4 ms·

Reminds me of when I checked the Sierra Club website a year or so ago (I'm a big fan of American National Parks) only to find that their most prioritized elemen

Reminds me of when I checked the Sierra Club website a year or so ago (I'm a big fan of American National Parks) only to find that their most prioritized element of their "values" was "anti-racism". https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/sierra-club-social-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/sierra-club-s... This appears to be part of a greater pattern of semi-bipartisan organizations veering to the left and losing credibility.

tovej 6mo ago
[flagged]
- herewulf 6mo ago
  I think we can all agree that racism is a bad thing but staunchly declaring "anti-racism" as your priority seems to veer into the territory of consistently finding racism where there is none. It sounds suspiciously like historic witch hunting (and I hate that this term has been recently overused practically to the point of ruination).
  - tovej 6mo ago
    How does it seem to do so? Please give me examples. Racism is a societal ill, so it will express itself through many channels in society, and it will be embedded in the systems that we institute (just like other biases and attitudes do). Therefore identifying racism even when it isn't explicit or flagrant is pretty common and reasonable thing to do. I don't think I've ever run into anti-racists who are trying to invent issues, or discover racism where there is none.
- ohcomeon6 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tovej 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throwawaypath 6mo ago
      [flagged]
    - soundnote 6mo ago
      Antiracists are as against racism as North Korea is democratic, and the people's, and as much as the Berlin Wall was an anti-fascist protection rampart and totally not a way to stop people from defecting en masse. Ostensible names are just that, ostensible. They do not always describe reality and are often chosen to mislead. With woke antiracists, that is exactly the case. I've seen "antiracist" lecturers say kindly silly little things like "white people are born to not being human", an "antiracist" teacher saying white people are born human, but invariably abused by their parents "into whiteness". The torrent of absolutely blatant anti-white racism from these sorts of people is comical in its proportion, and neverending. Their every campaign is "we'll include sparkles everyone sparkles (NOT YOU), so join us at..." Somehow, it's hard to take the epithet seriously. I wonder why.
    - throwawaypath 6mo ago
      Your original comment is flagged, as was mine, but as an exercise, think about the following: Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you? It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side. If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do. Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset. That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase. It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it. That is not a good reason to oppose it.
dasudasu 6mo ago
The observation has been called Conquest’s Second Law. It is that common.
- mixmastamyk 6mo ago
  I saw this in a comment below yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_(columnist)#O'Sullivan's_first_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_(columnist)#...

tovej 6mo ago

[flagged]

herewulf 6mo ago
I think we can all agree that racism is a bad thing but staunchly declaring "anti-racism" as your priority seems to veer into the territory of consistently finding racism where there is none. It sounds suspiciously like historic witch hunting (and I hate that this term has been recently overused practically to the point of ruination).
- tovej 6mo ago
  How does it seem to do so? Please give me examples. Racism is a societal ill, so it will express itself through many channels in society, and it will be embedded in the systems that we institute (just like other biases and attitudes do). Therefore identifying racism even when it isn't explicit or flagrant is pretty common and reasonable thing to do. I don't think I've ever run into anti-racists who are trying to invent issues, or discover racism where there is none.
ohcomeon6 6mo ago
[flagged]
- tovej 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throwawaypath 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  - soundnote 6mo ago
    Antiracists are as against racism as North Korea is democratic, and the people's, and as much as the Berlin Wall was an anti-fascist protection rampart and totally not a way to stop people from defecting en masse. Ostensible names are just that, ostensible. They do not always describe reality and are often chosen to mislead. With woke antiracists, that is exactly the case. I've seen "antiracist" lecturers say kindly silly little things like "white people are born to not being human", an "antiracist" teacher saying white people are born human, but invariably abused by their parents "into whiteness". The torrent of absolutely blatant anti-white racism from these sorts of people is comical in its proportion, and neverending. Their every campaign is "we'll include sparkles everyone sparkles (NOT YOU), so join us at..." Somehow, it's hard to take the epithet seriously. I wonder why.
  - throwawaypath 6mo ago
    Your original comment is flagged, as was mine, but as an exercise, think about the following: Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you? It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side. If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do. Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset. That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase. It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it. That is not a good reason to oppose it.

dasudasu 6mo ago

The observation has been called Conquest’s Second Law. It is that common.

mixmastamyk 6mo ago
I saw this in a comment below yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_(columnist)#O'Sullivan's_first_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_(columnist)#...