Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Congrats to you both. I enjoyed reading your views.
mikema63 wrote:It'll take me some time to address PIs post but I'll point out for one degree that it's very easy for two white guys to discuss race unemotionally since we aren't effected by how other races are treated. It should be no surprise that an issue like this should be emotional. I dislike how you have implicitly framed anyone who feels strongly about the issue as wrong since it precludes any minority effected by racism from discussing it just because it's effect on them has an emotional impact.
mikema63 wrote:Frankly what your saying is analogous to someone trying to discuss whether or not there is opression of LGBT people in society. Something I've directly experienced which, in this analogy, you would be denying directly to my face despite my direct experiences.
This is something that has happened to me and it's something I find monumentally insulting, to have my own experiences denied by someone.
mikema63 wrote:Im not terribly surprised that you cant really understand what i mean.
mikema63 wrote:No, that is entirely wrong.
I'm saying that it is inherently emotional to discuss your lived experience with someone who actively denies that experience.
It's not that your existence insults mine (I honestly don't know how you could make such a ridiculous conclusion) it's that there is no way around the emotions it brings up to be either told (explicitly or implicitly) that what happened to me wasn't what I think happened to me (because you know better than me?) Or that I'm actively lying to advance an agenda.
I'm claiming that deligitimizing anyone who feels emotions about these issues automatically deligitimizes anyone who has direct experiences of it. Which silences the victims, a rather insidious rhetorical tactic.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with what I said, unless you are saying my talking to Blacks, for example, about race is insulting them because my experience is not the same as theirs.
just in case I was not clear, I find whites lecturing me on minority problems to be normally pompous, ignorant, and self serving. Basically, "look how wonderful I am."
Political Interest wrote:Yes, I agree that there is no culturally perfect view and none of us can escape racial bias.
But would you deny that this applies to anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity?
Except that guilt always accompanis any discourse on race. There is an implication that I must feel some sort of responsibility and must attone for something. But the guilt is forever. No act of contrition seems to erase it.
And what do you exactly mean by social change?
But surely you cannot deny that there are a lot of people in this world who hate whites. And it is not hyperbolic or extreme to mention this, but a recognition of fact.
The difference between me and these types of people is that I do not deny that the American police are racist and mistreat blacks. But these types of people will not acknowledge that whites can experience racism. They will not reciprocate any acknowledgement of their situation. If they do not recognise the possibility that whites can face discrimination or ever be at a disadvantage then they are denying an objective reality.
I don't deny the existence of systemic racism. The diference between me and leftists is that they do not recognise that this exists in other countries in situations where non-whites discriminate against other non-whites. And they also do not acknowledge that whites can ever be discriminated against given the right conditions.
It is obvious that black Americans are discriminated against but what about discrimination against Uyghurs in China or the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia?
The problem is that white Western discrimination is viewed as something exclusive to white Western societies. And I do not deny that the discrimination has been historically more virulent, hence why I call America a hyper-racial society. But I do not deny that when an ethnic majority is in a position of demographic strength it is in a position to discriminate against minorities, regardless of if the majority is white or non-white. Therefore it is not a case of 'white privilege' but 'majority privilege'. But leftists want to say that this type of discrimination only happpens in white Western societies and no where else.
Where did I deny this is a reality? But will you acknowledge that non-whites and non-Westerners also discriminate when they are in a position of power?
Except we are imagined this way. I have no problem acknowledging what you said, but what I do have difficulty accepting is that racism is something only we can be guilty of. And obviously I am not speaking about within a Western context but when we compare the US to China, for example.
...
So then you agree that other societies, including non-white ones can be racist and in many cases are racist? But maybe American racism is the most extreme?
Yes, this is true. All I am saying is that this can happen in other national contexts as well, not only in Western English speaking societies.
...
I have no problem acknowledging systemic racism and never denied it existed. What I have a problem with is the idea of 'white privilege' because it seems to suggest that whites are privileged all over the world, including in non-Western societies. It also seems to suggest that their privilege is based on their whiteness as opposed to their hegemonic position within Western societies, including their demographic majority.
It is not liberal. Even the most illiberal societies would have been appalled at the way blacks were treated. Interestingly enough it was the liberal maritime societies which were far more aggressive and had the slave trade whereas the insular continental empires were known to be far more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities.
It is a measurable effect but what I reject are narratives which paint whites solely as oppressors and the historic struggles of the white working class are downplayed or not even acknowledged at all.
