24 ms·

Arguments about “GOP racism” might be justified if they were the ones constantly talking about people’s race, but they’re not. They'd be justified if the party

by pvg 4y ago

Arguments about “GOP racism” might be justified if they were the ones constantly talking about people’s race, but they’re not. They'd be justified if the party endorses racist views, elects racist candidates, puts racist policies in place. "Talking about race" is a very narrow and selective definition of "racism".

rayiner 4y ago
The side that promotes racial identity and classification, wants to teach it to elementary school students, and supports treating people differently based on skin color is the “racist” party. Supporting race-neutral policies regarding law enforcement or immigration, by contrast, is not “racist.” Democrats are engaged in a sweeping effort to redefine “racism” to serve the purposes of white liberals: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ (“White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities…. Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people.”)
- pvg 4y ago
  I don't think that link makes or really directly supports the vastly broader claim you're making. And of course 'Democrats' includes a Black political elite influential enough to play kingmaker for the democratic party presidential nominee just this last election. The republican party just doesn't have a Black political elite, never mind an influential one. It's weird to claim whatever Democrats are engaged in has the sole purpose of serving the interests of white liberals. But let's try 'race neutral policies regarding immigration'. In the previous administration, was VDARE fan Stephen Miller, in your view, advocating for and working to implement race neutral immigration policies?

by pvg 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

The side that promotes racial identity and classification, wants to teach it to elementary school students, and supports treating people differently based on skin color is the “racist” party. Supporting race-neutral policies regarding law enforcement or immigration, by contrast, is not “racist.” Democrats are engaged in a sweeping effort to redefine “racism” to serve the purposes of white liberals: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ (“White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities…. Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people.”)

pvg 4y ago
I don't think that link makes or really directly supports the vastly broader claim you're making. And of course 'Democrats' includes a Black political elite influential enough to play kingmaker for the democratic party presidential nominee just this last election. The republican party just doesn't have a Black political elite, never mind an influential one. It's weird to claim whatever Democrats are engaged in has the sole purpose of serving the interests of white liberals. But let's try 'race neutral policies regarding immigration'. In the previous administration, was VDARE fan Stephen Miller, in your view, advocating for and working to implement race neutral immigration policies?