4 ms·

This. The radical progressive's worldview is that our society is itself a white supremacist society - this is taken as axiomatic and a matter of definition, not

This. The radical progressive's worldview is that our society is itself a white supremacist society - this is taken as axiomatic and a matter of definition, not as something that could be meaningfully argued about, or even be said to depend on anything concrete about the real world! Thus, by definition, any support for existing social structures (including support for President Trump!) can be rightly defined as "support for white supremacy". It's a way of thinking that's lifted straight off of, e.g. religious fundamentalism and, perhaps most significantly, the nihilist politics of the late 19th and early 20th century that ultimately led to fascism, naziism, soviet communism etc. etc.

eesmith 7y ago
I can support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - an existing social structure - without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I can support woman's suffrage without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? Eg, I can describe 1970s South Africa as being a white supremacist society, yes? You certainly agree that at one point US laws were based on white supremacy, right? Eg, the Illinois Constitution of 1848, quoting https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 : > The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free. That sounds pretty white-supremacy, yes? If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how?
- 0815test 7y ago
  > ...without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I did say "can be", not "is always defined as such, in a logically-consistent way"! One point that should be quite obvious is that one can always say "that doesn't go far enough!" in a totally unfalsifiable way. (And yes, people have made such arguments, seemingly in all seriousness, even about such things as women's suffrage or civil-rights legislation!) It's a mistake to think that this sort of mindset is restricted by any kind of logic or rationality. > How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? ... If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how? Again, the point is that the radical-progressive mindset is not interested in such questions. They are simply not seen as something that's inherently legitimate as a subject of inquiry. You are naïvely assuming that the appeal to notions such as "white supremacy" is intended to be meaningful - to say something, anything about the real world - when in fact it might as well be something that's said purely "for the lulz", for the sheer amusement of making one's political opponents uncomfortable. It's less about "debate" of any sort than it is about sheer intimidation and willful confusion.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Then by your definition I am not a radical-progressive.
boapnuaput 7y ago
Hi! I'm further left than most progressives. Our society is not homogenous enough to make a statement like "white supremacist society" substantial. However, there are three closely-related truths which are pretty obvious about our society: * Our society is, itself, a fascist, classist, militaristic society. * Pockets of people and parochial cultures in some specific regions are white supremacists. This isn't definitional or axiomatic, but if you don't perceive these things as true in your day-to-day experience of our country, then you're not likely to feel that they're true. And that's fine! We don't have to agree. But it's useful to point out how and where we don't agree.
- 0815test 7y ago
  It's not that I don't perceive many things that might be described with some truth-of-the-matter as "fascist, classist, militaristic". What I might object to is the use of such terms as "fascist", "classist", "militaristic" as thought-terminating cliches deprived of any real content, which is astoundingly common. And the meme of "the white-supremacist society" is not significantly different in any real sense - though it does seem more likely to prompt attitudes such as Ravelry's, as reported in the OP.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Rather than switch to a meta-conversation about "memes", could you address the more concrete questions I asked earlier? That is, I wanted to know if you think that "white supremacy and "supporting white supremacy" were meaningful terms at all. Before doing that, I'll note that you were the first to use the term 'society' in this thread. My previous statements were along the lines of 'support for open white supremacy'. I think "society" is a distraction because there's always the "not all" objection - not all white people in Virgiania in 1850s were in favor of slavery, even though it was a slave society. So when I mean "society", I mean "the main cultural views as reinforced by the government and others with political, economic, and physical power". Going back to my earlier questions, which I'll augment: 1) can the 1970s South Africa be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can. For obvious reasons. 2) can the 1850s US be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can, for obvious reasons. 3) can the 1950s US be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can. Jim Crow laws. Sundowner towns, Redlining, Mississippi Burning. 4) can the current US be described as a white supremacist society? I have come to the conclusion that viewing the dominate power structures in the US as being strongly influenced by white supremacy is a valid, though incomplete one. If you reject that 'white-supremacist society' is a useful term, then perhaps you shouldn't have introduced it?

eesmith 7y ago

I can support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - an existing social structure - without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I can support woman's suffrage without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? Eg, I can describe 1970s South Africa as being a white supremacist society, yes? You certainly agree that at one point US laws were based on white supremacy, right? Eg, the Illinois Constitution of 1848, quoting https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 : > The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free. That sounds pretty white-supremacy, yes? If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how?

0815test 7y ago
> ...without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I did say "can be", not "is always defined as such, in a logically-consistent way"! One point that should be quite obvious is that one can always say "that doesn't go far enough!" in a totally unfalsifiable way. (And yes, people have made such arguments, seemingly in all seriousness, even about such things as women's suffrage or civil-rights legislation!) It's a mistake to think that this sort of mindset is restricted by any kind of logic or rationality. > How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? ... If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how? Again, the point is that the radical-progressive mindset is not interested in such questions. They are simply not seen as something that's inherently legitimate as a subject of inquiry. You are naïvely assuming that the appeal to notions such as "white supremacy" is intended to be meaningful - to say something, anything about the real world - when in fact it might as well be something that's said purely "for the lulz", for the sheer amusement of making one's political opponents uncomfortable. It's less about "debate" of any sort than it is about sheer intimidation and willful confusion.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Then by your definition I am not a radical-progressive.

boapnuaput 7y ago

Hi! I'm further left than most progressives. Our society is not homogenous enough to make a statement like "white supremacist society" substantial. However, there are three closely-related truths which are pretty obvious about our society: * Our society is, itself, a fascist, classist, militaristic society. * Pockets of people and parochial cultures in some specific regions are white supremacists. This isn't definitional or axiomatic, but if you don't perceive these things as true in your day-to-day experience of our country, then you're not likely to feel that they're true. And that's fine! We don't have to agree. But it's useful to point out how and where we don't agree.

0815test 7y ago
It's not that I don't perceive many things that might be described with some truth-of-the-matter as "fascist, classist, militaristic". What I might object to is the use of such terms as "fascist", "classist", "militaristic" as thought-terminating cliches deprived of any real content, which is astoundingly common. And the meme of "the white-supremacist society" is not significantly different in any real sense - though it does seem more likely to prompt attitudes such as Ravelry's, as reported in the OP.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Rather than switch to a meta-conversation about "memes", could you address the more concrete questions I asked earlier? That is, I wanted to know if you think that "white supremacy and "supporting white supremacy" were meaningful terms at all. Before doing that, I'll note that you were the first to use the term 'society' in this thread. My previous statements were along the lines of 'support for open white supremacy'. I think "society" is a distraction because there's always the "not all" objection - not all white people in Virgiania in 1850s were in favor of slavery, even though it was a slave society. So when I mean "society", I mean "the main cultural views as reinforced by the government and others with political, economic, and physical power". Going back to my earlier questions, which I'll augment: 1) can the 1970s South Africa be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can. For obvious reasons. 2) can the 1850s US be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can, for obvious reasons. 3) can the 1950s US be described as a white supremacist society? I think it can. Jim Crow laws. Sundowner towns, Redlining, Mississippi Burning. 4) can the current US be described as a white supremacist society? I have come to the conclusion that viewing the dominate power structures in the US as being strongly influenced by white supremacy is a valid, though incomplete one. If you reject that 'white-supremacist society' is a useful term, then perhaps you shouldn't have introduced it?