It is nothing you could not hear from Soviet propaganda and surely you do not think that was middle class?
What I meant by that slogan was that instead of resisting the liberation struggles of many oppressed peoples it would be in Europe and America's interest to support them or allow them to get on with it.
How so? I post a Soviet propaganda poster saying 'always together' and this is cultural liberalism?
If I was a cultural liberal I would believe that we need to export democracy to the whole world and that the Anglo-American order must be global.
I believe that they understood very well how to build a unified and cohesive society, free from ethnic division. They managed to do this until their political class lost its way and allowed ethnic nationalism to develop in the Soviet republics and the Russian republic itself.
Yes, I agree that there is no culturally perfect view and none of us can escape racial bias.
But would you deny that this applies to anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity?
Except that guilt always accompanis any discourse on race.
There is an implication that I must feel some sort of responsibility and must attone for something.
But the guilt is forever. No act of contrition seems to erase it.
And what do you exactly mean by social change?
But surely you cannot deny that there are a lot of people in this world who hate whites. And it is not hyperbolic or extreme to mention this, but a recognition of fact.
Except these groups like to portray whites as a privileged overclass and never acknowledge the existential reality.
The difference between me and these types of people is that I do not deny that the American police are racist and mistreat blacks. But these types of people will not acknowledge that whites can experience racism.
They will not reciprocate any acknowledgement of their situation.
If they do not recognise the possibility that whites can face discrimination or ever be at a disadvantage then they are denying an objective reality.
Which country, now or in history is more racialised than America?
I don't deny the existence of systemic racism. The diference between me and leftists is that they do not recognise that this exists in other countries in situations where non-whites discriminate against other non-whites.
And they also do not acknowledge that whites can ever be discriminated against given the right conditions.
It is obvious that black Americans are discriminated against but what about discrimination against Uyghurs in China or the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia?
The problem is that white Western discrimination is viewed as something exclusive to white Western societies.
And I do not deny that the discrimination has been historically more virulent, hence why I call America a hyper-racial society. But I do not deny that when an ethnic majority is in a position of demographic strength it is in a position to discriminate against minorities, regardless of if the majority is white or non-white. Therefore it is not a case of 'white privilege' but 'majority privilege'. But leftists want to say that this type of discrimination only happpens in white Western societies and no where else.
Where did I deny this is a reality? But will you acknowledge that non-whites and non-Westerners also discriminate when they are in a position of power?
Except we are imagined this way. I have no problem acknowledging what you said, but what I do have difficulty accepting is that racism is something only we can be guilty of.
So you think that some ethnicities are more moral than others or that some are more inclined to immoral behaviour than others?
It is not liberal. Even the most illiberal societies would have been appalled at the way blacks were treated. Interestingly enough it was the liberal maritime societies which were far more aggressive and had the slave trade whereas the insular continental empires were known to be far more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities.
So then you agree that other societies, including non-white ones can be racist and in many cases are racist? But maybe American racism is the most extreme?
It is a measurable effect but what I reject are narratives which paint whites solely as oppressors and the historic struggles of the white working class are downplayed or not even acknowledged at all.
Yes, this is true. All I am saying is that this can happen in other national contexts as well, not only in Western English speaking societies.
I have no problem acknowledging systemic racism and never denied it existed. What I have a problem with is the idea of 'white privilege' because it seems to suggest that whites are privileged all over the world, including in non-Western societies. It also seems to suggest that their privilege is based on their whiteness as opposed to their hegemonic position within Western societies, including their demographic majority.
It is nothing you could not hear from Soviet propaganda and surely you do not think that was middle class?
What I meant by that slogan was that instead of resisting the liberation struggles of many oppressed peoples it would be in Europe and America's interest to support them or allow them to get on with it.
How so? I post a Soviet propaganda poster saying 'always together' and this is cultural liberalism?
If I was a cultural liberal I would believe that we need to export democracy to the whole world and that the Anglo-American order must be global.
I am only accusing the far right and Alt-Right of not understanding the ideology they profess to believe in. I am probably more right wing than the majority of them but they call me a cuck because I reject racism and Islamophobia. In fact they are cultural liberals and they base their world view on Anglocentrism and WASP supremacist ideas. They have combined WASP racism with a strange misunderstanding of continental European fascism.
mikema63 wrote:Frankly what your saying is analogous to someone trying to discuss whether or not there is opression of LGBT people in society. Something I've directly experienced which, in this analogy, you would be denying directly to my face despite my direct experiences.
