All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Ragged Maw]

People get more upset about being called a racist than actual racism.

Understandable, given the “scarlet letter” effect it tends to have nowadays. Guilty or not, virtually no one wants the ostracism (complete with potential job loss/blacklisting) that tends to come with it. The term may as well be a synonym for “Ramsay Bolton” now.

[aja_christopher]

Understandable, given the “scarlet letter” effect it tends to have nowadays. Guilty or not, virtually no one wants the ostracism (complete with potential job loss/blacklisting) that tends to come with it. The term may as well be a synonym for “Ramsay Bolton” now.

If it's such a scarlet letter then why can our president get away with it virtually at will?

Not only get away with it but use it to motivate voters to propel him into office -- his appeal only increased after he insulted and attacked Mexican immigrants during his campaign and he likewise retweeted blatantly false and racist statistics about "black crime against whites" that were forwarded to him by a neo-nazi supporter during his campaign.

I understand your point but the issue is a lot more complex than just being branded as a racist -- there's two sides to that coin, especially when actual racists are constantly provided cover, if not support, by those who claim to be against racism.

[Tendrin]

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/rutherfordrocks/...901471232?s=21

[PaulBullion]

Howard Stern endorsed Joe Biden.

[PwrdOn]

If you define it that way...of course it’s a bad thing.

Just as if I defined socialism as “a system where people take no personal responsibility”, socialism would be a bad thing.

I accept that definition of socialism would be biased, of course. But equally your definition of “conservatism” is equally biased I think...you’re simply defining conservatism as embodying all the worst aspects of right wing politics.

Let me quote a less biased definition of conservatism (the one in Chambers 21st century dictionary): favouring that which is established or traditional, with an opposition to change.

Defined that way..in moderation..I think conservatism should have its place. If people do require big changes in society, I think there should be an onus on them to provide reasonable proof that the change is for the better.

Pushed to the limit (i.e. unreasonably opposing worthwhile change), of course it’s a disastrous way of thinking. Buy most ways of thinking are disastrous pushed to the limit.

Regardless of how you want to define it, conservatism in practice has largely stood for maintaining the existing hierarchies and power structures, and what is held up as long standing tradition is often actually newer or less established than the radical innovations they're supposed to be pushing back against. For example, the Reagan administration often pushed this return to the wholesome whitebread ideals of the 1950s, completely ignoring that post-war society was the aberration and that the rapid social upheaval of the 60s and 70s was far closer to the norm in American history. The problem with modern conservatism is that the particular set of ideas its trying to push completely contradict one another. The Christian ideals of modesty, frugality, and charity are hardly compatible with the unchecked consumerism that is required for the continued profitability of corporations, and the mistrust of government and touting of individual liberties rings hollow when the same people who complain about a police state are defending the police when they shoot unarmed black people, and the conspiracy theorists talking about the evils of globalism are the same ones advocating for continued American military expansion abroad. I seriously have trouble wrapping my head around what time period the set of values put forth by modern conservatism as natural and proper have ever actually applied.

[Ragged Maw]

If it's such a scarlet letter then why can our president get away with it virtually at will?

Not only get away with it but use it to motivate voters to propel him into office -- his appeal increased exponentially after he insulted and attacked Mexican immigrants during his campaign.

The term was thrown around so often that more and more people (especially those accused) started doubting that such accusations were in good faith. Seeing it more as a low ad-homenim tactic to quash dissent (and in some cases, social standing) by weaponizing the crowds against those marked. So at the very least, it got less people supporting or voting for Trump’s opponent - one who unfortunately, inadvertently poured gasoline on the proverbial fire by labeling an entire voter base as ”racists” and ”deplorables”, among other things.

Also, already having wealth from day 1 helps to a degree. Influence and all that.

[JackDaw]

Regardless of how you want to define it, conservatism in practice has largely stood for...

I want to use the definition given in the large majority of modern dictionaries.

I understand that you prefer to define it another way. And I accept defined your way, it’s a bad thing.

[aja_christopher]

The term was thrown around so often that more and more people (especially those accused) started doubting that such accusations were in good faith. Seeing it more as a low ad-homenim tactic to quash dissent (and in some cases, social standing) by weaponizing the crowds against those marked. So at the very least, it got less people supporting or voting for Trump’s opponent - one who unfortunately, inadvertently poured gasoline on the proverbial fire by labeling an entire voter base as ”racists” and ”deplorables”, among other things.

Also, already having wealth from day 1 helps to a degree. Influence and all that.

So basically more "good faith" and "ad hominem" defenses instead of admitting the truth about racism -- and individuals like Trump -- in America.

Explains a lot -- it's a pretty clear pattern of behavior.

[Ragged Maw]

So basically more "good faith" and "ad hominem" defenses instead of admitting the truth about racism -- and individuals like Trump -- in America.

Explains a lot.

To paraphrase the old maxim, every person is the hero or underdog of his/her own story. Of course they got indignant upon being declared the villains of the day.

