 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
Yes, people on the left really are crazy. Many on the left "ignore the science" and continue to wear masks even after getting vaccinated, and they suffer more psychosis and authoritarian tendencies. Privileged white racists aren't performing enough hate crimes, so leftwing activists have to make them up. By the hundreds.
People like the poor cracked woman quoted below provide a window into the hysteria-fueled progressive psyche. She is clearly driven by irrational fear and loathing. She performs the all-too-human act of projecting her bugaboos onto those she doesn't like and she ascribes motives with zero evidence. I pity her.
From Real Clear Politics:
New York Times editorial board Mara Gay told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that she was disturbed to see pickup trucks with "dozens of American flags" and Trump paraphernalia during a recent trip to Long Island."I was on Long Island this weekend," she said. "And I was really disturbed.""I saw, you know, dozens and dozens of pickup trucks with expletives against Joe Biden on the back of them, Trump flags, and in some cases, just dozens of American flags, which is also just disturbing, which essentially the message was clear, this is my country. This is not your country. I own this."
Mara Gay, member of the editorial board of the New York Times, stated that she saw "explicatives against Joe Biden."
ReplyDelete"Explicatives"? Really?
At first, I couldn't follow what she was saying in that portion of her statement. Then I realized that she must have meant expletives.
Please note that Real Clear Politics corrected Gay's error without the usual sic notation. Hmmmmm....
And she's a writer for the New York times...
DeleteAgain, "racism" or "racist" is no longer a term for any actual acts by people who who hate blacks, it has come to mean anything that scares or alarms or can be perceived (w/o any intent) to "exclude" a black person.
ReplyDeleteUnintentional racism exists, yes.
Delete:P
DeleteWhen EVERYTHING is now racist, what can be perceived as "unintentional" about it (motivated by a hatred of black people).
DeleteBy the old definition, there can be NOTHING "unintentional" about racism. By the new definition... everything is racist, "intent" plays no part.
Deletethesis:antithesis>synthesis. That is the Hegelian project. Hegel had a field day with the meaning of "racism".
DeleteHe defined a term from which "intent" was EVERYTHING to one in which "intent" means NOTHING.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteBy the old definition, there can be NOTHING "unintentional" about racism. By the new definition... everything is racist, "intent" plays no part.
As far as I'm concerned, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist. The word has lost all meaning.
In law, there are few cases that can result in conviction without proving intent. If this nation has reached the point that one can be punished for something that one did not intend to do, then this is an uncivilized nation unfit for human habitation.
DeleteUnintentional racism is not illegal.
DeleteWho cares? What once had "moral weight", a charge of "racism", no longer does.
DeleteStructural racism is not a moral issue in the sense that it does not reflect on any one person's morals. But I do not only care about moral issues, I'm not a rabbi. It's a political issue.
DeleteWay to miss the point, jez.
DeleteUNINTENTIONAL RACISM DOES NOT EXIST.
Not only does it not exist, but it's not even relevant to a political discussion since there is nothing specific that Jez can point to in our current laws/regulations/political system that specifically target and disadvantages blacks and which also doesn't disadvantage every group, be they a demographic majority or minority. If blacks want to become the majority social/demographic group, then let them breed their way into achieving a 51% national majority instead of leading the country in every abortion static
DeleteSell that to the Uigher and Rohinga.
DeleteUnless you can "culturally adapt" to the majority culture, you're pretty likely to get your *ss kicked wherever you go.
Delete...?
Deletewhat are you saying, that it's OK cos that's what they do in modern China and 1930s Germany?
Come on Farmer, that's not the argument I want to see you make.
You're the one making statement like:
DeleteYou shouldn't need to be in the majority ethnic group to have confidence that the police will not harrass and beat you with impunity.
So where in the world was this ever true?
Do you think that a Korean in Tokyo believe this?
DeleteYou're the one making statement like:
DeleteYou shouldn't need to be in the majority ethnic group to have confidence that the police will not harrass and beat you with impunity.
So where in the world was this ever true?
