A scenario in which liberals might curse minorities

Post Reply New Topic

No, I am not talking about liberals coming to "dislike" minorities. I am talking about the situation where liberals will "like" minorities, but they will "also" think of a "curse" as a good thing -- so they will think they are "blessing" the minorities by cursing them.

Let me show you how this can happen. If you look at the text of the curse pronounced against Spinoza ( http://web.mnstate.edu/mouch/spinoza/excomm.html ) you will find that the sound of those repetitions is similar to the meditation of Buddhists. Just imagine the room full of candles and a deep spiritual voice reading these repetitive words. Since Liberals have positive views on worlds religions, including Buddhism, it doesn't sound like a bad thing at all, unless you actually pay attention to the words, of course. But a liberal might say "why worry about words, just focus on the calming spirit of it".

In any case, the "spirit" of it is, like I said, similar to Buddhist medictation -- which, of course is a bad thing from the fundamentalist point of view. But from the liberal point of view, Buddhist meditation is a good thing since we, allegidly, are all worshipping the same God. So, by the same token, a liberal might say that a curse is a good thing too. They might argue that the only reason people ever said curse is bad is because they are narrow minded so they believe that Buddhism is bad. And that anti-Buddhist belief is so deeply ingrained inside their "intolerant" heads that they are even using Buddhism as a punishment! But the liberals are enlightened enough to know that Buddhism isn't bad and, therefore, they will claim that curse isn't bad either.

Now, if you ask today's liberal whether or not curse is a good thing, they would say no. But, by the same token, if you were to ask 19-th century liberal whether or not homosexuality is a good thing, they would have also said no. But look at today where they say yes to that. So maybe, in 22-nd century, they will also come to believe that curse is a good thing.

Continuing with a homosexuality example, while everyone in the 19-th century agreed homosexuality is bad, I don't think everyone agreed that blacks are inferior. In America yes, they probably did. But in other countries who knows, maybe not. So suppose you were to go to some country, back in the 19-th century, where they split on their opinions regarding blacks yet they all view gays negatively. Suppose you were to tell them that you view blacks in the same way as gays. Then you will come across as racist. But today's liberals lump together blacks and gays all the time, yet they are not being racist, they are trying to uplift both groups.

By the same token, in the 21-st century everyone agrees that curse is a bad thing, but they are split on the opinion on how to view the minorities. So if you say, in the 21-st century, "minorities be cursed", you will come across as if you hate them. But then, in the 22-nd century, they will no longer view curse as a bad thing; on the contrary, they will be claiming that it is a good thing. So then, in the 22-nd century, when you say "minorities be cursed", you will no longer be putting down minorities but, instead, you will be *uplifting* both minorities *and* the positive nature of the curse (much like today when you say "no racism, sexism, homophobia" you are *uplifting* both blacks *and* gays).

So I envision in the 22-nd century a slogan "minorities be cursed" that would mean the following. A curse is, like I said, something of Buddhist origin that originally meant as a good thing but got re-interpretted as bad in western fundamentalist culture. Minorities, too, are great people with a lot to contribute, which ended up being looked upon negatively in the western culture. So minorities and curses should be uplifted together. Hence the slogan "minorities be cursed" that kinda lumps them together. It would be 22-nd century version of the slogan "no racism, sexism homophobia".

Just imagine saying "no racism, sexism, homophobia" in the 19-th century. They would interpret it as racist. After all, it would never cross their mind that you might seriously oppose homophobia. They might, instead, think you are making a sarcastic statement of the type "hey if you want to accept blacks, you might as well accept a gay" (where a gay is taken as apriori someone really bad) so it would be racist in that context. But in today's world its no longer racist, quite the opposite in fact. By the same token, if you say "minorities be cursed" today, it sounds very clearly hateful; but then in the 22-nd sentury it will end up sounding uplifting instead.

Last edited by QFT on 26 Jul 2020, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Amiri Baraka was the sort of guy who made people hate “minorities.” He divorced his white wife because he, all of a sudden, started hating white people as a collective.

Using a hypothetical situation to "prove" an assertion is something akin to the Strawman Fallacy.

I haven't said I was "proving" anything. I was making a hypothetical. Is that scenario hypothetically possible? Yes. Will it actually happen? We would have to wait and see.

Martin Luther King was smart enough to include white folks in his movement.

Malcolm X made many liberals “curse minorities” because he was annoyingly anti-white as a Black Muslim. Later, though, he denounced all racism as a mainstream Muslim.

Liberals are just as likely to be prejudiced,anyone can be prejudiced and or racist.