Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
This is certainly an approach to seeking social change
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
This is certainly an approach to seeking social change
You can see very clearly how well liberals have learned the subtle ways to maintain the systems that benefit them while nominally being against them.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
Also, Nancy Pelosi's strategy for the past government shutdown. I feel like identifying something out of a playbook is not enough to really be a good rebuttal for this argument. It's like identifying a logical fallacy... it doesn't really meaningfully engage anything without discussion and context. I'm not denying that abusers also do stuff like that! But so do non-abusers.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
This is certainly an approach to seeking social change
You can see very clearly how well liberals have learned the subtle ways to maintain the systems that benefit them while nominally being against them.
Conditional allyship is not allyship.
"Engage on my terms if you want my attention" is abuser behavior when its take to extremes but its also human nature. If you want people to listen to you you have to approach them from angles they're receptive to and that goes far beyond just the subject to hand.
I'm not sure where liberalism got the idea that you can browbeat people into real meaningful change but its....yeah
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
Also, Nancy Pelosi's strategy for the past government shutdown. I feel like identifying something out of a playbook is not enough to really be a good rebuttal for this argument. It's like identifying a logical fallacy... it doesn't really meaningfully engage anything without discussion and context. I'm not denying that abusers also do stuff like that! But so do non-abusers.
Nancy Pelosi was appropriately using a situation in which she had power over him.
We are talking about a situation in which people abused power they should never have had.
“I just won’t listen then” has always been how liberal America threatens the underprivileged when it turns out that fixing problems might actually cost liberal America something.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Who get's to decide the certain acts? What about tomorrow's certain acts?
Given these people don't have time machines, how are they to know the "certain acts" a decade or more in advance?
Especially since what "certain acts" means can change and isn't articulated clearly by anyone.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
And if we create a situation where there is an option to do it that involves no voluntarily relinquishment of power, power will never leave the hands of those who have it disproportionately.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Who get's to decide the certain acts? What about tomorrow's certain acts?
Given these people don't have time machines, how are they to know the "certain acts" a decade or more in advance?
Especially since what "certain acts" means can change and isn't articulated clearly by anyone.
I don’t know how someone can look at our current society and think a world where people give up power when social mores advance past their generation wouldn’t be a wonderously desirable thing.
If it turns out that 30 years from now, generation post-z shows me that I’m doing something awful, by all means I hope they take over
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
And if we create a situation where there is an option to do it that involves no voluntarily relinquishment of power, power will never leave the hands of those who have it disproportionately.
The word "power" here is doing a lot of work and covers a lot of stuff.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
And if we create a situation where there is an option to do it that involves no voluntarily relinquishment of power, power will never leave the hands of those who have it disproportionately.
The word "power" here is doing a lot of work and covers a lot of stuff.
It sure does. And yet that’s what this is ultimately about
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
And if we create a situation where there is an option to do it that involves no voluntarily relinquishment of power, power will never leave the hands of those who have it disproportionately.
The word "power" here is doing a lot of work and covers a lot of stuff.
It sure does. And yet that’s what this is ultimately about
If there's any nuance in its application I'm not seeing it.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
If we insist on framing “disqualified from certain privileged” as punishment, then yes it does work pretty well.
Last I checked, Stephen Glass isn’t a working journalist and will never be admitted to the bar. Works for me.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
If we insist on framing “disqualified from certain privileged” as punishment, then yes it does work pretty well.
Last I checked, Stephen Glass isn’t a working journalist and will never be admitted to the bar. Works for me.
You make no distinction on anything so I'm having trouble following this line of thought.
First it's generalities about "white people holding up the system" (when people of all ages, races, and genders hold up whatever system it is you're talking about), then it's zero tolerance towards anyone who ever does anything stupid in their youth.
Yeah. I gotta say I disagree pretty much with everything you said, and it's only because it seems to be wide-swung generalities and it's nearly impossible to glean any kind of useful info or discussion out of this.
