White Supremacy Is Terrorism, Not a Difference of Opinion

[rambot]

In our society is white supremicists mistreatment of minorities, regardless of its legality, beneficial for society?

So perhaps they don't break the law but does that mean their actions are GOOD for society

 

[Ana the Ist]

In our society is white supremicists mistreatment of minorities, regardless of its legality, beneficial for society?

No...but I'd argue that freedom of speech is.

So perhaps they don't break the law but does that mean their actions are GOOD for society

Well I suppose that depends on how much good and bad they do for society as individuals.

 

[SummerMadness]

In our society is white supremicists mistreatment of minorities, regardless of its legality, beneficial for society?

So perhaps they don't break the law but does that mean their actions are GOOD for society

You only hear the free speech argument when it comes to white supremacists. When it is any other group, you will hear complaints about their views and criticism of their ideology. How many of these people that claim that white supremacists harassing minorities is free speech, but quickly voice their disapproval of people they claim are antisemitic or anti-capitalist or anti-American? The free speech they champion is only championed for white supremacists, but they are quick to complain when you point out the limited scope of their free speech defense. I'll be convinced of their love for free speech when instead of only inviting white supremacists to their events, they include other upstanding groups like black separatists... we know that's not happening.

 

[KCfromNC]

It seems we have a miscommunication. I'm not suggesting you compromise with white supremacists. I'm suggesting you compromise with moderate conservatives and civic nationalists.

On what, specifically?

Because when you de-legitimize moderate positions, you offer people no social incentives to settle for a moderate position over a radical one.

Sorry, not interested in compromising with people who hold radical white supremacist or racist views. If these hypothetical people decide that the right approach towards other people disagreeing with their politics is to become even more racist, that's on them.

 

[KCfromNC]

You only hear the free speech argument when it comes to white supremacists. When it is any other group, you will hear complaints about their views and criticism of their ideology.

For example, look to threads about people using the national anthem as a time to protest against police brutality. You'll find any number of posts saying that it is the wrong time and place and they should protest elsewhere. Weird there aren't similar complaints when neoNazis march around a city with torches.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think one of the issues with white supremacy is that those that espouse those views are angered if they are labeled racist because racist means "bad person." However, they still happily espouse racist beliefs based on a premise of white supremacy. One attitude that has been around since the end of slavery was the belief that Black people were lazy, hence the need for slavery as it gave them order and structure. We still see those views being expressed in spite of the claim that white supremacy is a thing of the past.

I think we need to follow the cue of William Lloyd Garrison who transformed a complex system like slavery and distilled it down to a single point: Slavery was evil; and those racists justifying or ignoring slavery were evil, and it was the moral duty of the United States to eliminate that evil. We must have the same attitude about white supremacy. White supremacy is evil; and those who support or ignore white supremacy are evil, and it is the moral duty of the United States to eliminate that evil.

White supremacy is violence.

I don't see how ultimately much good can come from this approach.

In-group bias is built into human nature to some extent. People who are racists aren't necessarily evil so much as ignorant or primitive in their mentality. What those sorts of people need isn't demonization, but education.

“When another person makes you suffer, it is because he suffers deeply within himself, and his suffering is spilling over. He does not need punishment; he needs help.” - Thich Nhat Hanh

 

[SummerMadness]

For example, look to threads about people using the national anthem as a time to protest against police brutality. You'll find any number of posts saying that it is the wrong time and place and they should protest elsewhere. Weird there aren't similar complaints when neoNazi march around a city with torches.

Exactly. And even if there is a dispute to the merit of their free speech, the still offer their opinion on that group of people (e.g., Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals).

I don't see how ultimately much good can come from this approach.

In-group bias is built into human nature to some extent. People who are racists aren't necessarily evil so much as ignorant or primitive in their mentality. What those sorts of people need isn't demonization, but education.

I think white supremacy and white nationalism move beyond simple in-group bias. We are all influenced by prejudices and stereotypes in our society, but once you're advocating and pushing policies that hurt other groups, you need to call out that evil. I agree, we should not simply label racists as evil; however, we must label racism as evil and work toward educating people about that evil.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

On what, specifically?

On not calling them racist for things that aren't. For instance: Conservatives and resisting affirmative action; civic nationalists and simply believing that the U.S. is the best country in the world.

