Except no one said that. All this talk of bad faith and this is the result? — NOS4A2

Again, the OP just meant to point out that racism is bad, and then they clobbered you, bless your heart.

Again, the OP just meant to point out that racism is bad, and then they clobbered you, bless your heart.

I’m quite fine. They clobber their straw men, making sure to make a show of it while doing so.

We cannot favor races in policy (like in slavery reparations - me) while discriminating against others, especially at the institutional level. It’s institutional racism

(Everyone should get slavery reparations or no slavery reparations should be made).

Slavery was also state discrimination against citizens on the basis of their race, as was segregation, apartheid, programs and genocides.

(Slavery is just like slavery reparations in all relevant respects for this discussion).

And when you point out trivial implications which they intended in their posts:

Except no one said that.

They'll never come out and say what they actually believe, or believe what they are logically committed to, Maintaining ignorance of the implications of their beliefs is a necessary feature of internet reactionary praxis. Any awful consequences of their worldviews can be disavowed because they were never explicitly stated; it's not that my beliefs entail horrors, it's that you misread me. Never play defense - if you're always the one making the accusations, always the one doling out buckets of fisking condescension, you never have to systematise your beliefs or check them for consequences.

Lovecraft was right:

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

I’m quite fine. They clobber their straw men, making sure to make a show of it while doing so. — NOS4A2

It's atrocious. Why did you think to make a thread about how racism is bad? Did you think it was debatable?

It quacks like a duck. It smells like alt-right white supremacism mischievously disguised as confused liberalism.

Yes, that was the point: to show that all are similar insofar as they are forms of institutional racism. And I was speaking of affirmative action, not reparations.

They'll never come out and say what they actually believe, or believe what they are logically committed too, Maintaining ignorance of the implications of their beliefs is a necessary feature of internet reactionary praxis.

You could just ask, but it looks like assuming the worst possible motives and further assuming you’ve chosen the right ones suffices.

I kind of thought we’d all agree that racism was bad, and that we could discuss the proposed prescriptions.

kind of thought we’d all agree that racism was bad, and that we could discuss the proposed prescriptions. — NOS4A2

What proposed prescriptions?

What proposed prescriptions?

Whether we should be colorblind or color conscious.

Clever.

Whether we should be colorblind or color conscious. — NOS4A2

In what areas of life?

Don't feed the troll.

In what areas of life?

In all of them, as a matter of principle.

Don't feed the troll. — Chris Hughes

He's kind of installed himself. He's doing no harm.

In all of them, as a matter of principle. — NOS4A2

Act out of love, not principle.

"Affirmative action is equivalent to slavery" - what kind of batshit mental contortions do you need to do to make this make sense. This is supposed to be taken seriously?

Don't feed the troll. — Chris Hughes

It quacks like a duck. If smells like alt-right white supremacism mischievously disguised as confused liberalism. — Chris Hughes

I don't think this one's a troll, unfortunately. I don't think they're alt-right either. It's very common conservative talking points; that they're hard to distinguish from chan culture bollocks is problematic, but it's not their fault this stuff propagates like it does. Conservatism's always been a slippery downward slope to fascism, all it takes is a push.

It's very common conservative talking points; — fdrake

Not as far as I'm aware. Maybe in your part of the world.

Maybe in your part of the world. — frank

On the anglophone internet and twitters.

"Affirmative action is equivalent to slavery" - what kind of batshit mental contortions do you need to do to make this make sense. This is supposed to be taken seriously?

Probably the same kind of batshit mental contortions involved in pretending someone said such a thing.

I don't think this one's a troll, unfortunately. I don't think they're alt-right either. It's very common conservative talking points; that they're hard to distinguish from chan culture bollocks is problematic, but it's not their fault this stuff propagates like it does. Conservatism's always been a slippery downward slope to fascism, all it takes is a push.

I’m a liberal.

Do you believe a government should discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their race? — NOS4A2

Slavery was also state discrimination against citizens on the basis of their race, as was segregation, apartheid, programs and genocides. — NOS4A2

Yes, that was the point: to show that all (affirmative action, apartheid, slavery) are similar insofar as they are forms of institutional racism — NOS4A2

Slavery = apartheid = affirmative action, insofar as they are all racist. When I say this:

Probably the same kind of batshit mental contortions involved in pretending someone said such a thing. — NOS4A2

Note: individuals or groups acting differently based on or motivated by people's socially constructed race is not necessarily racist; without this distinction the civil rights movement was racist (since it appealed to the affected community to seize power and gain representation). This similarity needs to be strengthened to equivalence for the argument as presented follow; alike in all relevant respects for a property to transfer over a similarity claim. Either the argument is invalid, or it's based on framing devices that smooth out the differences, or both. Whether this is done intentionally or not does not really matter.