So, why the worry of being "replaced" by Hispanic immigrants?
DeleteI thought it was implied along with the much-vaunted "equality of opportunity." If that does not entail fair treatment from the police and judicial system, you & Warren are playing intolerable games with language and lives.
DeleteYou can find examples where policing measures have successfully contributed to easing factional tensions. In Ireland the factions were religious rather than ethnic, but that's an example from close to home.
Per CRT, equality of opportunity IS RACIST. Equality of opportunity is what we have. It's equality of RESULTS that CRT seeks to establish, and use racism TO ACHIEVE IT.
DeleteThe point being that the police ARE enforcing the laws equally... but there appear to be profound cultural differences between blacks and whites that lead to more blacks having to be on the receiving end of force. That doesn't mean we have "structural racism"... it means we have structural differences in the dominant cultures expectations of civilized bahaviour which blacks, as a group, are failing to live up to.
...and these differences have nothing to do with the old term of racism having to do with a hatred of blacks and everything to do with blacks not behaving in what the dominant culture believes is a proper standard of behaviour. Just like the church doesn't hate homosexuals, the culture doesn't hate blacks. It simply abhors their collective behaviour.
Delete...and it merely confounds understanding of the problem, because "racism" isn't the problem. The culture is.
DeleteSo you can try and convince whites to police less, but I don't think that they'll be willing to suffer more robbery, graft, and corruption that would accompany an accomodation of black/"thug" cultural differences.
The Left can't see this because they are like the rich Jew in this Zizek joke so as to pretend to occupy the culturally "objective" position.
DeleteNow let's all just bend another knee to cultural diversity of the REAL kind, not the exotic restaurant with the strangely tasty food. or gorgeous veiled sex kittens that James Bond would snuggle with in some exotic foreign locale.
Delete"Per CRT, equality of opportunity IS RACIST"
DeleteReference, please?
"Equality of opportunity is what we have"
Worth questioning.
"The point being that the police ARE enforcing the laws equally..."
Let us say "consistently."
"but there appear to be profound cultural differences between blacks and whites that lead to more blacks having to be on the receiving end of force"
This is in accord with my (extremely limited) understanding of CRT, so let's dwell on it for a moment. I think where those differences are morally significant, and cause extra harm or pose additional risk, it is legitimate for them to be met with harsher punishment and hotter persuit. But where the differences are morally neutral and don't cause extra harm, it is very reasonable to argue that they should not be responded to with greater force, and the law should ideally be altered so that equivalent crimes (in terms of harm etc.) are dealt with similarly.
Farmer! Remember the polite discourse rules. Magic asterisk, please!!!
DeleteJez,
DeleteThe problem with discussing CRT is that much of it is contained in impenetrable pseudo-academic documents, and most explanations come from its opponents. To me, the important points are, its propagandists and evangelists won't debate, and practitioners challenge the very foundations of Western Civilization, to include logic, reason, etc.
:P
Delete...and as has been proven above, racism can no longer be considered "morally significant".
DeleteEither blacks tone it down during the arrest process, or well deserved wood shampoos are in order.
DeleteAs Guattari would comment, you and I are currently using a highly policed, formalized, and purified form of phonemes (written language) to communicate which lack the remaining and missing semiotice context (of struggling muscles resisting cooperation)
DeleteLanguage has its' limits, which is why I prefer linked videos.
DeleteLanguage fails to transmit the semiotic elements of information which represent and express the libidinal life of the group (African-Americans).
DeleteBecause of this linguistic semiotic collapse, liberals in their ivory towers with no real world contact and socialization with blacks in the ghettos of Baltimore, Detroit, or even Minneapolis think that African-Americans are culturally "just like them". Had they real life exposure, they'd likely be dead in the back alleys of these cities with empty wallets and broken watch bands.
DeleteYour understanding of blacks is limited by this semiotic collapse, and until you move to Baltimore and interact with the culture, you're never going to "get it".
DeleteGuattari makes the above argument within the first six minutes of his lecture in Vincennes in 1975.