Sorry, not interested in compromising with people who hold radical white supremacist or racist views.

Again, I never suggested compromising with white supremacists. "Racist" is a little bit more ambiguous, so I'll let that point of yours lie.

If these hypothetical people decide that the right approach towards other people disagreeing with their politics is to become even more racist, that's on them.

But if you can prevent more of them from becoming more racist by changing your actions, why wouldn't you?

 

[KCfromNC]

On not calling them racist for things that aren't. For instance: Conservatives and resisting affirmative action; civic nationalists and simply believing that the U.S. is the best country in the world.

If someone turns to a radical racist view because some disagrees with their take on affirmative action, perhaps the original analysis you're objecting to wasn't that far off.

Again, I never suggested compromising with white supremacists. "Racist" is a little bit more ambiguous, so I'll let that point of yours lie.

I'm still not sure what more moderate racist positions people should be compromising on or two. Examples might help.

But if you can prevent more of them from becoming more racist by changing your actions, why wouldn't you?

If a frog had wings...

 

[FireDragon76]

Exactly. And even if there is a dispute to the merit of their free speech, the still offer their opinion on that group of people (e.g., Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals).

I think white supremacy and white nationalism move beyond simple in-group bias. We are all influenced by prejudices and stereotypes in our society, but once you're advocating and pushing policies that hurt other groups, you need to call out that evil. I agree, we should not simply label racists as evil; however, we must label racism as evil and work toward educating people about that evil.

I still don't see how labeling something as evil is helpful. When we throw around loaded words like "evil", a word loaded with so much religious significance, it is bound to cause confusion.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

If someone turns to a radical racist view because some disagrees with their take on affirmative action, perhaps the original analysis you're objecting to wasn't that far off.

Again, it's not if "someone disagrees with their take on affirmative action." It's if a vast number of people are calling you racist just because you disagree with affirmative action.

I'm still not sure what more moderate racist positions people should be compromising on or two. Examples might help.

I gave you two examples. But here's another one: Countering BLM with "all lives matter." Understand, I'm not conceding that "all lives matter" is racist. But many people accuse it of such. That dredges into the deeper issue emerging from college campuses where the "erase the color line" stance of the neoliberal 1990's is now considered racist. It is now considered racist, by many, to ignore Blackness and only see another human being. Ignoring Blackness and only seeing the person is why conservatives and civic nationalists say "all lives matter." Conservatives and civic nationalists are countering what they see as the implicit message that only Blacks are ever given a raw deal with the police. Conservatives and civic nationalists who say "all lives matter" are concerned that an implicit bias to always see Blacks as the innocent party leads to ignoring instances where whites are an innocent party, or where the police (irrespective of the officers' color) are an innocent party. We are toeing the line set for us by neoliberal 1990's PSAs, and we're getting called all manner of nasty things for it.

But, to speak from the perspective of the Far Left for a moment, for the sake of argument: When you train a dog, if you expect perfection from it at Lesson One, you will undermine any actual progress, because organic systems like brains progress only gradually. You have to reinforce successive steps toward the end goal. That is what I mean by "compromise." The Far Left wants their vision of a perfect universe now, and they have no sense of reinforcing successive approximations toward that perfection. And in the process, they are frustrating the dog and are actually teaching it, for all intents and purposes, that there's nothing he can do to please the trainer. So why should he even try?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Sturning the pot.

 

[BNR32FAN]

White Supremacy Is Terrorism, Not a Difference of Opinion

I didn’t even know this was really an issue anymore. I mean perhaps in extremely rare cases. I’m white and have been harassed and mistreated by white police officers in the past. So it’s not always about color like so many think. It’s more about hateful individuals who have abuse of power and authority issues.

 

[SummerMadness]

I still don't see how labeling something as evil is helpful. When we throw around loaded words like "evil", a word loaded with so much religious significance, it is bound to cause confusion.

Because it helps to coalesce fixing and ending that practice. Slavery was a complex institution, and it wasn't until people coalesced around the idea that slavery was an evil institution that this country really started moving toward ending the practice. It's the same thing for white supremacy; the same way we recognize that Nazism and neo-Nazism are evil, must more broadly recognize that white supremacy is in the same boat.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because it helps to coalesce fixing and ending that practice. Slavery was a complex institution, and it wasn't until people coalesced around the idea that slavery was an evil institution that this country really started moving toward ending the practice. It's the same thing for white supremacy; the same way we recognize that Nazism and neo-Nazism are evil, must more broadly recognize that white supremacy is in the same boat.