Edit: ultimately this cashes out, collapses down, into an argument where someone further to the political left repeatedly throws statistics at someone on further to the political right. A clash between systemic analysis and personal responsibility; between collective and individual patterns of thought. Whether we're 'really' in a state of equality of opportunity between races; and the excuses used to portray that we are, when we in fact are not. Not within countries, not between the imperial political north and the colonised political south.

I'm going to make this simpler for him.

A basic definition of racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

(Oxford dictionary.)

Now find the odd one out:

1) Slavery
2) Apartheid
3) Affirmative action

On the anglophone internet and twitters. — fdrake

I guess I'm out of touch.

I’m a liberal. — NOS4A2

I'm a raging lefty. You probably gathered.

Thanks for the advice.

Slavery = apartheid = affirmative action, insofar as they are all racist. When I say this:

Institutionally racist, to be more precise. Perhaps I may be using it wrongly, but by institutionally racist I mean racial discrimination at the institutional-level, racism as a method and policy of institutions. Perhaps someone can correct me on the correct term.

I just happen to believe that using racism to correct racism defeats that purpose at the start. I also believe that using racism at the institutional level is dangerous.

I'm a raging lefty. You probably gathered.

I don’t bother with throwing people into political camps. If it came to it, we’d probably be in the same foxhole fighting the same enemies.

I’m a liberal. — NOS4A2

If it came to it, we’d probably be in the same foxhole fighting the same enemies. — NOS4A2

Yes, the alt-right. Liberals and lefties of the world unite! :cheer:

Good to have you with us at last, you devilish young man.

Yes, the alt-right. Liberals and lefties of the world unite! :cheer:

Good to have you with us at last, you devilish young man.

Well, I’m not big on consensus and uniformity. It would have to be very rare circumstances.

Lol.

I wish that they were just trolls. Trolls are nihilistic, just doing what they can to get a rise. — fdrake

Well, I'm trying to be as charitable as I can. Usually, I don't hesitate calling a spade a spade; while engaged in what's purportedly a philosophical discussion here, however, 'dropping the troll-card' seems just as apt as 'playing the racist-card' but less inflammatory (i.e. provoking knee-jerk feigned 'anti-racist' outrage). The latter ends discussion whereas the former prompts detours around bad faith nonsense in order to push the discussion further. I'd rather play a rodeo clown than be the bull ...

I'm a raging lefty. — fdrake

Libertarian socialist (re: economic democracy) here. :up:

I just happen to believe that using racism to correct racism defeats that purpose at the start. I also believe that using racism at the institutional level is dangerous. — NOS4A2

Say there's a school in a poor area. The local council spends some of its funding to put in a school lunch scheme. So the poorest can eat at least one hot meal a day guaranteed. This is thereby prejudiced towards kids. This 'prejudice' moves the area a little bit closer towards equality of opportunity - not worrying about constant hunger for kids.

Say there's a large housing estate in a city with lax standards on house safety, and the landlords don't take care of the property; using cheap lead paint, asbestos and shit. Say these areas are impoverished, so the poorer people move in, poverty is strongly correlated with (socially constructed) race in the US. Now you got a whole load of minorities with lead poisoning and other health issues, which fucks up your brain development. Say you're a concerned government and offer legal aid to the effected to sue for damages, and this works - this is a 'racial prejudice' generated to partially address huge social costs rooted in equality of opportunity differences.

Say you're MLK and you want your people to get the vote, this means that the government has to change your constitution just for "you and your people", and no group of people deserves special treatment just because of who they are. This is racist because it's a minority group 'amplifying their voice' through political action.

Say you're the suffragettes, you're protesting for social recognition and equal opportunities for women...

If it came to it, we’d probably be in the same foxhole fighting the same enemies. — NOS4A2

Aye. :)

It's not your fault I've been on a tear recently, apologies you got caught in my fallout. I'm super sensitive to the posting style and political framings I've seen you use in political discussions; it's very vulnerable to being co-opted by far right rhetoric.

If you're willing to entertain that affirmative action and slavery resemble each other for the purposes of an argument, or in some politically relevant respect, and you're sincerely thinking these thoughts, you're going through a thought process that literal Neo-Nazis use. Jared Taylor for example is very happy to portray whites as a victimised minority due to political focus on mitigating 'racism' (through affirmative action, reparations, racial sensitivity training in workplaces). They're using the same elision between 'distinction' and 'discrimination' that I pointed out in your post, and they know it.

I don't think that believing any of the things you've said individually make you a racist, or a neo-Nazi, or alt-right or whatever, it's more that thinking in that way makes it easier to be coopted by the barrage of polarising propaganda we both probably see every day and hate.

If you wanna resist that stuff and free your mind from it, go left.

Edit: to me, go left means - a focus on democratisation (politics) and systemic critique (methodology)