This is something that has happened to me and it's something I find monumentally insulting, to have my own experiences denied by someone.
Warning signs for US Jews
New York is home to the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, whose director, Steve Goldstein, finds it appropriate to "make the voice heard" of the Jewish teen killed in the Holocaust on the most controversial matters in U.S. politics. Goldstein has turned Anne Frank into a political voice, as if she were expressing an opinion on current events.
For Goldstein, Frank is first and foremost an up-to-date, political radical in the Huffington Post mold. The main picture on the center's website shows a portrait of Frank surrounded by Syrian refugees. She even has her own Twitter account, #saveeveryanne. In recent days, the center's website has functioned as the official center for re-starting the Left's protests against the extremist Right. Frank even shows more sympathy for the "responsible" conduct of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un than she does for U.S. President Donald Trump.
Despite the growing protests against him, Goldstein is an authentic representative of a prominent sector whose collective personality is seen in vengeful rage against Trump, obsequiousness to the Left and to Muslims, and fear.
Because America is entering, and in fact for the past few years has already been in, an era of intolerance. Characteristically, educated American Jews are very confused, and unable to balance between Right and Left. Because flags with swastikas are not good for Anne Frank -- that is, for college graduates -- they are raising an outcry about the "extreme Right" at every turn. We still have not heard how Anne Frank "behaved" at Smith College or at Berkeley or at Columbia -- did she try to hide her Judaism? Did she dress up as Amy Schumer and dye her hair yellow-purple? We don't know. Goldstein hasn't filled us in.
Since swastikas in the streets of America are horrific, they go to the other extreme, which includes Black Lives Matter, BDS groups, and Linda Sarsour, the director of the underground resistance to Trump who also rejects Zionists and other Jewish states. When former President Barack Obama was in office, left-wing organizations and the media confronted American Jews with a choice: Either they were for Obama, or they were for Israel. The clear choice was Obama.
Given the threat to U.S. stability and democracy, American Jews will find themselves in the same situation as European Jews, particularly those in France and Britain. In most EU nations, those noted for their liberalism -- in contrast to the barbarians from Poland and the Danube -- Jews cannot walk around freely. They have to hide any outward sign that could identify them as Jews. American Jews did not raise a fuss in recent years when the air ran out for the Jews of France and they started fleeing. Their president denied time after time that there was a ghost of anti-Semitism in the slaughter at the Hyper-Cacher supermarket in Paris two years ago, and his spokespeople insisted it was just a coincidence that the victims were Jewish.
Last weekend, a poll was published in the U.K. which shows that 40% of the country's Jews feel unwanted there, and that one out of every three British Jews is considering leaving. A decade ago, the city of Malmo in the south of Sweden was emptied of the few thousand Jews who lived there because of Islamist-leftist pressure that won the backing of the mayor.
In America, the liberal-left combo will lead to the Jews being punished -- not in European terms, but in American terms. This combination tends toward totalitarianism and is linked with the black and Muslim communities. Even now, under pressure, the Jews are starting to break into three groups: the "good" Jews, the "bad" Jews, and the ones who hide their identity or emigrate to Israel -- Jews or liberals of "Jewish descent." The good Jews are asked to attack Israel and Zionist racism, lest they be boycotted and attacked, as Jews had to do in the former Soviet Union. The bad Jews are asked to support Israel through thick and thin. They have self-respect and respect for themselves as a nation. This is an interesting group. Will this group grow, as we saw in France and Britain, and will its members veer right, or will the Trump confusion thin its ranks? One thing is certain: They won't bring the Democratic Party back to the center.
Tossing Jewish Women Out of Dyke March Was an Intersectional Fail
This past Sunday afternoon, as our local Pride parade streamed by, signifying the semi-official end of our Pride weekend, I sat down to have a much-deserved drink and smoke, and casually checked my phone. There was an email from my editor at The Advocate letting me know about the Dyke March in Chicago, where a group of Jewish attendees were thrown out because they were carrying a Pride flag with a Star of David on it, which made attendees uncomfortable.
I simply rolled my eyes, shook my head, and muttered a well-earned “Goddamn it, people.” The organizers made sure to defend themselves with a statement that said they were certainly not anti-Semitic but were anti-Zionist and supported a free Palestine. They also made sure to let people know that they were welcoming of all, embraced diversity, and were not bad people. Well, of course they aren’t. They’re not bad people, just political partisans who are using LGBT issues to push their ideological agenda, which ironically is what they were accusing these individuals of doing, though only after apparently interrogating them.
What’s interesting is that according to everything I’ve read, these individuals weren’t carrying Israeli flags, just Pride flags with a Star of David on them. Now, yes, the Israeli flag does have a Star of David on it, but the Star of David is not the Israeli flag. Crazy concept, I know, but follow me on this one. The Star of David is an emblem of the Jewish faith that goes back over a thousand years, much like the crescent for Islam or the cross for Christianity. In fact, the image of the Star of David is called the Seal of Solomon in Islamic mysticism, it’s a symbol that predates the nation of Israel by centuries. So what appears to have happened is that a few people saw a hexagram and immediately concluded, “Star of David=Israel=Zionism=Evil".
This is simple thinking for simple people who want a simple ideology that makes them feel righteous. That’s the problem, though; when you feel righteous in a belief that reduces the overwhelming complexity of humanity and the world to symbols, stereotypes, and a basic good versus evil dynamic, you usually end up being a bigoted zealot. This time around, these bigoted zealots have wrapped themselves in a rainbow shroud to defend their beliefs.
All of this stems from something a part of the left calls “pinkwashing,” which has come to describe the way Israel promotes its LGBT acceptance to allegedly cover up its mistreatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Let me go ahead and say this right now and get this out of the way: If you think you can reduce the cosmic nightmare that is the Israel-Palestine conflict to fancy buzzwords, either/or equations, and a black-and-white morality, you are a moron.
The Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict is easily the most morally, legally, and geopolitically complex issue of modern history, with its roots going back hundreds of years, and is almost baked into the two sides' identities. Oh, yes, I said the two sides because there is no “good guy” in this. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have committed atrocities, violated human rights, broken treaties, and used religion and propaganda as weapons. I don’t pretend to think I have a simple solution or a hashtag-worthy buzzword to frame an issue this complex.
Additionally, and this is very important to understand, to use LGBT+ issues as a shield for your pro-Palestinian stance on the conflict is fundamentally morally abhorrent and hypocritical. For 10 years one of the participants in the Dyke March has carried her Jewish Pride flag with no incident till now. According to her, only anti-LGBT protesters harassed her previously, and they were asked to leave.
Yet now the organizers who objected to the flag want to claim inclusivity, intersectionality, and acceptance. Well, you can’t say that and exclude one group of people at the expense of another, especially when the primary thing binding you together is being LGBT. The uniting factor here is LGBT+ rights, which are used to find that commonality that breaks down prejudices and systems of oppression, and all other things come second. What happened in Chicago was people choosing a side in a complex geopolitical conflict and attacking LGBT+ Jews by using their own queer identities as weapons.
The culpable Dyke March organizers claim that they are inclusive and fighting for social justice, but only if the participants believe like them and support their politics, and all other things be damned. The Jews who were expelled and made to feel ostracized and unwelcome despite their own queer identities were sacrificed for these people to further their goals, as if throwing three gay Jews out of the Dyke March would accomplish anything.
Well, I guess it did in a way. It told these people that their own feelings of oppression and marginalization, along with their queerness, don’t count because they don’t have the same politics; that their lives, their experiences, their pain don’t matter as long as some vastly abstracted conflict on the other side of the planet is decided in these people’s favor.
The people responsible for the embarrassment in Chicago value their chosen political allies and comfort in their beliefs over everything else. That’s not intersectional or inclusive; that’s a partisan, ideological tactic that will gladly hurt people to achieve its ends. There’s nothing about social justice here, just a particular cruelty that’s the seed of much darker things.
If you are going to call yourself an LGBT+ group, take its identifiers, and claim to speak and represent the LGBT+ community, then you represent all of them, you protect all of them, and you use that aspect to find the common ground to build bridges.
When you call yourself something like the “Dyke March” and throw out queer women because they believe something that only through a Byzantine and contrived web can be related to LGBT+ issues, you are no longer a gay rights group; you are a political group with a partisan ideology that has decided to wrap itself in a rainbow flag and use it to deflect and obfuscate that fact. Your queerness is no longer a positive thing, but something weaponized to achieve an end that has no real effect on LGBT+ issues in the greater scheme of things. It is, in all reality, “pinkwashing,” and a very obvious and hypocritical kind at that.
AMANDA KERRI is a writer and comedian based in Oklahoma City. Follow her on Twitter @EternalKerri.
- By skinster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oex20hQeQp4 No, […]
- By skinster
^ :lol: :lol: :lol:
