When you start addressing the social and institutional factors at play regarding racism, maybe you'll have something.
This is a moralist (re: shallow and reductionist) reading of history. The reality is that no, at the time communism was hugely attractive especially to people that were economically and socially disadvantaged and that by addressing the root of the reasons why those ideologies were appealing far greater success was made than some artificially imposed effort at ideological purity.Communism largely destroyed itself, because it simply doesn’t work when humans are involved, which is something of a fundamental flaw.
Couldn't possibly be because the efforts at combating discrimination being successful is in of itself enough to provoke a reaction from the far right, could it. Again, "identity politics" is no more or no less present than it has been historically. What is a fairly novel thing is pretending that society is post-prejudice.Racism is declining, but advocates of identity politics are reversing that and now the far right are making a resurgence in response. If there is one thing the world doesn’t need it is their return, so well played to the identity politics advocate cretins.
Actually, no...I seem to recall Pascal's bitching about men staying in their rooms and not causing trouble. So not a novel thing, a tired old thing that wasn't ever satisfactory to start with.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I appreciate the day off, well done all around.
And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: and he that sat upon him, his name was Death; and Hades followed with him. And there was given unto them authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with famine, and with death, and by the wild beasts of the earth.
That is irrelevant as to whether or not racism is racism.
Are you one of those people who think racism against white people is acceptable, or that it isn’t possible?
Attractive to the uneducated perhaps.This is a moralist (re: shallow and reductionist) reading of history. The reality is that no, at the time communism was hugely attractive especially to people that were economically and socially disadvantaged and that by addressing the root of the reasons why those ideologies were appealing far greater success was made than some artificially imposed effort at ideological purity.
No, we were making great strides against racism and the far right were dying off. It wasn’t until this nonsense became mainstream that the far right made a resurgence.Couldn't possibly be because the efforts at combating discrimination being successful is in of itself enough to provoke a reaction from the far right, could it.
- - - Updated - - -
That isn’t what identity politics does, rather it assumes that people of a particular race, gender or sexuality can be pigeonholed and spoken for as a group. It is the opposite of individuality.
A black man from a poor background will likely have more in common with a white man from a poor background, than with a black man from a wealthy background, but identity politics lumps the two black men together, because it is a shitty ideology.
It’s about the money. If you have it, you have privilege, regardless of race, gender or sexuality.
No, it isn't. That's how the right defines identity politics, and they most certainly don't have the right to write that definition in stone. Mostly, when I hear the left talk about identity politics it's a drawing together of like minded individuals that have been singled out because of certain characteristics in order to lobby and articulate their positions in order to bring about changes in their favor -- be they social or political.
Frankly, all you'd have to do is look back on my posting history to get an idea of why I might chose to identify as a trans woman when talking about social or political issues. It's because people like me are generally treated like garbage to the point where when I get annoyed I simply take a break. I politicize that identity because I want to protect my healthcare, remain a respected member of society, and help those who have struggled the same way I have. It has little to do with anyone who stays out of my way.
They aren’t speaking solely for themselves, they take it upon themselves to speak for all black people, all gay men, etc. so you are wrong.
Identity politics advocates are self appointed representatives of groups which consist of people with diverse opinions, experiences and backgrounds. They can’t be represented in politics based on race, gender or sexuality, as their political views stretch from far left to far right and everything in between.
How can someone speak for both a black authoritarian and a black libertarian? They can’t, skin colour doesn’t determine how people think, hence why judging people by the content of their character and not skin colour is what Martin Luther King Jr called for. Identity politics advocates are doing the exact opposite of that.
I don’t care what you are, I will judge you based on what you say and do.Frankly, all you'd have to do is look back on my posting history to get an idea of why I might chose to identify as a trans woman when talking about social or political issues. It's because people like me are generally treated like garbage to the point where when I get annoyed I simply take a break. I politicize that identity because I want to protect my healthcare, remain a respected member of society, and help those who have struggled the same way I have. It has little to do with anyone who stays out of my way.
So in order to prevent whitewashing the day, an article with lesser-known Martin Luther King Jr. quotes celebrate his radical politics
Examples:
Any many more
MLK was a great dude who did much for America and Race Relations.
Though I do find it Ironic how many "progressives" are Celebrating him today, Considering anyone that I've seen that is always complaining about how bad "White People" are are literally going directly against everything MLK was for.
I just pointed out how wrong you are. Either you don't believe me, or you think I'm wrong. Why not explain to me how what I said was actually wrong instead of making declarations about our goals, tactics, and ideals?
I won't explain it again, but I'll state that you're wrong. Spectacularly so, from what I've seen and been involved with. You'd be hard pressed, for example, to find me shitting on someone's faith or on white people.
And many don't. That's the point and the problem. There is, using many trans folks as an example, a determined interest in interfering in our medical care and a more casual interest in laughing and mocking us.I don’t care what you are, I will judge you based on what you say and do.
Both push trans people together, for the record, and that creates blocks of those with similar concern that tend to advocate and vote for the same things. i.e. identity politics.
Gotta say it’s really adorable how conservatives are desperately clawing to make MLK into a republican when the guy was a staunch socialist and an anti imperialist.
“But no guys! He was a republican because...
because..
BUHCUZ...