Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

If all the white people became racial abolitionists, wouldn't that effectively "solve" racism? All the attendant issues of systemic bias could be attacked on fairness grounds, particularly the justice system, and broad anti poverty measure could be used to catch up people who've been left behind, regardless of skin color. Why continue to focus on skin color when you don't have to?

This is the rhetorical equivalent of "why do you keep hitting yourself", and should stay on the playground where it belongs.

It's almost spooky how there's a perfect meme for nearly every bad lefty argument commonly encountered, isn't it?

I don't disagree, I just think it's much simpler to live and teach "skin color is no different than hair or eye color when it comes to other people" than try to work with this complex oppression matrix system that seems to have come into vogue with modern progressives, it doesn't need to be complicated.



That's a gross oversimplification, my own family for example, immigrated here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and so are not implicated in American slavery at all, but I'm still a blond haired blue eyed white American, indistinguishable from the descendants of slave holders. The same goes for black Americans, they might be the descendants of slaves, or they might be the descendants of more recent black immigrants or immigrants themselves, you can't tell at a glance or generalize, and the success of black immigrants to this country is a strong counter argument to the claims of pervasive racism in this society. The American slave trade was neither unique nor uncommon, the only unusual thing about it is that we fought a bloody war to end it, and then shed more blood to help end the global slave trade afterwards, it's far from the historical mark of Cain that it's often portrayed as. Historically, everyone either enslaved or was enslaved at one point or another, it's just a feature of humanity like war is, and I don't think treating it as a special case is particularly helpful in any way.



I don't see why this should be any different than, say, a British person romanticizing the Empire, history always looks different to those on either side of it, and "it might offend someone" is a poor argument for telling someone they're not allowed to think a certain way, which is essentially what you're saying.



This could apply to any number of people, Jews after the Holocaust, Eastern Europeans uprooted by Soviet occupation, Cubans fleeing the revolution, etc, I don't see why this is a special case requiring such extreme delicacy and society wide kid glove treatment. Lest you get the wrong idea, this is me treating other people as equals rather than perpetual victims in need of rescue, which is how I view a lot of the hand wringing over race in this country.



As I mentioned in another post, much of that can be addressed with colorblind criminal justice reform and anti poverty measures, or even reparations for direct victims of government malice such as redlining, there's no reason to bring race into it.



I still don't see the problem with treating race as the false construct that it is, it's just a different appearance when you get right down to it.

I am not at all tricky if you understand that my long term memory is absolutely horrible and I have little to no treasure trove of book and movie quotes in my head. I barely remember plots or what I’ve already read. I go through information, reach conclusions, then forget what got me there. My intelligence is in being quick at sorting through what is in front of me, seeing logic connections other miss, but not in holding onto information. I am constantly reinventing the wheel.

So, no, I honestly have no memory of any of these details you are taking about, if I ever knew them, and I’m not convinced I ever did.

Not sure what you are looking for in my posts but at this point we are saying the same thing. But the point remains it takes two to tango. Judging from past history one party ins't playing (and never had played) fair.



Kudos if you could get through the entire video

Remind me again, which party ruled the Jim Crow south and had all the KKK grand wizards in it?




I'm not watching a full hour of a grievance studies professor, I don't hate myself that much. Do you really think I don't know what she's going to say already? I do live here after all, and as I've mentioned in the past, am much more intimately acquainted with the black experience in America than you are.

I always figured I'd want to be Dr. Manhattan. If he didn't already have Asperger's, then that was part of his transformation when he as Osterman was atomized.

Just a thought why the right is saddled with that reputation. And I'm not just referring to Republicans since Barry Goldwater sided with segregationists when I talk about the right. I'm also referencing conservative southern Democrats who had died to defend slavery, then went on to devise racial terror from Reconstruction on, as well as Jim Crow.

Eh, I don't think I'd call that AS, it was more like he became hyper-rational after basically becoming a god, seeing in 4 dimensions and all. Now, the part where he thought he'd cut out all emotion but really hadn't does sound pretty autistic and similar to some of the people I've met here and elsewhere, I don't think true rationality is actually possible or desirable, Mr Spock aside.

Well, I'm an independent and it has been erroneously used on me, also.
It isn't just the right who have been disrespected.

She seems to be a little more qualified than both of us both on paper, in experience and background. I do encourage you to watch as she seems to have a lot of insight.

Well, first I need to address Goldwater, because you're not being fair to him. From his Wikipedia entry:




Goldwater was a principled conservative, and so could not vote for the 1964 civil rights act not out of any racial animus, but because he believed it to be unconstitutional.

This is a consistent issue with conservatives over the years, they believe in a more limited government, and so their opposition to things like the CRA or welfare gets portrayed as racist, when it's actually a philosophical difference. That right there accounts for a lot of perception, and the left plays it up to the hilt because it benefits them to do so, as you're doing now. There's other stuff, like the fact that the GOP takes a more libertarian position on most things that draws in people who want to be left alone, which would include racists who want the government out of their business, and just the kind of people you get with a rural base, but the stereotype is highly exaggerated for political benefit, as I've explained many times over the years.

There is a certain performative anti-PC strain in the modern right as well, where thwarting the liberals with edgy comments and language is seen as a sort of in group secret handshake that doesn't help with the image, but also shouldn't be taken too seriously, as it's largely counter-signaling rather than genuine sentiment.

Perhaps. Just the same, Manhattan had emotions he felt but couldn't express, such as when Veidt said Manhattan's almost imperceptible change in mood was closer to breaking down in tears. And when he tried expressing his emotions, they came out bungled, as when he tried to please Miss Jupiter by multiplying himself, while also hard at work, just leaving her hurt. Maybe I'm just reading something of our tribe into Manhattan.

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 23 Sep 2021, 2:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

Serious question; how would you know? I can compare my lived experience to hers and determine if I think she's right or not, but how can you determine whether or not she's correct about anything? I can rustle up a black academic saying the complete opposite, would you take his word for it, and why or why not?

This is my go-to.