4 ms·

I still don't understand, why didn't the left simply reply "yes it is" and resist the urge to hedge/caveat/etc? It seems it would've been tactically and strateg

I still don't understand, why didn't the left simply reply "yes it is" and resist the urge to hedge/caveat/etc? It seems it would've been tactically and strategically best. Judging from the people I see online who were pushed right by the left's response to this.

monocasa 7y ago
It's sort of like the "All Lives Matter" thing. The "it's ok to be white" argument structure is designed so that either accepting it or denying it furthers the goals of white nationalists, because either has to be done in an extremely nuanced way that can't really happen in the context of a protest sign or a meme.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)
  - monocasa 7y ago
    The whole structure of the "it's ok to be white" thing is to (it it were accepted by the left) to start delegitimizing the attempts to build alternate power structures that aren't available to non white people. For instance, the NBER found that literally changing a name from Tyrone to Chad on a resume increased job callbacks 3x, and stuff like affirmative action is designed to address exactly those systemic inequities. Normalizing "it's ok to be white" was designed to attack those head on if it was accepted. You don't see that half, because the left didn't take that side. There was no winning either way.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - notahacker 7y ago
    It's not the idea that being white is acceptable that's being rejected though - most of the people doing the rejecting are white - it's the idea that white nationalism has anything to do with 'being white' or that objections to it have anything to do with aversion to whiteness. It's a bit like seemingly innocuous positive statements about 'life' or 'choice' suddenly become minefields if they're used almost exclusively as campaign slogans by one side of an abortion debate.

monocasa 7y ago

It's sort of like the "All Lives Matter" thing. The "it's ok to be white" argument structure is designed so that either accepting it or denying it furthers the goals of white nationalists, because either has to be done in an extremely nuanced way that can't really happen in the context of a protest sign or a meme.

cousin_it 7y ago
I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)
- monocasa 7y ago
  The whole structure of the "it's ok to be white" thing is to (it it were accepted by the left) to start delegitimizing the attempts to build alternate power structures that aren't available to non white people. For instance, the NBER found that literally changing a name from Tyrone to Chad on a resume increased job callbacks 3x, and stuff like affirmative action is designed to address exactly those systemic inequities. Normalizing "it's ok to be white" was designed to attack those head on if it was accepted. You don't see that half, because the left didn't take that side. There was no winning either way.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- notahacker 7y ago
  It's not the idea that being white is acceptable that's being rejected though - most of the people doing the rejecting are white - it's the idea that white nationalism has anything to do with 'being white' or that objections to it have anything to do with aversion to whiteness. It's a bit like seemingly innocuous positive statements about 'life' or 'choice' suddenly become minefields if they're used almost exclusively as campaign slogans by one side of an abortion debate.