Basically, white liberal America hates being confronted with the possibility that merely being liberal doesn’t absolve us from the part we play in our society’s racism.
Whites aren't the only racists out there, nor are they the only ones preserving systemic racism, so this is a dumb metric by which to measure things. It also has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, which is about individual actions.
I have zero interest in divorcing individual actions from the extremely relevant context in which they occur
Good luck with that, then.
People make up the system. You change the system by changing the people, not the other way around. Engaging in this strange, self-flagellation meets white mans burden type stuff is exactly how you lose people willing to listen.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
If we insist on framing “disqualified from certain privileged” as punishment, then yes it does work pretty well.
Last I checked, Stephen Glass isn’t a working journalist and will never be admitted to the bar. Works for me.
I'm not sure how society benefits from denying Glass the ability to practice law in California 20~ years later
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
There are also a somewhat sizable collection of people who take their civil service very seriously and, while they may not entirely personally agree with it, uphold the law and make it better and much more fair for everyone. Even if they're personally taking the stance of "I don't really care for those colored folks" they may not necessarily step in the way of a law or fight against it in the same way a nazi might.
We need these shades of gray because otherwise we alienate allies because they're not sufficiently woke and not the perfect people. They'll probably eventually come around. But the absolute worst thing we can do is yell at them and tell them they're the problem. They kind of are. But like feral said doing that just radicalizes them against you, not for you. And suddenly you've got fascists in positions of power because your enemies don't give a shit about morals and don't have this same, very misguided, righteous indignation that you might have.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
Edit: specifically in the context of the discussion. “Performative” refers to something done to show that youre not x when you actually are x. I dont care why people dont do racist things i care that they dont do racist things.
But if you do! Then you should still be on the side of “leave the buns in” because prior acts have no informative value as to current heart status
Goumindong on
+4
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
You don't see how making a big show out of being anti-racist is often used to paper over one's own racism?
We are talking about a situation in which people abused power they should never have had.
No, we are not
Edit: to be clear we are talking about people doing “currently socially unacceptable things” multiple decades ago.
We are not talking about people abusing the power of the office they wield.
Social power is power too. We are talking about the ways social privileged maintain themselves at the expense of others.
The harm done isn’t just in the laws that are or not written by governments. The trans suicide rate isnt fueled just by bathroom laws, but also by overt acts of transphobia across society.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
Who's judgment?
Yours?
Who do we assign to be moral arbiter of past-deeds?
Maybe you should take whatever someones current support of an issue as ehat their current support of an issue is rather than what you want to imagine it might be based on who you think they are from a snapshot of them 30 years ago.
Lets avoid specifics as well. I dont want to have to rehash the politics of the 90s with people who think they were the 2010s again
If people who have done bad things in the past should feel obligated to support oppressed groups in order to atone, doesn't that imply that people who haven't done anything overtly bad shouldn't feel obligated to bother, since they don't need atonement?
I'm much more in favor of the idea that a good person is someone who does good things in the present, regardless of what they've done in the past. Past misbehavior can be a warning sign that the person might still feel or behave the same way in the present, but it ultimately doesn't matter to what a person is really like now.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
You don't see how making a big show out of being anti-racist is often used to paper over one's own racism?
And to deflate and co-opt grassroots political action (BLM, #MeToo)
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
I think the idea that performative racism is a warning for “more impactful racism” is something we want to believe as an alternative to the idea that we are all doing the racism all the time because we are a racist society.
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
Who's judgment?
Yours?
Who do we assign to be moral arbiter of past-deeds?
The most scary part of this line of thought is that because society is hopefully progressing to a better and more just place the definitions will continually change so we need to ask human beings to have the foresight to see all possible errors and avoid them lest they be ineligible for public service. Something we, as a society, should encourage.
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
Who's judgment?
Yours?
Who do we assign to be moral arbiter of past-deeds?
You're welcome to listen to me on these matters, sure.
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
You don't see how making a big show out of being anti-racist is often used to paper over one's own racism?
You dont see how
A: that isnt what performative racism means in this discussion.
B: i dont care what is in your heart i care what you do. If someone never does a racist thing in their life i dont care that they secretly hate the x’s
I think that in addition to current behavior / policy informing how an individual might have changed since their 'pre woke period', discoveries of private prejudices can inform suspicions over whether an individuals stated wokeness may be performative
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
You don't see how making a big show out of being anti-racist is often used to paper over one's own racism?
And to deflate and co-opt grassroots political action (BLM, #MeToo)
*wheels in giant white board titled White Liberalism 1980-2010 Greatest Hits*
Posts
You not only lose people willing to listen. You lose good people with non-spotless pasts willing to even try.
You also make it pretty much impossible to change anything on the ground level because you make ordinary people, who really need to examine their unconscious/unknowing participation in oppressive systems, even more defiant.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
“If you don’t engage on my terms I won’t listen” is another one straight out of the abusive manipulation playbook
You’re not making a great case that these are good people who genuinely regret their mistakes.
This is certainly an approach to seeking social change
You can see very clearly how well liberals have learned the subtle ways to maintain the systems that benefit them while nominally being against them.
Conditional allyship is not allyship.
How is this functionally different from "If you're not perfect you can't lead us"?
Zero tolerance is dumb and doesn't work.
"Engage on my terms if you want my attention" is abuser behavior when its take to extremes but its also human nature. If you want people to listen to you you have to approach them from angles they're receptive to and that goes far beyond just the subject to hand.
I'm not sure where liberalism got the idea that you can browbeat people into real meaningful change but its....yeah
Nancy Pelosi was appropriately using a situation in which she had power over him.
We are talking about a situation in which people abused power they should never have had.
“I just won’t listen then” has always been how liberal America threatens the underprivileged when it turns out that fixing problems might actually cost liberal America something.
There is a gap between “perfect” and “has committed certain acts.”
Because they don't, yet. They don't understand race the same way. They aren't woke.
Becoming woke means you realize that you've done problematic shit in the past and you need to do better.
If we create a situation where the only way to do that, regardless of the context of the situation*, is to quit your job and quietly walk into the sea, nobody is going to do the introspective or active work necessary to become woke.
* - The context here isn't limited to the historical context, but also the timeframe and nature of the offense.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Who get's to decide the certain acts? What about tomorrow's certain acts?
Given these people don't have time machines, how are they to know the "certain acts" a decade or more in advance?
Especially since what "certain acts" means can change and isn't articulated clearly by anyone.
And if we create a situation where there is an option to do it that involves no voluntarily relinquishment of power, power will never leave the hands of those who have it disproportionately.
I don’t know how someone can look at our current society and think a world where people give up power when social mores advance past their generation wouldn’t be a wonderously desirable thing.
If it turns out that 30 years from now, generation post-z shows me that I’m doing something awful, by all means I hope they take over
The argument, from the “pro throw the bums out” side is that this will lead to an increase in performative anti-racism and this is good.
The thing is, we shouldnt care if anti-racism is performative or not. Because what is in a persons heart doesnt matter what they do matters. Performative anti-racism is just as good as performative racism is bad. It perpetuates the themes and ideas for those that see them, lets other people know what is and isnt OK. It teaches children to be on either side of the divide.
But past deeds do not let current people know what is and isnt OK. People dont think “ahh he did that 30 years ago therefore its OK to do it now!” unless the person who did the things doesn't acknowledge the current proper acceptance of what the act was.
But not acknowledging the current proper accpetance is not a “past deed”. That is a current.
The word "power" here is doing a lot of work and covers a lot of stuff.
It sure does. And yet that’s what this is ultimately about
Yes, because if there's one thing we've learned, it's that continually punishing someone for their entire life for past acts always works out for the better.
I'm having trouble parsing the difference between this and other <insert term here> purity standards.
If there's any nuance in its application I'm not seeing it.
If we insist on framing “disqualified from certain privileged” as punishment, then yes it does work pretty well.
Last I checked, Stephen Glass isn’t a working journalist and will never be admitted to the bar. Works for me.
because there isn't.
Performative anti-racism is really good providing reasonable-sounding concessions while simultaneously protecting the rest of the unjust status quo
You make no distinction on anything so I'm having trouble following this line of thought.
First it's generalities about "white people holding up the system" (when people of all ages, races, and genders hold up whatever system it is you're talking about), then it's zero tolerance towards anyone who ever does anything stupid in their youth.
Yeah. I gotta say I disagree pretty much with everything you said, and it's only because it seems to be wide-swung generalities and it's nearly impossible to glean any kind of useful info or discussion out of this.
No, we are not
Edit: to be clear we are talking about people doing “currently socially unacceptable things” multiple decades ago.
We are not talking about people abusing the power of the office they wield.
I'm not sure how society benefits from denying Glass the ability to practice law in California 20~ years later
There are also a somewhat sizable collection of people who take their civil service very seriously and, while they may not entirely personally agree with it, uphold the law and make it better and much more fair for everyone. Even if they're personally taking the stance of "I don't really care for those colored folks" they may not necessarily step in the way of a law or fight against it in the same way a nazi might.
We need these shades of gray because otherwise we alienate allies because they're not sufficiently woke and not the perfect people. They'll probably eventually come around. But the absolute worst thing we can do is yell at them and tell them they're the problem. They kind of are. But like feral said doing that just radicalizes them against you, not for you. And suddenly you've got fascists in positions of power because your enemies don't give a shit about morals and don't have this same, very misguided, righteous indignation that you might have.
Bullshit. Protecting injustice isnt performative anti-racism its substantive racism.
Edit: specifically in the context of the discussion. “Performative” refers to something done to show that youre not x when you actually are x. I dont care why people dont do racist things i care that they dont do racist things.
But if you do! Then you should still be on the side of “leave the buns in” because prior acts have no informative value as to current heart status
The thing is that we generally take performative racism (blackface) as a warning that someone is doing more impactful racism (writing or supporting a Tough On Crime or Welfare Reform bill). If someone performs anti-racism by co-opting social justice language but has a history of working to reproduce white supremacy, their woke words shouldn't protect them from judgment.
You don't see how making a big show out of being anti-racist is often used to paper over one's own racism?
Social power is power too. We are talking about the ways social privileged maintain themselves at the expense of others.
The harm done isn’t just in the laws that are or not written by governments. The trans suicide rate isnt fueled just by bathroom laws, but also by overt acts of transphobia across society.
Who's judgment?
Yours?
Who do we assign to be moral arbiter of past-deeds?
Lets avoid specifics as well. I dont want to have to rehash the politics of the 90s with people who think they were the 2010s again
I'm much more in favor of the idea that a good person is someone who does good things in the present, regardless of what they've done in the past. Past misbehavior can be a warning sign that the person might still feel or behave the same way in the present, but it ultimately doesn't matter to what a person is really like now.
And to deflate and co-opt grassroots political action (BLM, #MeToo)
I think the idea that performative racism is a warning for “more impactful racism” is something we want to believe as an alternative to the idea that we are all doing the racism all the time because we are a racist society.
The most scary part of this line of thought is that because society is hopefully progressing to a better and more just place the definitions will continually change so we need to ask human beings to have the foresight to see all possible errors and avoid them lest they be ineligible for public service. Something we, as a society, should encourage.
You're welcome to listen to me on these matters, sure.
You dont see how
A: that isnt what performative racism means in this discussion.
B: i dont care what is in your heart i care what you do. If someone never does a racist thing in their life i dont care that they secretly hate the x’s
*wheels in giant white board titled White Liberalism 1980-2010 Greatest Hits*