[Suntzu]

Noemon Edit: Rule 3 Violation

[Finfinder]

Racism or discrimination or hatred versus very large groups of people that share something in common.

Is it a sign of lack of education or intelligence?

Racism today is a sign that progressives can not make an argument with facts.

[Godstud]

Racism today is a sign that progressives can not make an argument with facts.

This is the same kind of stupid thing people say when someone criticizes the state of Israel, and calls them Anti-Semitic.

99% of the time, people are called racist for displaying, and stating, racist things. It's not often used simply as a blanket thing, since most people can agree on what racism is. How racism is defined has not changed.

[Hindsite]

I find there is a lot of musing about the motives of liberals on the part of conservatives.

For example, this post is not about the origins of racism, or why so many people are racist, but instead seems to be a rant demonising liberals for calling out racism when they see it.

Is racism, or the lack of it, important to progressives? Of course it is. Is it a litmus test? In certain respects, yes. I will not date, be friends with, or work with, openly racist people. Why anyone else would care about these personal preferences of mine is a mystery, though.

Are the goalposts of racism shifting? No. What is happening is that we are learning more and more about how racism looks and acts in modern societies. And we are discovering that racism is more than lynchings and offensive words.

It seems to me that "racist" and "racism" have become the main go to words for liberals to use in demonizing all conservatives that disagree with their politics.

[Godstud]

It seems to me that "racist" and "racism" have become the main go to words for liberals to use in demonizing all conservatives that disagree with their politics.

That's because you have said clearly racist things and hate being called out on them.

I know of no person on this forum who has ever called another on this forum a racist, for anything other than spouting racist rhetoric, so your claim is a big fat load of bullshit. Fake news.

You call everyone with whom you disagree with, or don't like, a "liberal"(you really haven't a fucking clue what this word means) so you can stuff it! You're doing exactly what you claim to hate so much!

[Pants-of-dog]

@Hindsite

Can you please provide some examples of that happening on this forum? Thanks.

[Sivad]

John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist

Columbia University linguist John McWhorter on the Jussie Smollett hoax, Donald Trump, and "antiracism" as a new secular religion.

[Sivad]

Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left

Even when its proponents believe themselves to be radicals, this antiracist politics is a professional-managerial class politics. Its adherents are not concerned with trying to generate the large, broad political base needed to pursue a transformative agenda because they are committed fundamentally to pursuit of racial parity within neoliberalism, not social transformation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-9476-3

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite

Can you please provide some examples of that happening on this forum? Thanks.

I could give all kinds of examples, but it would just be a waste of my time since you liberals will not even believe Trump did not collude with the Russians, regardless of what the Mueller Report says.

[Sivad]

The current hysteria over racism is just another politically manufactured moral panic.

A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".

In recent centuries the mass media have become important players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in sensationalism or in muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic. Stanley Cohen states that moral panic happens when "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests".

Some moral panics can become embedded long-term in standard political discourse, e.g., note concerns about "Reds under the beds" and about terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

[Pants-of-dog]

I could give all kinds of examples, but it would just be a waste of my time since you liberals will not even believe Trump did not collude with the Russians, regardless of what the Mueller Report says.

Yeah, the last person who made this same claim (i.e. that progressives use it as a way of denouncing their opponents in lieu of arguments) also was unable to provide examples.

[Hindsite]

Yeah, the last person who made this same claim (i.e. that progressives use it as a way of denouncing their opponents in lieu of arguments) also was unable to provide examples.

Well, it is true that you liberals will not accept the Mueller Report unless it says Trump is a bad person that conspired with the Russians to get elected. Your liberal propaganda fake news will not admit they have lied to the American people either. So why should we expect you to be any different?

[Godstud]

The Mueller report also said that it did not exonerate Trump of any obstruction. I guess you missed that one. Even if he didn't collude, he's guilty of some other things you seem to like to forget... conveniently. Reporting the possibility of collusion is not lying. Everyone AROUND him did so, too, so it's not like there wasn't enough to be suspicious about...

[Hindsite]

The Mueller report also said that it did not exonerate Trump of any obstruction. I guess you missed that one. Even if he didn't collude, he's guilty of some other things you seem to like to forget... conveniently. Reporting the possibility of collusion is not lying. Everyone AROUND him did so, too, so it's not like there wasn't enough to be suspicious about...