[aja_christopher]

To paraphrase the old maxim, every person is the hero or underdog of his/her own story. Of course they got indignant upon being declared the villains of the day.

I don't see where the "of course" comes in.

No not everyone who is accused of being racist is a racist.

But when you have someone like Trump openly espousing and promoting racist rhetoric and winning more Republican votes as a result, then there's no reasonable way you can argue said criticism is incorrect.



The more logical conclusion is that many simply agreed with said rhetoric, especially given the fact that there were many, many other options.

-----
"Last remaining patient from the El Paso Walmart shooting dies, raising death toll to 23"

A hospital official said Guillermo "Memo" Garcia died after a nine-month fight.

"A man shot in the Aug. 3 attack targeting Latinos in an El Paso Walmart died after months in the hospital, raising the death toll from the attack to 23, according to a hospital official.

“After a nearly nine-month fight, our hearts are heavy as we report Guillermo ‘Memo’ Garcia, our last remaining patient being treated from the El Paso shooting, has passed away,” said Del Sol Medical Center CEO David Shimp.

Garcia and his wife Jessica Coca Garcia were fundraising for their daughter’s soccer team in the Walmart parking lot when the suspected gunman opened fire that Saturday morning.

Garcia is survived by his wife, who suffered leg wounds but recovered. A week after the shooting, she rose from her wheelchair to give a speech across the road from the county jail where the suspected shooter was being held.

“Racism is something I always wanted to think didn’t exist. Obviously, it does,” she said.

The suspect, Dallas-area man Patrick Crusius, 21, remains in the same jail awaiting trial. State prosecutors have charged him with murder and are pursuing the death penalty, and federal prosecutors charged him with hate crimes."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ow-23-n1193016

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/26/us/el...ath/index.html

[worstblogever]

People get more upset about being called a racist than actual racism.

I respond to when someone says something racist and gets offended and responds, "I AM NOT A RACIST!" by saying...

"I didn't say you were. Someone who isn't a racist can, against their usual character, say something racist. The same way even a smart person might say something stupid once and awhile. Thing is, you have to not dig in and defend the stupidity, or racism, and reject it. Rather than embrace it. Because that path will lead you to becoming the thing you don't want to be."

It works, more often than not. Provided the person isn't a stupid racist.

[PaulBullion]

The term was thrown around so often that more and more people (especially those accused) started doubting that such accusations were in good faith. Seeing it more as a low ad-homenim tactic to quash dissent (and in some cases, social standing) by weaponizing the crowds against those marked. So at the very least, it got less people supporting or voting for Trump’s opponent - one who unfortunately, inadvertently poured gasoline on the proverbial fire by labeling an entire voter base as ”racists” and ”deplorables”, among other things.

Also, already having wealth from day 1 helps to a degree. Influence and all that.

It's just that less privileged groups have started organizing more and speaking up more. The actions and words being called racist are, for the most part, actually racist - with the exception of white people calling out supposed racism against whites (also see: "Karen").

[Tuck]

But when you have someone like Trump openly espousing and promoting racist rhetoric and winning more Republican votes as a result, then there's no reasonable way you can argue said criticism is incorrect.

That's the issue there. If you're looking for a reasonable argument, you're out of luck. It's perception and feelings. Some of that could maybe be mitigated by a better choosing of battles and better communication of some more nuanced concepts like systemic and privilege (but that stuff often gets blasted straight from graduate course language down to high-school-only grads without an egghead to normal person translation).

But, I mean, there's no good, logical argument that Trump's not racist. No sense looking for it.

[Malvolio]

Howard Stern endorsed Joe Biden.

Not only that, he also called for Trump to resign, or at least let the medical experts do the talking during those daily briefings.

[PwrdOn]

I want to use the definition given in the large majority of modern dictionaries.

I understand that you prefer to define it another way. And I accept defined your way, it’s a bad thing.

Dictionary definitions are one thing, but the way that an ideology actually manifests and is applied in practice is another. The sad thing is that even as conservatives are constantly pining for the past, the deliberate ignorance that's required for them to believe what they believe means that they rarely understand or appreciate the ingenuity of previous generations, instead preferring to reduce those people to silly caricatures that sell them way short.

The term was thrown around so often that more and more people (especially those accused) started doubting that such accusations were in good faith. Seeing it more as a low ad-homenim tactic to quash dissent (and in some cases, social standing) by weaponizing the crowds against those marked. So at the very least, it got less people supporting or voting for Trump’s opponent - one who unfortunately, inadvertently poured gasoline on the proverbial fire by labeling an entire voter base as ”racists” and ”deplorables”, among other things.

Also, already having wealth from day 1 helps to a degree. Influence and all that.

The term was thrown around a lot because conservatives were saying a lot of racist things. Of course it's the side that's always proclaiming that "facts don't care about your feelings!" that gets most easily triggered when they get called out. While this may have been bad for the Democrats electorally in the short term, it did make pretty much all of the GOP voters who spend all day lecturing others about respectability and civility to take the mask off and declare themselves firmly in favor of white supremacy, which will inevitably eat the party alive in the long run.