DeleteJust like members of Fishtown are never going to understand people in Belmont. :P
DeleteImagine the indignation a white resident of Belmont would suffer if the police treated him like a typical white resident of Fishtown... w/o all the social deference a higher class individual typically receives from a lower class one... and so today's black academic intellectual writes and lectures middle class Americans about how abusive the police are towards members of "their race" (that are NOT, like them, of the highest class).
DeleteWe all seem to be able to agree that the economic gap between rich and poor in America is widening. Can we also agree that the cultural/class gap is widening as well, with elites demanding more "deference" from the lower classes, and that blacks in the upper socio-economic group no longer understand or appreciate the "thug life" culture of the vast majority of lowest-class African-Americans
Delete...and the police have little experience in dealing with Louis Gates socio-economic level blacks unless at a "beer summit" with the president?
DeleteBelmonters complaining about those flag-waving/pickup-driving trash residents of Fishtown.
DeleteJoy Behar needs to shut up for a while.
DeleteThe "white supremacy" and "white privilege" liberals complain about today are simply their own "mirrored" socio-economic class privileges that the economic elites of all societies typically enjoy (race being mistakenly substituted as proxy for class).
DeleteNote to rich socio-economic elites of all races/creeds - Check your privileges and let others speak for a change. We don't have enough cheese to accompany all your whine.
DeleteOne can submit to this (language) system of computerized reduction only insofar as (cultural) territoralities are constituted, what I call surfaces of redundancy where we can articulate this type of opposition. To give an example: Choosing a woman in the kind of societies described by Clastres isn't simply a question of trying to have sex, or of reproduction, or of possessing somebody. It's always a matter of the meeting of two social subgroups, implying different systems of exchange, systems of multiple semiotic composition. Today we can say that the selection of a sexual partner, which seems to be a free choice, is in fact determined by systems that compel people to correspond to specific socio-economic profiles. To the point of those who try to facilitate this through a computer program that matches people's preferences. However, one no longer chooses someone from a certain clan with all that this intricate semiotic dance implies. Perhaps one no longer chooses, and here I'm jumping ahead, a body, the possession of the other's sexual oragns, if we want to define it like that, but the possibility of finding a certain type of redundancy: redundancy of survival, redundancy of faciality. We look for someone in the enunciative field that allows us to say something of the order: Tristan:Isolde, Isolde-Tristan (class to class).
DeleteBut in a much more sinsiter way, as in an endless conjugal scene that consists only in the person one is talking to. When I return, anounce my name, and my objective, who is it that resounds the echo of what I'm saying? On which surface of redundancy can I express myself?
In teritorialized societies you have large surfaces of redundancy and multiple possibilities of semiotic composition.
Guattari, Vincennes (1975)
Prohibitions on the mention of "Class" is the last "unspoken rule" of late post-modern capitalism. Your boss is your friend, definitely NOT your "superior". Go ahead and steal a shrimp from his plate whenever you like. The old Disciplinary Societies and "Dominance" culture are dead.
Delete...except we still have and maintain those "disciplinary society" structures and institutions (prisons/factories/mental hospitals) for all you Fishtown resident who "still don't get it" and roll into Belmont like you own it.
Delete...for ultimately, nothing ever changes. Being "woke" is simply pseudo-activism for the inter-passively challenged.
DeleteWell if a taboo is big enough, you're reluctant to mention it even in argument. Are you arguing about entrenched advantage in racial terms because it's easier somehow than talking about it in class terms?
DeleteDo farmer's recent remarks in this thread remind you of Marxism?
DeleteMost of the black people I know are British, Caribbean or African. I don't often interact personally with African-American, but I see a lot of their cultural output. I suppose Dave chapelle and de la soul qualify as elites by anybody's standards.
DeleteLet me ask you a question, Jez. Do you think that if you asked a member of the undergraduate class at Harvard or Yale that they'd admit to being members of the "elite" or would deny it and claim to be "middle class"?
DeleteHow about the "Mrs Jobs" that currently funds most of the Democrat Party?
