3 ms·

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort

by corobo 9y ago

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
Well, when we're at a place where asking where someone is from is considered an example of white supremacy, then it seems we need to couch everything we say with strained deference to social justice. Those are the times we're in, and I blame the left for its obsessive dismantling of our language.
- corobo 9y ago
  See here's a great example of why I prefaced my message. Sorry but I'm lacking in either English language skills or politics but I haven't got a clue what you're saying. I'm ill-equipped to respond to this sort of reply. I'm not even sure what side of the fence you're debating for here. Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for the fallout to end.
  - apetresc 9y ago
    I think you may just need to read more carefully. It's abundantly clear what he's saying, and "what side of the fence" he's on.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghostly_s 9y ago
      No, it's not. Leave the OP alone, why on earth are people shaming them for needlessly clarifying they don't support white supremacy?
  - tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
    I couldn't even imagine how stressful it must be to enter into this kind of conversation when English isn't your first language. I feel for you. What I meant was that the meaning of terms like "white supremacist" and "racist" has changed dramatically in recent years. To the point where it's very difficult to speak clearly about these types of things.
    - tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
      I realized that even here I wasn't very clear. What I was saying was that you shouldn't have to say that you don't support racists before every single statement. But because of how our language has shifted, you now have to, and it's unfortunate.
      - CWuestefeld 9y ago
        I don't think this is a language problem at all. It's because of a stupid binary us vs them mindset. Any time you offer a criticism, it's automatically perceived as support of the other tribe. Any admission that your own tribe might not be as pure as the new-fallen snow, or that the other tribe isn't always completely evil, is enough to brand someone as a pariah. As long as we keep up this attitude, we're going to continue - and deepen our political divides.
brightball 9y ago
Try having a conversation about civil war history. You reference any historical information that makes views on the war less cut and dry, you'll gain the label immediately. I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief that people are inherently good and I had a really hard time believing that all of my ancestors were the evil scum of the earth portrayed in assorted narratives. As it turns out, there's some critical details left out and now that I understand the build up to the war better I can at least rest easier. It's virtually impossible to have a conversation about though.
- mantas 9y ago
  What you mind to point to some more... controversial literature? Or some handbook you found rather objective on the matter?
  - brightball 9y ago
    Ehh...it's not so much controversial as it is just details that are normally left out. Once you're aware of them and take the time to verify the citations you immediately notice when other people leave them out. Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic nose dive, but the 3 things you can read about to understand that better are The Haitian Massacre of 1804, John Brown, and The Cherokee Declaration of Causes. Of those three, only John Brown is mentioned on the Wikipedia timeline. The other two provide context.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Thank you. Gotta add these to my to-read list!
      - brightball 9y ago

by corobo 9y ago

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

Well, when we're at a place where asking where someone is from is considered an example of white supremacy, then it seems we need to couch everything we say with strained deference to social justice. Those are the times we're in, and I blame the left for its obsessive dismantling of our language.

corobo 9y ago
See here's a great example of why I prefaced my message. Sorry but I'm lacking in either English language skills or politics but I haven't got a clue what you're saying. I'm ill-equipped to respond to this sort of reply. I'm not even sure what side of the fence you're debating for here. Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for the fallout to end.
- apetresc 9y ago
  I think you may just need to read more carefully. It's abundantly clear what he's saying, and "what side of the fence" he's on.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghostly_s 9y ago
    No, it's not. Leave the OP alone, why on earth are people shaming them for needlessly clarifying they don't support white supremacy?
- tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
  I couldn't even imagine how stressful it must be to enter into this kind of conversation when English isn't your first language. I feel for you. What I meant was that the meaning of terms like "white supremacist" and "racist" has changed dramatically in recent years. To the point where it's very difficult to speak clearly about these types of things.
  - tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
    I realized that even here I wasn't very clear. What I was saying was that you shouldn't have to say that you don't support racists before every single statement. But because of how our language has shifted, you now have to, and it's unfortunate.
    - CWuestefeld 9y ago
      I don't think this is a language problem at all. It's because of a stupid binary us vs them mindset. Any time you offer a criticism, it's automatically perceived as support of the other tribe. Any admission that your own tribe might not be as pure as the new-fallen snow, or that the other tribe isn't always completely evil, is enough to brand someone as a pariah. As long as we keep up this attitude, we're going to continue - and deepen our political divides.

brightball 9y ago

Try having a conversation about civil war history. You reference any historical information that makes views on the war less cut and dry, you'll gain the label immediately. I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief that people are inherently good and I had a really hard time believing that all of my ancestors were the evil scum of the earth portrayed in assorted narratives. As it turns out, there's some critical details left out and now that I understand the build up to the war better I can at least rest easier. It's virtually impossible to have a conversation about though.

mantas 9y ago
What you mind to point to some more... controversial literature? Or some handbook you found rather objective on the matter?
- brightball 9y ago
  Ehh...it's not so much controversial as it is just details that are normally left out. Once you're aware of them and take the time to verify the citations you immediately notice when other people leave them out. Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic nose dive, but the 3 things you can read about to understand that better are The Haitian Massacre of 1804, John Brown, and The Cherokee Declaration of Causes. Of those three, only John Brown is mentioned on the Wikipedia timeline. The other two provide context.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Thank you. Gotta add these to my to-read list!
    - brightball 9y ago