Slavery in the US didn't just end because people were convinced it was evil- it took a war and hundreds of thousands of human lives to end it.

What I am suggesting is that by refocusing on the conditions that give rise to prejudice, we can come up with more creative solutions that don't involve demonizing our fellow human beings.

 

[SummerMadness]

Slavery in the US didn't just end because people were convinced it was evil- it took a war and hundreds of thousands of human lives to end it.

What I am suggesting is that by refocusing on the conditions that give rise to prejudice, we can come up with more creative solutions that don't involve demonizing our fellow human beings.

Calling white supremacy evil does not mean demonizing people. With regard to the slavery, a major part of going to war over the institution was coalescing around the idea that it was evil; even after the war, many still believed in the institution. However, building the coalitions that brought about its demise required a simple idea, the institution is evil. White supremacists used to be less open, one reason for that was the recognition of racism and segregation as evil. This why the language has shifted to hide the overt expressions of racial hatred. As such we must recognize this shift because it's not about cultural identity, it's not about states' rights, it's not ethnic heritage; arguing that it is simply another view is one way for the ideology and violence that follows it to continue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You only hear the free speech argument when it comes to white supremacists. When it is any other group, you will hear complaints about their views and criticism of their ideology. How many of these people that claim that white supremacists harassing minorities is free speech, but quickly voice their disapproval of people they claim are antisemitic or anti-capitalist or anti-American?

Oh...that's easy. I've never met nor known a white supremacist...probably never will. They're so few in number and completely lacking in political power...they're completely negligible.

When a Democratic congresswoman decides to spout anti-semitic tropes however, and the media and posters on here come to her defense....it's rather clear we have a real problem.

You wouldn't think you'd have to explain these things to people ...but you do.

The free speech they champion is only championed for white supremacists, but they are quick to complain when you point out the limited scope of their free speech defense. I'll be convinced of their love for free speech when instead of only inviting white supremacists to their events, they include other upstanding groups like black separatists... we know that's not happening.

I've never invited anyone to speak anywhere...but as it stands, only white supremacists (perhaps a few others) are attacked over freedom of speech. If anyone else comes under attack...I'd gladly defend them too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because it helps to coalesce fixing and ending that practice. Slavery was a complex institution, and it wasn't until people coalesced around the idea that slavery was an evil institution that this country really started moving toward ending the practice. It's the same thing for white supremacy; the same way we recognize that Nazism and neo-Nazism are evil, must more broadly recognize that white supremacy is in the same boat.

It's an idea though....slavery is a practice. I can stop someone from doing something...but it's literally impossible to stop someone from thinking something.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, it's not if "someone disagrees with their take on affirmative action." It's if a vast number of people are calling you racist just because you disagree with affirmative action.

Is this really happening?

I gave you two examples. But here's another one: Countering BLM with "all lives matter." Understand, I'm not conceding that "all lives matter" is racist. But many people accuse it of such.

If that sort of thing pushes someone towards extreme racist views, were they really that foreign to them in the first place? I mean, it seems like a really extreme reaction to having someone disagree with one's political views.

But, to speak from the perspective of the Far Left for a moment

You'll have to take it up with someone on the far left. But be careful of accusing them of such - you're only going to drive them further far left, if your argument is to be believed.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Is this really happening?

Yes. We are in the midst of a relentless media campaign against a president who is effectively a New York Democrat who just so happened to run on the Republican ticket. Completely innocuous things he says are regularly cast as being racist.

If that sort of thing pushes someone towards extreme racist views, were they really that foreign to them in the first place? I mean, it seems like a really extreme reaction to having someone disagree with one's political views.

But people aren't just disagreeing. They're accusing even the most minor difference of opinion as stemming from racism, and they're doing it nonstop.

You'll have to take it up with someone on the far left. But be careful of accusing them of such - you're only going to drive them further far left, if your argument is to be believed.

You're still misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that when you demonize the moderates, you create no social difference between the moderates and radicals. The argument doesn't work for the radical-crazy radical distinction, because as you go further towards radical politics, you're entering the tails of the bell curve and encounter diminishing returns.