DeleteMy bet is that she would immediately claim to be your "upper middle class" friend and would vehemently deny her elite status and/or elitism. So how does she relate to "Oprah"? Think she would disagree with any of Oprah's "racial" positions?
Deletebtw - I remember Oprah when she was a local Baltimore celebrity and shared a talked show with Richard Sher. She may vaguely remember what Baltimore life was like, but she didn't live it.
DeleteThink Oprah would admit to being an "elite"?
DeletePrivilege (wealth education) doesn't get you status points in any discussion. What gets you points is where you came from and how much you had to struggle to make it out. Freddy Grey is now one of the biggest black celebrities in Baltimore. And how does someone like Oprah get street cred? She channels Freddy Grey.
DeleteThe Celebrity "image" (Oprah) now spews hyper-real "content" that has NO BASIS IN REALITY because it literally MASKS THE ABSENCE OF REALITY.
Delete@ Jez,
DeleteAs I understand it; "Class" isn't thought of the same way as it is in the UK. It's more a matter of wealth, power and education and the way you act with little to no consideration to who your parents were or the situation you were born in. It's an ephemeral concept. It's more what people think of you inside you own peer group than outside perception.
People can, and do rise through fall and rise again, in what I think of as "class".
What class am I in? In terms of wealth, lower middle class, among my peers in the working class, upper class. To those outside my peer group(s); You can take me as I am or kiss my ass and move along, I really don't care.
That's the beauty of America, I am sovereign in my person and I aim to misbehave.
America was founded on a disdain for "aristocrats"... special privileges conferred by "birth". The founders idealized the concept of a 'meritocracy' much as Beethoven (vs Goethe). This concept has strayed quite a distance from that original "ideal". Today 'merit' seems to get derived through 'identity' in a Rawlsian "Social Justice" of "appearances" that determines one's 'moral authority' from a hierarchy of historical oppression/repression and conferred by opinion makers on "celebrities" forged on Madison Avenue and their pursuit of Cultural Capitalism prevalent since '68.
DeleteAuthenticity. You can do ANYTHING (like be transgender.. although transraciality is specifically prohibited). Madison Avenue's imperative to us all, "Enjoy" and *repeat*
Delete@ FJ,
DeleteGood one!
Did you see this one ?
No... I hadn't seen it... but I love the pictures on the classroom wall in the background. The CRT "Cultural Revolution" is just beginning.
Delete*shakes head*
Maybe it's taboo to assert that social mobility is impeded in any way in America. I can see how that would make Americans reluctant to relate class to race, which is obviously immutable.
DeleteNo Jez, The problem starts with so-called "black culture" and the attitudes.
DeleteThere are all kinds of programs and incentives to join them. I've seen it with my own eyes in my social work and in my work place(s) and on the street.
It's not taboo to talk about social mobility impediments. It is taboo to talk about the root causes -of "blacks", in general,- to succeed in the dominate Western Culture.
In a world where street-smarts are valued more than even basic education, get'in (getting) over and get'in by are a way of life instead of getting ahead, street gangs, (predator and prey) replace High School activities,the usual ambition of a young girl is to remain unmarried and have fatherless children -up to six of them, -they don't get anymore Welfare money for more than six- free medical care through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, Food stamps, free housing through the Section Eight and Scattered Housing programs. The attitudes that "No body is going to tell me how to run my life." and "You owe me because my ancestors were slaves." and on and on. it's tiresome to say the least.
Then there are the disincentives for anyone to speak out or actually address those problems. You are called racist or white supremacist or if you are black, you are called an "Uncle Tom" or "Oreo" -a cracker with a black crust and white on the inside- and shunned by the black community. I assure you that if you are a social worker, you will lose your job quickly if you are accused of any of the above.
Sure there are many blacks that have actually took advantage of these programs and actually made their life's better, some are quite notable. Ben Carson, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder et al, but their number are rather small in comparison to the general population and they are shunned by the greater portion of blacks because of their Conservative views.
