5 ms·

I think that's exactly how racism works right? You segregate people by how they look like and you make them believe that because how they look like and their or

I think that's exactly how racism works right? You segregate people by how they look like and you make them believe that because how they look like and their origins they are less important then the others. Kind of funny how we humans think: "let's correct a mistake repeating it over and over again".

nemo44x 5y ago
When one of progressives guiding philosophies is “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” then this is exactly the plan. It’s all in their texts and one only has to read them to see plainly the type of policy they work towards.
- kendisaidit 5y ago
  Why is this guy being downvoted for quoting Ibram X Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist?
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    Inconvenient truth.
- nomoreplease 5y ago
  Where are these texts? I didn’t know that this is actually written down
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1118351/how-to-be-an-antiracist/9781847925992.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1118351/how-to-be-an-antirac...
- harimau777 5y ago
  I don't think that's actually something progressives generally believe. Do you have any evidence?
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    Read “How to be an Anti-Raciat” by Ibram X Kendi. It was a top selling book last year and he is a leading figure of the progressive left. His academic work is cited heavily in other progressive academic literature.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      There's an interesting dynamic here where imo the silent majority of progressives don't buy his approach and think it's counterproductive, but any lone soul who says so is called out, which side are you on here anyways. So this guy gets to represent himself as a spokesman for the movement and nobody really wants to contradict it under their real name.
      - nemo44x 5y ago
        He isn't a lone wolf or something though. Critical Theory covers not only race (as in this case) but gender, sexuality, disability and fat studies, and all types of "social justice" scholarship. They all come from Postcolonial Theory (essentially deconstructing Western thought and Western Liberalism) which has had a massive influence on all of these as they have adapted them. From bell hooks and Kimberle Crenshaw (intersectionality) into leading theories on feminist and racial thought - this is the progressive and academic left. It is the leading thought in every elite university. And you can't run away from it and say "us silent majority progressives...." - a progressive is either this or they aren't progressive by today's standard. It is a social force that is trying to get inside of everything it can, from unrelated academic scholarship (look at what's in modern STEM curricula) as well as corporate America and now elite high schools. My advice is to choose Liberalism without identity politics and reject this school of thought as illiberal, totalitarian, and harmful. (For what it's worth, the entire scholarship of critical theory isn't all awful. There's good things in there and the identification of many societal problems is probably right. However, it isn't unique to them and their solutions for these problems are awful and regressive.)
- tck42 5y ago
  That quote, in context, is available here. https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d... I think it's pretty clear from the full text that he's not advocating for racism against past racists or their offspring (which, intentional or not, is what your use of the quote makes it sound like).
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    He's advocating for "anti-racism" which claims there is no such thing as "not racist" policy, only racist policy and anti-racist policy. But he jumps through hoops to redefine racism so that it can suit his argument that "not racist" doesn't exist. That if you don't consider race in literally everything then you are racist, by his definition. This is in direct opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964: "Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity."
    - tck42 5y ago
      I think the redefining racism you mention is simply pointing out, at a high level, that one law does not erase injustice ingrained into power systems that were instructed by racism for literally hundreds of years, or the effects those systems have had on the targets of this racism and their offspring (things like generational wealth accumulation), and everyone else subject to those systems. The other thing is the idea that, for those of us growing up in various segments of society that are affected by the above, our very mechanism of thought was generated by this system, and that affects how we think about and perceive these systems (and everything else). I believe he's simply advocating for being conscious of the above two facts, when examining these systems and reforming them (and of course when teaching the history of these systems). To ignore race and racism as if it never happened is to allow all of that ingrained racism to perpetuate (of systems and of thought). All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me, but that may be due to my particular experience. That said - I'm no expert, I've only read the linked passage so far, though I've now ordered the book and will start reading it tonight. I'll refrain from commenting further here (I think we're pretty off-topic already). Thanks for the discussion!
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Just so you know, chalk me up as an 'anti-woke' leftist. Which might mean "Economist(TM) centrist". I can be in support of anti-systemic-racism actions that do not act on an individual level. I can support universal healthcare, higher income equality and whatnot, without the binary race worldview that Kendi puts out.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    Yes you can - you'd be a "Western Liberal", or "Liberal Scientist" or whatever else we want to name the philosophy of thought that began with the Enlightenment. And being a "leftist" in that is 100% consistent with that. We tend to refer to "liberals" as people on the left but in general a liberal is anyone who is consistent with liberal beliefs which include a fair amount of "conservatism" as well. However, there's quite a few folks on the right that are as illiberal as the progressives are on the left.
    - hk2001 5y ago
      I believe the Economist themselves label this as “Classical Liberalism”, given the modern connotations of “liberal” in the US.

nemo44x 5y ago

When one of progressives guiding philosophies is “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” then this is exactly the plan. It’s all in their texts and one only has to read them to see plainly the type of policy they work towards.

kendisaidit 5y ago
Why is this guy being downvoted for quoting Ibram X Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist?
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Inconvenient truth.
nomoreplease 5y ago
Where are these texts? I didn’t know that this is actually written down
- nemo44x 5y ago
  https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1118351/how-to-be-an-antiracist/9781847925992.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1118351/how-to-be-an-antirac...
harimau777 5y ago
I don't think that's actually something progressives generally believe. Do you have any evidence?
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Read “How to be an Anti-Raciat” by Ibram X Kendi. It was a top selling book last year and he is a leading figure of the progressive left. His academic work is cited heavily in other progressive academic literature.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    There's an interesting dynamic here where imo the silent majority of progressives don't buy his approach and think it's counterproductive, but any lone soul who says so is called out, which side are you on here anyways. So this guy gets to represent himself as a spokesman for the movement and nobody really wants to contradict it under their real name.
    - nemo44x 5y ago
      He isn't a lone wolf or something though. Critical Theory covers not only race (as in this case) but gender, sexuality, disability and fat studies, and all types of "social justice" scholarship. They all come from Postcolonial Theory (essentially deconstructing Western thought and Western Liberalism) which has had a massive influence on all of these as they have adapted them. From bell hooks and Kimberle Crenshaw (intersectionality) into leading theories on feminist and racial thought - this is the progressive and academic left. It is the leading thought in every elite university. And you can't run away from it and say "us silent majority progressives...." - a progressive is either this or they aren't progressive by today's standard. It is a social force that is trying to get inside of everything it can, from unrelated academic scholarship (look at what's in modern STEM curricula) as well as corporate America and now elite high schools. My advice is to choose Liberalism without identity politics and reject this school of thought as illiberal, totalitarian, and harmful. (For what it's worth, the entire scholarship of critical theory isn't all awful. There's good things in there and the identification of many societal problems is probably right. However, it isn't unique to them and their solutions for these problems are awful and regressive.)
tck42 5y ago
That quote, in context, is available here. https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d... I think it's pretty clear from the full text that he's not advocating for racism against past racists or their offspring (which, intentional or not, is what your use of the quote makes it sound like).
- nemo44x 5y ago
  He's advocating for "anti-racism" which claims there is no such thing as "not racist" policy, only racist policy and anti-racist policy. But he jumps through hoops to redefine racism so that it can suit his argument that "not racist" doesn't exist. That if you don't consider race in literally everything then you are racist, by his definition. This is in direct opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964: "Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity."
  - tck42 5y ago
    I think the redefining racism you mention is simply pointing out, at a high level, that one law does not erase injustice ingrained into power systems that were instructed by racism for literally hundreds of years, or the effects those systems have had on the targets of this racism and their offspring (things like generational wealth accumulation), and everyone else subject to those systems. The other thing is the idea that, for those of us growing up in various segments of society that are affected by the above, our very mechanism of thought was generated by this system, and that affects how we think about and perceive these systems (and everything else). I believe he's simply advocating for being conscious of the above two facts, when examining these systems and reforming them (and of course when teaching the history of these systems). To ignore race and racism as if it never happened is to allow all of that ingrained racism to perpetuate (of systems and of thought). All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me, but that may be due to my particular experience. That said - I'm no expert, I've only read the linked passage so far, though I've now ordered the book and will start reading it tonight. I'll refrain from commenting further here (I think we're pretty off-topic already). Thanks for the discussion!
unethical_ban 5y ago
Just so you know, chalk me up as an 'anti-woke' leftist. Which might mean "Economist(TM) centrist". I can be in support of anti-systemic-racism actions that do not act on an individual level. I can support universal healthcare, higher income equality and whatnot, without the binary race worldview that Kendi puts out.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Yes you can - you'd be a "Western Liberal", or "Liberal Scientist" or whatever else we want to name the philosophy of thought that began with the Enlightenment. And being a "leftist" in that is 100% consistent with that. We tend to refer to "liberals" as people on the left but in general a liberal is anyone who is consistent with liberal beliefs which include a fair amount of "conservatism" as well. However, there's quite a few folks on the right that are as illiberal as the progressives are on the left.
  - hk2001 5y ago
    I believe the Economist themselves label this as “Classical Liberalism”, given the modern connotations of “liberal” in the US.