ok, let's make America great again, whatever." But yeah we liberals totally diluted the idea of racism by calling everything racist. I actually agreed with this point for the last few years but mostly kept it to myself because... well, because I was afraid I'd be called racist for thinking we were overusing the "racist" label. (Regarding the "You Are Still Crying Wolf" thing... if you folks don't doesn't believe there's a wolf, doesn't that mean we've reached the point in the parable where we get eaten for real?)
"Stop using the word racist" ends discussion rather effectively. How about we just say it's okay to use the word racist and get on with it?
Again, do you want a substantive discussion or a discussion about which words it's okay to say?
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure rape is extremely well legally defined.
"I'd suggest that to look at the association between American rightism and racism, we would better look at the clear socialists and clear rightists."Okay. First, substitute "Free market capitalism" for "rightism" since we agree that the left-right continuum most sensibly aligns with the degree to which resources move in response to political command versus market processes. Are you familiar with Plessy versus Ferguson? The streetcar company opposed State-mandated segregation. Southern blacks opposed the first Federal minimum wage legislation (according to Walter Williams, __The State Against Blacks__). Who supports admission quotas for State universities? If GPA and SAT scores determined admissions, East Asians, South Asians, and Jews would dominate the Berkeley and CCNY freshman classes (and that wouldn't bother me at all).
Please read some of my comments in this thread to ascertain whether I'm against using the term racist.
It would advance intelligent discussion if people paid attention to the manner of debate and not just the substance. It's a question of whether the label "racist" is the beginning or end of the discussion.
You're right in that it's hard to demonstrate that Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on racism. However, one of his important allies, William F. Buckley, stated clearly the essential white tribalist stance: "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically."
Wilson was an enemy of the Russian Revolution and an express hater of socialism. We obviously disagree on how to categorize "progressivism," but I'd suggest that to look at the association between American rightism and racism, we would better look at the clear socialists and clear rightists.
It's usually the left that plays "you're not allowed to use that word" type games. Playing tone police and denying people language as a means to deny them the ability to effectively debate. If racists are racist then not being allowed to call them racist makes it harder to talk about the problem.
I don't think Scott was saying we should all spread angry memes. He was describing how inevitable these memes are. Two years later he is asking for it to stop.
He does not say that they are digging their own grave, on the contrary he is saying that it is the only way to gain publicity despite it also turning a significant proportion of the audience off.
The free marketer--socialist continuum is the only sensible interpretation of the right/left classification. Other issues (e.g., abortion, defense policy, rules of evidence in criminal trials, etc.) are perpendicular to and independent of this continuum. Some communist countries criminalized abortion and some mandated abortion, for example.
Wilson was a progressive Democrat (i.e., a socialist). He brought Jim Crow to Federal employment. That's easy to establish.
Where do you get that Senator Goldwater was a racist? I doubt that you can find any support for that contention.
I'm a devout materialist (fan of Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, and Daniel Dennett), and free marketeer (Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, P. T. Bauer, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams). I support freedom of association and freedom of contract. If you prefer to date South Asian women or black men, that is, quite literally, your business. Not mine. If a restaurant owner prefers to employ, or serve, only gay, vegetarian, left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his (or her) business. Not mine.
Between (a) "forbidden" and (e) "mandatory" there's room for (b) "we don't recommend it but we won't stop you", (c) "who cares?" and (d) "we recommend it but we won't make you". A society is free to the extent that the legal environment leaves room for b, c, and d.
I'm using your framework: rightists are, like Woodrow Wilson, antisocialists (with emphasis on the most strident antisocialists). If that doesn't include you, please excuse my misinterpretation.
(There have been racist socialists - but very rarely. Example for racist rightists:The leading anticommunist of a previous generation, Barry Goldwater, was also the leading racist.)
What do you mean by "right" and "you guys"? Consider this electoral map: ...Coolidgehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
"I recall fighting you guys when you were on the side of Jim Crow."Then you're old enough to remember that Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to Federal employment.
In modern American English, "racist" means "Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist"
Well, the American right has long been white tribalist. I recall fighting you guys when you were on the side of Jim Crow.
"Calling out racism" = Shaming racists for their beliefs (Am I wrong?)
When the elites shamed ordinary people as racists, they helped produce Donald Trump. What does it take to show "antiracists" that they must rebut racist viewpoints, not "call them out." It's the "calling out" that deserves shaming.
I'm not someone who has been casual about calling people racist in the past. But I have absolutely no problem calling the alt-right racist. Because it is. We shouldn't be afraid to call out racism when it genuinely exists, no matter how many stupid people in the past have cried racism over stupid things.
^ idiot
In modern American English, "racist" means "Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist". Three questions: 1. What systematic genetically-determined differences between regional varieties may one posit without earning the description "racist"? 2. Why suppose that nervous system function varies less between regional varieties of human than does, say, dentition, skeletal anatomy, digestive system function, or immune system function? 3. Does anyone else find remarkable that the issue that most incites proudly anti-racist academics (IQ) is precisely the basis for their claim to exalted status (elevated tax-subsidized salaries for tenured indoor work with no heavy lifting)? "I'm really smart, so everyone should subsidize my lifestyle (and, everyone is as smart as me)." Cognitive dissonance much?
Seriously, Paul Ryan was even saying Trump's Curial comment was racist. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/... WHAT SORT OF METAPHYSICAL PROOF DO YOU PEOPLE REQUIRE TO PROVE RACISM? I think this whole exercise in electing Trump has basically just proved that the anti-racist norm is actually much weaker than we thought... It seems a ton of people are basically like, "meh, blacks are ok, racists are ok, let's make America great again, whatever." But yeah we liberals totally diluted the idea of racism by calling everything racist. I actually agreed with this point for the last few years but mostly kept it to myself because... well, because I was afraid I'd be called racist for thinking we were overusing the "racist" label. (Regarding the "You Are Still Crying Wolf" thing... if you folks don't doesn't believe there's a wolf, doesn't that mean we've reached the point in the parable where we get eaten for real?)