You see, there is no need to do well on your own when you can simply get by.
Modern Racism is the meta-narrative driven "taste of Strawberry " of actual "racism" discussed (through 37:20).
DeleteWoke racism is an attempted legitimization by paralogy through media monopoly.
Delete"Legitimation by paralogy" roughly means "manufacturing 'truth(iness)' through (forcing) consensus," or, in simpler language, creating social enforcement of lies that must be believed. Lyotard rightly recognized that this is a disaster (he wrongly believed everything is that).
DeleteWhy can't Kanye West wear a MAGA hat? (because to do so would be considered "inauthentically black") If you don't vote for Joe Biden, you ain't black (or at least the paralogy of blackness as defined by the MSM monopoly). "Authentic blackness" is a hyper-real paralogy.
DeleteWokeness is a media manufactured theoretical identity substituting for authenticity. Authenticity is being who you are when you aren't trying to be anyone. It cannot be faked. You can't "fake it 'til you make it (ala an "Internet Influencer")
DeleteSo what real oppression does today's hyper-real paralogically determined minority face? The Hyper-real oppression of "micro-aggressions."
ANYTHING that is perceived to harm blacks is now the result of "unintentional" racism (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
ReplyDelete:P
DeleteEVERYTHING! The whole "American System" is RACIST!
DeleteOMG! CRT just succeeded in unifying Quantuum Theory with Special Relativity... EVERYTHING IS RACIST! We have a grand unified theory of everything!
DeletePeople who once went "hunting" to find a bird in a bush, now can find a bird in EVERY bush.
DeleteUnifying quantum theory with special relativity is not that much of a problem, it's general relativity that's the head-ache.
DeleteAlthough now you mention it...
^^Proving once again how the Left must racialize EVERYTHING^^
DeleteI get surly if my Burrito Supreme lacks queso blanco...
DeleteFlashing forward to the day when all your burritos are "Supreme"... w/o any mention of the "color del queso."
Delete“Yes, people on the left really are crazy.”
ReplyDeleteBat guano crazy. As I pointed out the other day, there are racists, but not as many as the left would hope — and to add to this, simply from listening to and observing the antics of the left, it appears to me that there are far more racists on the left than right. By the way, racism is a deeply held belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human attributes and capacities — and that differences in one race produce inherent notions of superiority. For Dave Miller and others to successfully argue that ‘most whites’ are racist, one would have to redefine racism. Two points: The other day, Miller argued that because he and his Hispanic wife could not be seated in a restaurant, it must follow that the restaurant owners were racist. Except that Hispanics are not a race of people, and if what Mr. Miller said was true, there was very likely another reason for his dilemma. Second, when people of color point toward white-skinned people to proclaim them as “racist,” they demonstrate racism.
There appears to be no shortage of anger on the left, and to nurture it, the left must invent grievances and propound upon them incessantly. It is no coincidence that the exact words and phrases are used on every leftist broadcast channel to perpetuate their self-fulfilling prophecies. Next up: anyone who owns an F-150 must be a racist. There is no shortage of idiots in America. Anger exalts folly.
@ Mustang,
DeleteYou'll laugh at this:
Robin DiAngelo, author of The New York Times best-selling book, “White Fragility,” has come out with a new book, “Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm.”
According to Maureen Callahan of The New York Post, "DiAngelo posits that white, liberal, intellectual, coastal progressives — you know, the people who used her first book, “White Fragility,” as an intellectual hairshirt — are the most bigoted, the most harmful, the greatest threat to racial equality."
For anyone interested in the entire review, Here is the LINK.
Anti-fragility (Nassim Taleb) is definitely the way to go. That's why today's liberal HATE the 1st Amendment.
DeleteMeanwhile those with the F-150's will keep hauling their food to the grocery store and pick up their garbage and clean up their sewer problems and keep their lights on... until..... just saying a little gratefulness might be in order....after all they kept the whole business humming during the Rona....just saying. What if they sorta changed their minds about the whole thing?
