8 ms·

I think people really need to realise that this isn't some kind of paradox or contradiction, it's actually consistent. These are the same people who are trying

I think people really need to realise that this isn't some kind of paradox or contradiction, it's actually consistent. These are the same people who are trying to repeal anti-discrimination legislation because it stands in the way of their agendas. They're undoing decades of actual progress.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I don't agree; I think this is basically a case of different people trying to do different things. There's one longstanding and well-organized interest group promoting the idea that blacks shouldn't be treated badly just because they're black. That group's goals are advanced by making people read To Kill a Mockingbird. There's another interest group promoting the idea that they should have the power to denounce other people and objects. Their goals are advanced by denouncing To Kill a Mockingbird; if it works, it's evidence that they really do have that power. The more they can denounce, the stronger they are. The first group is concerned with the content of the book; the second group has no particular reason to be.
- esja 6y ago
  I agree with benlumen. I think there is a group which is trying very hard to redefine what racism means, in order to advance a different ideology. It seems to be working, at least in America. For those people, To Kill a Mockingbird is very dangerous, because it espouses the MLK philosophy (colour blindness) which most people agree with, but which they hate. For these modern "anti-racists", we must instead see race everywhere, and factor it into every aspect of our lives, making constant calculations and adjustments which we can never hope to do correctly, and which contain internal contradictions we can never resolve. This hands those people tremendous power. They are like parasites who have taken over a host. It took massive effort to reach the point in society where almost everyone agreed racism was unacceptable, and legitimately feared being called a racist. Like all "isms", we reached the point where almost everyone stopped thinking about what these terms actually mean, and just started substituting the word for a value judgement: racism bad, anti-racism good. This is the perfect setup for someone with different goals to hijack the concept.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    MLK’s philosophy was not color blindness. This is just what people hear if they listen to one line from one speech from his entire career. He also explicitly stated that programs that specifically benefited black people and only black people as a mechanism to address prior injustice would be justified. “A society that has done something special against the negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the negro”.
    - esja 6y ago
      Sure, but that's not important to the point I'm making. If you asked almost everybody even two years ago what "racism" or "anti-racism" meant, and what Atticus Finch stood for, you would have gotten some version of "colour blindness" and probably some reference to MLK, because that one speech is what they consider the best expression of the view. Whatever else MLK said is irrelevant - it's about the specific idea that most people associated with anti-racism. The modern "anti-racists" have very different beliefs, which would have very little support if the implications were spelled out clearly to everyone, and therefore these beliefs need to be laundered and disguised as something more respectable. Hence the language games.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        Of course it is important. Because it is moral justification for why "color blindness" is morally superior to alternatives pushed by a subset of anti-racists. By referencing MLK, a figure often revered as a moral compass, your post presents anti-racists as a corrupted extension of the valid work done in the 60s. My point is that if you want to complain about modern anti-racists, you are very likely also complaining about MLK's beliefs too. That can be a thing you can do, but your moral foundations become less automatically rock solid and require some justification.
        esja 6y ago
        The point was not that modern anti-racists are wrong because they disagreed with MLK on some topics, it was that they are wrong because they completely reject colour blindness, of which MLK’s famous statements are one well-known example. Perhaps I should have picked a different person or just not mentioned him. Again: It’s about the specific idea, not a person. And the idea is what is being hijacked, to mean almost the opposite of what was generally accepted.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

I don't agree; I think this is basically a case of different people trying to do different things. There's one longstanding and well-organized interest group promoting the idea that blacks shouldn't be treated badly just because they're black. That group's goals are advanced by making people read To Kill a Mockingbird. There's another interest group promoting the idea that they should have the power to denounce other people and objects. Their goals are advanced by denouncing To Kill a Mockingbird; if it works, it's evidence that they really do have that power. The more they can denounce, the stronger they are. The first group is concerned with the content of the book; the second group has no particular reason to be.

esja 6y ago
I agree with benlumen. I think there is a group which is trying very hard to redefine what racism means, in order to advance a different ideology. It seems to be working, at least in America. For those people, To Kill a Mockingbird is very dangerous, because it espouses the MLK philosophy (colour blindness) which most people agree with, but which they hate. For these modern "anti-racists", we must instead see race everywhere, and factor it into every aspect of our lives, making constant calculations and adjustments which we can never hope to do correctly, and which contain internal contradictions we can never resolve. This hands those people tremendous power. They are like parasites who have taken over a host. It took massive effort to reach the point in society where almost everyone agreed racism was unacceptable, and legitimately feared being called a racist. Like all "isms", we reached the point where almost everyone stopped thinking about what these terms actually mean, and just started substituting the word for a value judgement: racism bad, anti-racism good. This is the perfect setup for someone with different goals to hijack the concept.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  MLK’s philosophy was not color blindness. This is just what people hear if they listen to one line from one speech from his entire career. He also explicitly stated that programs that specifically benefited black people and only black people as a mechanism to address prior injustice would be justified. “A society that has done something special against the negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the negro”.
  - esja 6y ago
    Sure, but that's not important to the point I'm making. If you asked almost everybody even two years ago what "racism" or "anti-racism" meant, and what Atticus Finch stood for, you would have gotten some version of "colour blindness" and probably some reference to MLK, because that one speech is what they consider the best expression of the view. Whatever else MLK said is irrelevant - it's about the specific idea that most people associated with anti-racism. The modern "anti-racists" have very different beliefs, which would have very little support if the implications were spelled out clearly to everyone, and therefore these beliefs need to be laundered and disguised as something more respectable. Hence the language games.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Of course it is important. Because it is moral justification for why "color blindness" is morally superior to alternatives pushed by a subset of anti-racists. By referencing MLK, a figure often revered as a moral compass, your post presents anti-racists as a corrupted extension of the valid work done in the 60s. My point is that if you want to complain about modern anti-racists, you are very likely also complaining about MLK's beliefs too. That can be a thing you can do, but your moral foundations become less automatically rock solid and require some justification.
      - esja 6y ago
        The point was not that modern anti-racists are wrong because they disagreed with MLK on some topics, it was that they are wrong because they completely reject colour blindness, of which MLK’s famous statements are one well-known example. Perhaps I should have picked a different person or just not mentioned him. Again: It’s about the specific idea, not a person. And the idea is what is being hijacked, to mean almost the opposite of what was generally accepted.