5 ms·

> That is how our system of government works, and there is nothing wrong with that. The system you described naturally consolidates power, and most of society

• natecavanaugh 9y ago
  > Textbook conservative gaslighting to downplay the prevalence of an issue that they find to be inconvenient. I think depending on your experiences, it may come off as gaslighting, but as a conservative (who loathes Trump and a lot of what Thiel champions), I can tell you that even the word racist is a heavy handed social weapon that has sometimes been used wrongly, or, and this is what triggers conservative anger, is when it's applied only to white people. So it comes off as intellectually dishonest in these types of discussions. You may be thinking "oh Lord, cry me a river", but if everyone would cop to and own up for their own failings and work on that, things might ease a bit with regard to the tension of these discussions. Also, you can't have diversity of experience when it's convenient, and uniformity of experience at the same time. What I mean is, if all or most PoC have experienced racism, why is it not ok to then label all PoC with the negative labels and experiences? I've known many privileged PoC who demonstrate, if not full blown racism, then above average hostility and prejudice to not only other races, but even subgroups in their own ethnicity. And I have known many white people who come from an underprivileged background who suffer from many of the same structural inequalities in the system because of their background and who they associate with. I would agree with him that there really aren't many racists in the world in general, if we are defining racist as a person who consciously believes one race is superior to another. But if we define it as people who have subconscious prejudices that influence their thinking of other cultures, ethnicities, races, etc., Then I would say that they are everywhere, including you and I. But going with the latter definition is tricky, because humans are complex in that prejudices are overridden as often as they influence a decision. For instance, my former doctor was a somewhat older Asian lady, and she has a gigantic prejudice towards Russians and would say things like "Never adopt from Russia, the babies parents have so many drinking problems. The baby will have too many problems". However, having had her for many years, I can say that if a Russian, baby or not were to go to her for help, she would provide the same level of care she would give anyone else. Her prejudices may influence her initial thinking, but these sorts of things, if people are honest with themselves, are quickly overridden. Again, I'm not saying there aren't racists and that there aren't institutional issues that stem from it, I'm saying that it's frustrating that it's often ignored when PoC exhibit the same behavior, and that it happens when the environment is setup to favor PoC and the white person is the one at the disadvantage. So all that to say, I don't think it's inconvenient for conservatives or whites to have the discussion, it's just very often overly emotional on both sides and incredibly frustrating at times.
  • smhost 9y ago
    I would have been more willing to agree on a common ground before the Trump era. But now it seems as if all of the racists are seeping out of the woodwork, and I'm hearing all of the old racist arguments reinvigorated and amplified, arguments I thought had been defeated. America, for example, is the greatest empire ever to have existed, and the culture that gave rise to that is predominantly white, is it not? Is not true that African Americans are more violent and more stupid, statistically and factually speaking, than other races in America? Isn't it a fact that Jews control Hollywood? Is it not a true fact that LGBT people are more prone to mental disorders? Is it not true that ethnically homogeneous states are more stable? Why can't we talk about facts? And what is wrong, factually speaking, with any of these lines of reasoning? If you say that there really aren't racists, then I guess I should take your word for it, despite what I experience with my own eyes and ears every day, what I'll experience tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, until I'm fucking dead. > Again, I'm not saying there aren't racists and that there aren't institutional issues that stem from it, I'm saying that it's frustrating that it's often ignored when PoC exhibit the same behavior, and that it happens when the environment is setup to favor PoC and the white person is the one at the disadvantage. So why not just say this instead of saying that there really aren't racists? How is saying that there really aren't racists not a form of gaslighting?
    • natecavanaugh 9y ago
      On your first point, I think those same vehemently racist beliefs have been there this whole time, only because as a white guy, those racist or just plainly prejudiced other white guys would feel more comfortable expressing those opinions around me until I would bring around a black ex-girlfriend or a Latino best friend, and the conversation on that topic would get contorted into a weird dance around the topic filled with qualified euphemisms. And this was even during the Clinton era. But I could watch this happen at the black barbershop next door to my parents business when we would get haircuts, or the Mexican restaurant on the other side when everyone switches to purely Spanish when they would see us or the barbers walk in, but you could hear the "mayate" and "guero" get dropped into the conversation. Mind you it was the patrons of those businesses is where you would hear it from, and the proprietors of the businesses all genuinely respected and enjoyed each other. I think what's happening now is you're seeing racists feeling empowered by an atrocious human being who used racism and economic misery to weasel himself into power, which a lot of that rage was in reaction to Obama being in office for 8 years. Obama used the same frothy rage of unhappiness and economic misery to get into the White House, much in reaction to 8 years of Bush. But I heard plenty of racist remarks in the background when Obama was elected, it just had no power, and was in fact fomented in part by the feeling of having no power. The other aspect that I believe we're seeing is amplification. The Internet and social media have so much more power than they did in 2008, both in it's influence, and our perception of that influence. But in reality, it's the same human dirt that has been there forever, with water added, and flung father than ever before. However, the quote you posted in your original comment is subtly different than what you've said in your response to mine. The way you understood the quote, I'm assuming, is that he was saying there aren't any racists. The way I read your original quotation was that he was saying that there aren't racists everywhere. We can split hairs on that one, and English definitely doesn't provide any help, but I certainly don't want to dig in even a millimeter defending Trump's or Thiel's intent. I'll get into that in the next block, but I've seen activists on both sides create mountains out of molehills with regard to parsing the intent of a poorly phrased statement. > So why not just say this instead of saying that there really aren't racists? How is saying that there really aren't racists not a form of gaslighting? I guess I would say it would depend on the intended audience. If they were trying to convince PoC that there are no white racists at all, then I would definitely consider it gaslighting. But if they're saying no one of any ethnicity is a racist, I would tend to treat that as a political (and more "positive") spin of what Trump said about Charlottesville. If their audience are whites, then I would say it's appealing to their base, who, while all prejudiced, the majority of which are not racist, but who are often spoken about as if they were, or should be ashamed for being a part of racism. And there is the possibility it's both, which is the dark side of effective use of political speak. You can encourage "us" and try to discourage "them", while holding onto deniability about intent. But personally, without having read or heard Thiel's exact statements in the interview you quoted, I don't want to guess at the intent of those specific comments. And I think that Trump (and culturally, his entire regime) is a natural genius about using language to incite both sides to action or reaction, and yet he can play all sides to his advantage. There are reams of ways to use language to not only avoid responsibility, but associate ideological contrary statements so that your average political base may feel compelled to endorse it even if they add qualifications and disclaimers around it (which are all ignored by the opposing side). Kinda like my entire set of comments, I guess, though I am completely opposed to them, I think nuance on both sides is needed, moreso during these times :)
• jrs95 9y ago
  > most of society finds it acceptable only if it coexists with a mechanism to redistribute some of that power to the underprivileged class That mechanism exists. It's called voting. The problem mostly lies with how difficult it is to get underprivileged people to turn out and vote. Of course there are also voter suppression efforts, but those mostly amount to a 'nudge' to make it a little more difficult so less people turn out. It's a much smaller overall effect than general voter apathy. That's part of why Democrats were able to have so much success this year -- anti-Trump sentiment seems to have gotten their voters to turn out in an off year when they didn't used to.
• rrhd 9y ago
  Also, > The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.