Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Yeah, except there are many cases when even if it's not outright racism, etc., it's steeped in those institutionally. Should we not be calling it out when that happens? I agree there's a difference between shouting "You're a racist!" and saying "That's racist because..." but the latter still needs to happen if we're going to accurately identify the root problems.
|
As we've gone over before, we disagree on the scope of what qualifies as racism, considering the way it's defined and applied as a strike against a person's character. But without re-litigating that, yeah, that difference between "you're a racist" and "that policy negatively affects black people because..." is important. The way you talk to people and about people can either foster discussion, mutual understanding and ultimately cooperation even where disagreement persists, or it can do the exact opposite. The approach by the left has in many cases been far too much of the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
It's not like bigotry and racism were on the decline before groups like BLM showed. They showed up because progress had largely stalled.
|
I disagree. Bigotry and racism are on a steady decline and have been throughout my lifetime and it's never stalled. I did not think, eight years ago, that we'd have legal gay marriage or that the GOP nominee would vow to defend LGBT people during his acceptance speech and actually get cheers. Now, you can argue that they weren't declining fast enough for your liking, and I guess I'd agree, but the attempts to accelerate that rate of progress (including things like BLM) have now resulted in devastating blowback.
Quote:
And, no, I'm not really that worried about "continuing to lose," whatever that means. The history of human rights and social movements have always ebbed and flowed and I don't particularly have a teleological view of either. The last decade has or so has seen a number breakthroughs for marginalized groups and their allies. There was bound to be some pushback and a reversal of fortune at some point.
|
I don't really think there was. And fine if you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, that it's all or nothing for you and you'll stand on the most absolutist principles. But I think that sort of uncompromising and adamantine stance leads to a failure to constantly re-examine and improve your principles, personally. It also leads to never getting the chance to put them into practice.
Quote:
Clinton may have lost the electoral college but she won the popular vote. Millennials are increasingly displaying different attitudes and cultural priorities than previous generations. Demographics are constantly shifting and changing. When the Alt+right doesn't provide the solutions their movement has promised, they'll eventually flame out.
|
I think this attitude, which is very similar to what Michael Moore said yesterday - "don't back down, compromise or engage with the other side. Just stall them and fight them at every turn. They'll lose eventually, and we'll get to do it our way when our time comes" - is exactly the problem with what politics in the United States has become. It's a very Tea Party sort of approach, and I think it'll just make things much worse in the long run.