3 ms·
So the author is calling for less violence against minorities, wants to remove racist language from public discourse, but he must still be racist because he doe
by true_religion 8y ago
So the author is calling for less violence against minorities, wants to remove racist language from public discourse, but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does?
Not criticizing, I just want to know if this is a fair assessment. I do not know how I feel about this in general, but in specific, his short term goal of reducing violence makes him a more tollerable enemy.
- krapp 8y ago> but he must still be racist because he does not totally condemn racists who happen to want the same goals as he does? Yes, because those goals are racist. He's racist because of his belief in and support for white nationalism and racial segregation, and the genetic and cultural superiority of the white race, and his definition of "western civilization" in purely (pun intended) racial terms. He's racist because he views the presence of non-white people as a form of pollution and believes in racist conspiracy theories like white genocide. Being racist and civil is still being racist.
- paulddraper 8y agoI'm not sure "genetic superiority" is in his list of claims. But in any case, going back to the original point, there's some real muddling of terminology here. Racist != Nazi My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi.
- krapp 8y ago>My great grandmother was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Neither one was a Nazi. Fair enough. Racist but not full Nazi.