Rosenstein: Accusations against Barr are 'bizarre'

“He’s being as forthcoming as he can,” Rosenstein said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “And so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre.”

“It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report,’ ” Rosenstein said in the interview. “What he said is: ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do.”

The Journal said Rosenstein declined to comment on Barr’s testimony Wednesday, when the attorney general told senators he planned to launch an investigation of the origins of the Russia probe and that he believes the Justice Department “spied” on the Trump campaign.

Rosenstein, who was overseeing the Russia probe because of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from it, appointed Mueller as a special counsel after the president fired then-FBI Director James Comey, who had overseen the bureau's 2016 investigation.

The deputy attorney general, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, is preparing to leave his post, a move he has been planning for weeks but put off as the Russia investigation showed signs of wrapping up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/ ... rt-1272203

Rosenstein and Barr have also determined that there was no obstruction of justice.

[Verv]

I find there is a lot of musing about the motives of liberals on the part of conservatives.

I think if you mused more about our motives and tried to do so accurately, it'd be good for you.

I think it would help you understand the Charlottesville thing a lot more -- especially if you were to contemplate the motives not just of the stereotypical boneheaded trailer trash that you want us all to be, but also of the educated and erudite intellectual "far right."

Trying to understand motives is useless, of course, if your actual goal is just to paint an ugly picture & "speak truth to power" or however you want to characterize advancing the social policy agenda that Hollywood, London, Paris, and Washington have all shared since the 1960s.

[Finfinder]

99% of the time, people are called racist for displaying, and stating, racist things. It's not often used simply as a blanket thing, since most people can agree on what racism is. How racism is defined has not changed.

This is the same kind of stupid thing people say when someone criticizes the state of Israel, and calls them Anti-Semitic.
.

You trolled yourself good job.

[Godstud]

Ummm.... you're kind of being clueless if that's the conclusion you came to, @Finfinder.

No one on Pofo calls people racist unless they actually say racist things. Blanket terms used to apply to anyone who disagrees with you is always stupid. I was making that point, but I guess it went over your head.

[Finfinder]

Ummm.... you're kind of being clueless if that's the conclusion you came to, @Finfinder.

No one on Pofo calls people racist unless they actually say racist things. Blanket terms used to apply to anyone who disagrees with you is always stupid. I was making that point, but I guess it went over your head.

lol: Bull Shit

Its like we are living in a bizarro world full of projectionists.

You said 99% and "no one" why don't you start a poll and we can settle this real easy right now .

[Pants-of-dog]

I think if you mused more about our motives and tried to do so accurately, it'd be good for you.

I also think it might be good for you to try to do so accurately.

For example, what do you mean that it is a litmus test for progressives (if that is what you mean by “liberals”)?

I think it would help you understand the Charlottesville thing a lot more -- especially if you were to contemplate the motives not just of the stereotypical boneheaded trailer trash that you want us all to be, but also of the educated and erudite intellectual "far right."

Okay, what are the motives for racism?

Trying to understand motives is useless, of course, if your actual goal is just to paint an ugly picture & "speak truth to power" or however you want to characterize advancing the social policy agenda that Hollywood, London, Paris, and Washington have all shared since the 1960s.

My ideological goals are to destroy capitalism, return all land to the colonised, and get rid of all hierarchical power structures.

Getting rid of racism helps unite the working class, is a fundamental part of decolonialism, and gets rid of a hierarchical power structure that was created as a way of maintaining and rationalising imperialism.

I highly doubt Washington and the rest of them care about any of that. They may want to to be seen as fighting racism for their own reasons, but that has nothing to do with the motives of me, or with the motives of people of colour.

More importantly, what should I understand about the motives of racist people that is so important?

[Hindsite]

Okay, what are the motives for racism?

I have no idea since I am not racist.

My ideological goals are to destroy capitalism, return all land to the colonised, and get rid of all hierarchical power structures.

Is that your idea of socialism?

Getting rid of racism helps unite the working class, is a fundamental part of decolonialism, and gets rid of a hierarchical power structure that was created as a way of maintaining and rationalising imperialism.

So for you the magic bullet is getting rid of racism?

I highly doubt Washington and the rest of them care about any of that. They may want to to be seen as fighting racism for their own reasons, but that has nothing to do with the motives of me, or with the motives of people of colour.

I hope not.

More importantly, what should I understand about the motives of racist people that is so important?

Like I said, I have no idea since I am not racist.