ReplyDeleteAnyone that owns an F-150 likely prefers working on trucks to driving them. They're clinging to a reputation for quality that died in hospice at least 30 years ago 😉
ReplyDeleteA big problem in today’s political environment is the younger generation’s belief that feelings, the emotional content inside their heads, is real. Out of this comes the concept that rhetoric is violence. The infliction of emotional distress is in all respects equal to physical injury.
ReplyDeleteThat emotional distress is caused by the outside source, and the person experiencing the distress is powerless to affect the nature or amount of the distress which is happening inside their own mind. The only manner in which the distress can be alleviated is to remove the source of the distress. The person has no control within their own mind.
This is also the source of multiple genders and of the "trans culture." Gender is not determined by chromosomes, or by the sex organs with which one is borne, it is determined by the feelings which exist within ones head. "I do not feel like a male and therefor I am not a male." A person manufactures their own gender inside their head, based on how they FEEL about themselves.
Racism is in the same category. It is not a matter of what one person does, it a matter of how the "protected class" person feels about what "offender" did. No actual offense is required, the injury exists in the mind of the person who is offended. And it is actual injury, equivalent to physical injury, because words that create emotional distress are violence.
ReplyDelete...not to mention the "structural violence" inherent in "the system".
DeleteThe Left really loves this "structural/institutional" stuff. Thanks, Slavoj Zizek.
I thought it was micheal palin.
DeleteI was simply to giving credit where credit is due. Zizek popularized the idea of speech as violence and gave the NAZI punching ANTIFA faction its' justification for abandoning non-violence.
DeleteZizek deploys the concept of systemic violence to indicate that the pre-existing social structures and institutional practices, such as political domination or capitalist exploitation, cause people to engage in subjective violence, both individually – theft, fights and murder – and collectively – war and riots and terrorism.
Delete-------------------------
Systemic violence is altogether unlike subjective violence and the work of Slavoj Žižek illustrates that conceptual obfuscation in this regard may lead to an overly broad and facile justification of revolutionary violence as counter-violence to systemic violence, appealing to the ethics of self-defense.
Apparently systemic violence is much like system racism. In fact, it sounds just like one more "critical" aspect/ theory... to the critical theory analysis toolkit (emphasis on 'critical').
DeleteThis woman is an exemplary example of the deranged left. What comes out of her mouth is more indicative of what is going on in her mind, rather than what she thinks is going on in other people's minds
ReplyDeleteThe last paragraph of her comments as what struck me. She impute motives to people she doesn't even know. Although it is clear she does not understand them. She would lose her few remaining brain cells if she came to Southern Colorado and saw black military veterans driving pickup trucks Flying Flags just like she saw and Long Island. Black man also strap-on weapons here and open carry, and ride motorcycles. What a big wide wonderful world it is if you get outside the New York Times cosseted bubble you live in
ReplyDeleteShe's already journeyed all the way to Long Island in her intrepid mission to find people who look like they might be Trump supporters. Maybe Colorado's next.
Delete@SF - She impute motives to people she doesn't even know. Although it is clear she does not understand them.
DeleteGood point, and fair to criticize....but honestly, you and I both know that this is actually the MO of most people who comment online, with regard to politics.
This person is clearly intellectually isolated, though.....even living rural as I do, I don't really get the truck flags. Not being into political idolatry explains much of it I'm sure.
CI, true enough, but she is from the influencer class and has a national voice. I don't do truck flags either. I also never did the military RWR, but I understand it.
DeleteAnother example of a whacked out "crap" for brains:
ReplyDeletehttps://markone1blog.wordpress.com/2021/06/10/stories-not-covered-by-the-main-stream-media/
She should get down and kiss the ground of a country who allows her to spew her crap on television. Expletives are too good for Joe Biden.
ReplyDeleteIsn't her birthright as an American to "spew her crap" on television.......without performing an obsequious act? Or should that only be reserved for people who's political outlook you find palatable?
DeleteExpletives are often too good for most of the political elite......
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete^^Elitist from the Joy Behar fan club ^^
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete