4 ms·
It doesn't seem to make sense to continue our discussion given your angry and defensive reaction. You even ignored the second half of the dictionary definition
by eevilspock 5y ago
It doesn't seem to make sense to continue our discussion given your angry and defensive reaction. You even ignored the second half of the dictionary definition that YOU supplied, the very definition you used to dismiss the words that you put in my mouth, strawman words, not once showing you even tried to understand what I am actually saying. And no, you don't understand, but you don't want to understand. You would have to set aside your defensiveness and be open to considering uncomfortable thoughts.
On the other hand, as the other commenter pointed out, you wrote "Conservatives Can't Handle the Truth", so you very well understand how ego and our instinctive reactionary defense of our self-image are barriers to understanding truth.
And in "Can facts be racist?" you clearly understand that there is a systemic problem. What you are resistant to accepting, despite your liberalness, despite caring enough to write anti-racism blog posts, is the possibility that you have thoughts and perspectives and even values that still reflect the culture behind the "white nation, founded for and by the white man". If such a man as Abraham Lincoln, considered our greatest president, the man who led us into civil war against slavery and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, was a white supremacist[1] (using your narrower definition!), is it not possible that you are not one, but nonetheless harbor at least remnants of such a mode of thinking? Is it not rational to think that someone who benefits from said system and culture is less inlined (if not inclined in the opposite direction!) to be aware of their own blindspots in this respect?
I in fact live in Bedstuy, one of the neighborhoods you mention in the latter blog post. And every year there are more and more white people moving in and more black people being pushed out. All these white people moving in are liberals, anti-racist and no doubt proudly tell their white friends that they live in a black neighborhood. But yet again white people are taking over something that they once rejected as undesirable and segregated blacks within, because now they consider it desirable (and profitable!). This isn't integration (that would be beautiful!). Integration is black and white segregation melting away as they move into each other's neighborhoods. That's not what's happening. White people are spreading outward, pushing black people further out. They don't send their white children to go to school with their black neighborhood children, instead sending them to white private schools. Imagine what that does to the psyche of a black child! The whites moving in don't patronize existing black businesses. They go to all the new white-owned upscale cafes and restaurants popping up, to expensive for most of the black people, and too much a betrayal for those who can. So you see a pockets of white people in white-tailored restaurants while black people eat at black places. NOT integration. The outspoken younger generation of black people here call these gentrifiers "colonizers", because they invade and occupy, same as before, only now using the tools of capitalism rather than guns (though we all know the latter makes the former possible). They also call it a manifestation of white supremacy. I call it "liberal white supremacy", to shine a light on the fact that scapegoating conservatives is just a way for liberals to push off all moral responsibility as the continue to benefit from the system.
My offer of a good faith discussion remains, but as I said, if your primary drive is defensiveness, it won't go anywhere useful, and will if anything push you toward those conservatives you criticize.
In any case, Peace.
---
[1] There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ~ Abraham Lincoln, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858
- lisper 5y ago> It doesn't seem to make sense to continue our discussion You got that right.
- eevilspock 5y ago"Conservatives Can't Handle the Truth"
- eevilspock 5y agoI hope you reread this exchange when you are not in defensive mode, and see to what degree you made arguments against words you put in my mouth instead of what I actually said, not to mention falsely charging me of "tacitly" and "reprehensible"ly sliding in a made-up definition of white supremacy, which your own link points out is a widely accepted meaning[1]. At the very top I said my criticisms were of your take, not your skin color, nor even of your intent. I took pains to point out we are all subject to this problem, regardless of skin color. - [1] white supremacy 2. the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races … [William] Kelley turned his considerable intellect and imagination to the question of what it is like to be white in this country, and what it is like, for all Americans, to live under the conditions of white supremacy … — Kathryn Schulz
- lisper 5y agoWhen I said, "You got that right" I was not just being snarky. I really do think you got it right, and that it doesn't make sense to continue this discussion. The reason I think this is not because I'm angry at you. I have productive exchanges with people that I'm angry with all the time. The reason I think that it doesn't make sense is because I think your thought processes are so deeply and fundamentally broken that it would take vastly more time and effort to fix them than I'm willing to put into this. Case in point: the very first sentence you wrote to me was: "This is such a patriarchal/capitalist/libertarian/white supremacist take." Either you intended this to be pejorative or you did not. If you did not, then you need some basic remedial training in the use of the English language and the subtleties of human communication, and if you did then it is disingenuous of you to get on your high horse and mainsplain to me why I should not be angry. Another example: yes, it is true that "white supremacy" has two definitions. But you did not use the phrase "white supremacy", you used the phrase "white supremacist", which has only one definition [1]: a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and infer a different meaning of "white supremacist" based on the second definition of "white supremacy" that merely renders your statement non-sensical (rather than mistaken and offensive). What could it possibly mean for a "take" to be "white supremacist" on the second definition? Yes, there are social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races. That is just a fact. That I acknowledge this fact does not mean that I'm happy about it or that I endorse it or that I don't think something should be done about it. You might as well have said "This is such a Newtonian/thermodynamic/Darwinian/round-earth take" for all that either statement could contribute to a constructive discussion. The quality of your argument is on par with flat-earthers and lunar-landing denialists. (Actually, yours is worse, because at least with the flat-earthers and LLDs I don't have to wonder what their thesis is.) One final word of advice: I have no idea what you are hoping to accomplish here, but I suggest you try to achieve clarity on that, because whatever your goal is I'm pretty sure you are not achieving it. --- [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremaci...