PugJesus @ PugJesus @kbin.social

Cripple. History Major. Vaguely left-wing.

---

Read more

Posts

364

Comments

2,243

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's very sad, older folk sometimes just don't wake up from full anesthesia.

I like Ethiopian Jesus personally

https://kbin.social/m/politicalmemes@lemmy.world/t/927705/Please-for-the-love-of-God-VOTE#entry-comment-5928401

You see this kind of comment intermittently from certain kinds of self-proclaimed leftists, where they parrot Trumpian claims about how he was actually trying to STOP the insurrection and is Totally Innocent and therefore it's Not A Big Deal if he wins again. Anything to feel better about helping him win against the filthy neolib Biden.

Believing Biden is just as bad is another matter entirely.

... is it? Because last I checked, there was a big difference between "Tried to overthrow a democratic process" and "Did not try to do so".

lmao.

https://kbin.social/m/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone/t/927066/Please-for-the-love-of-God-VOTE#entry-comment-5929712

"democrats are fascist"

^This one right here is a prime example.

Stick around on here for a while - unfortunately, they're a constant problem.

Hence "loudly proclaim to be leftists". But many of them aren't trolls, at least not in the sense of not meaning what they're saying.

You yourself do that, constantly. But such lies are your kind's bread and butter.

I’m not convinced that Biden hasn’t slowed down.

He definitely has. He's not as snappy as he was in 2012. But it's normal old guy 'slow down'. My grandfather, STTL, slowed down in the last 15 years of his life, but remained quite sharp from an objective standpoint.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The people equating the two will loudly proclaim to be leftists while simultaneously saying that Trump wasn't actually trying to interrupt the certification of Joe Biden, and that Trump actually was trying to STOP the 'unruly protest'. No amount of arguing can get through to people who have no interests other than smug contrarianism.

Wealth tax when?

I wish.

I mean, most of the classic cartoons have it as very give-and-take. Tom is more often the loser, because a mouse is the underdog and a mouse winning is generally funnier, but it's not usually assigned a moral component.

Guess I'm back for more.

I accept that all of the things you’ve talked about are real forms of oppression. The difference here is that I don’t agree that it should be called racism.

I'd dispute that it isn't racism, as application of sociological definition for the purpose of narrow and highly academic discussions with general usage, but that's not the primary problem here. I find what it's called less important than acknowledging in it. In this thread, there's a lot of "White people can't be hurt by being denigrated", not just denying that it's called racism. That's what hurts here. I look around here and all I see is hostility in what is a fairly left-space. I can quote people in this very thread quite clearly saying, "You're white. White is bad. Get over it."

I don’t agree that the solution is to stop talking about the problems with whiteness. Whiteness as a concept hurts everyone.

I'm not trying to protect the concept of whiteness or say that we should stop talking about white privilege. But when you denigrate 'white people', you are denigrating a group of people for their ancestry - full stop. It doesn't matter that you mean it in a different way than common usage. When you start describing things as 'white' you are necessarily adding an either positive or negative connotation to being 'white', which is something that is largely decided by society and observers, not your intentions.

Of course it hurts POC more than it hurts white people, but it isn’t a zero-sum game. White people in general aren’t helped in any way by it. That’s not what privilege means in this context. It means that the boot that stomps on us is less forceful and has smaller cleats.

At no point have I defended white privilege, man. White privilege can and should be overthrown. That's completely separate from the point here.

The point of calling some people white and others not is to divide people.

So was the point of calling people 'Black' - and if you dispute that, I have a whole laundry list of historical examples to go down that predate the creation of a cohesive and empowering sense of unified Black culture. Yet if you started associating negative qualities with 'Blackness' and objected "I'm not saying BLACK PEOPLE are bad, I'm just saying BLACKNESS is bad, which is a state of mind", I mean, fuck, that's outright 'racist uncle' shite.

Regardless of whether or not you like it, when you say 'white', a large number of people hear you addressing them, because that's how they're addressed by society, conservative and liberal; light-skinned and dark-skinned. When you say 'white', that refers to, by linguistic consensus, a very large group of people based on their racial origin, not their opinions or their recognition or lack thereof of their own privilege. And when you start assigning qualities to 'whiteness' itself, this context necessarily translates into a denigration of the individual by a denigration of an arbitrary group that has no inherent moral quality to it.

That doesn’t mean that attacking whiteness as a concept is divisive - it is attacking a mechanism of division. The point here is that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by protecting the concept of whiteness.

Again. At no point have I defended the concept of whiteness. The entire concept of racial categories is absurd except as a social construct.

We’re not attacking individual people and saying they suck because they are white. It really isn’t personal at all. The concept of whiteness is based on privilege, which means being able to ignore the suffering of people who were affected by genocide and who are still living. I think that’s what they mean when they call it a very white way of thinking.

But white is pretty widely considered to be a category based on phenotype and cultural recognition of phenotype - it doesn't matter that you don't mean that individual people suck because they're white. It doesn't matter when some old coot calls something "cotton-pickin'" as a means of degrading it that he doesn't MEAN it in a racist way, or that he's not using it towards an individual, much less a Black individual. It is still generally heard by Black folk as a whole as denigrating. And no amount of "You just have to understand..." or "This isn't directed at you..." can change that.

However, dealing with and healing from that hurt requires correctly identifying its source, and it’s easy to land on wrong answers to that question, and that’s a large part of why I think this is important.

I think it's important too, which is why I take such issue with racializing positive and negative qualities, like points of view. Avoiding the idea that using racialized descriptors is bad simply because the core of modern racial categories is centered around the privilege of whiteness does not mean that racialized descriptors are innocent of implicit or explicit bigotry.

I appreciate your response, but... I'm not really in any condition to continue this conversation, sorry. You can state it if you wish, but I don't have it in me to respond at this point.

I’m just one of many people who cannot bring themselves to vote for somebody who is enabling genocide, and who cannot go back to his neighbors or constituents and look them in the eye and say, ​“I know that you’ve lost somebody in the West Bank or Gaza,” or, ​“I know that this is an issue that’s incredibly important to you, but that’s not good enough anymore.” And I think taking people for granted, taking voters for granted, has to end.

Oh, good, then they can look forward to going up to their neighbors, looking them in the eye, and saying "I know that you've lost somebody in the West Bank or Gaza; and so in solidarity with you, I've decided to ensure that LGBT and minorities here in America suffer too, and you'll likely be among them."

I have no problem with people voting uncommitted in the primary. But saying "There is no lesser of two evils!!!!" is privileged and short-sighted as fuck.

If that's sincere, I'll be happy to explain again.

Again, I must emphasize, I am by no means under the delusion that anti-white racism is anywhere near the scale or severity of anti-POC racism. In terms of resource allocation, there is an obvious and overwhelming preference towards which one needs to be fought. I, as someone who has experienced genuine emotional distress, am speaking as to the personal effects of racist behavior, specifically, slurs and othering, against whiteness, even (though not exclusively) when the person in question does not necessarily or primarily identify as white.

Calling people slurs based on their ancestry or socially constructed racial identification, 'actual' or perceived, is bad. Period. The N-bomb is worse than 'Jap', and 'Jap' is worse than 'cracker'. But none of them should be given a pass, and all are capable of creating an environment of othering and hostility.

You feel confident and secure, and so you don't feel racist slurs are capable of harming you - if so, great for you. I'm sure you grew up in either a great community (which there are many of!), or an overwhelmingly white one. That, however, does not reflect experiences universally, and many white kids (not even getting into biracial individuals) who've grown up in majority-nonwhite communities can attest that anti-white racism feels like shit. "In the greater scope of things, white people rule everything!" doesn't mean jack shit inside the context of individual communities, where our psyches reside and rely on for validation and sense of belonging. And those wounds don't go away when you emerge into a white majority society.

The sin in calling me an anti-white slur is not because I'm mixed-race. Being mixed-race just means I have nowhere to retreat from bigotry in general. If I escape anti-white bigotry, I'm inevitably exposed to anti-Asian bigotry - and if I try to escape from both, I am inevitably exposed to both. There is a great deal of racism inbetween POC communities.

For mixed-race people, often, there is an additional effect in that is that we feel invalidated in total by being denigrated by one of our racial origins. When someone calls me a cracker or like slur, I don't feel part-shitty, I feel 100% shitty. When you call a white person a cracker, it doesn't matter if you imply with a wink and a nudge that, OF COURSE you don't mean me, it still feels like shit just by fucking proxy. Yeah, I'm Asian. But I'm also white. Being called a cracker doesn't hurt me because I'm part-Asian. It hurts me because I am white. Apart from self-identification, as generally I have little interest in my whiteness except to recognize when it privileges and advantages me, there is the acute knowledge that others see you as such, that you are seen in some way, or in some degree, as deficient, grotesque, or inherently contemptible.

If I'm harassed for being white, do you think I feel only part-deficient? Part-contemptible? Do you think that I feel different about being harassed for being part-white because I'm also part-Asian? That if I was wholly contemptible instead of partially, it would feel better? Would I not feel othered if I was only white and being called a cracker? Considering the escalating racial hostility as children age and feed the mutual racial antipathy, and my own experiences talking with white friends, I doubt it. Just because "Oh, this won't matter when you look for a job or a promotion" is true doesn't mean "This isn't something that creates a deep and abiding rift between individuals and communities as a matter of rejection of people based on their innate and unchangeable qualities. This isn't something that creates psychological scars as attempts to refute or combat the accusations escalate against an unshifting bigotry and constant undercurrent of enmity."

The essential, degrading, othering, and hostile effect of calling someone else a slur based on their immutable characteristics is universally bad, and it's astounding to me that a left-wing culture that has (very positively!) become increasingly sensitive towards other issues of mental and emotional health, bullying, and self-esteem, seems so keen to overlook this. Much is said, and rightfully so, on the severe and lasting psychological effects of bigotry on individuals. Why is this bigotry excluded?

It's not a problem that needs a national campaign or a government program to address it. But it sure as shit shouldn't be dismissed or encouraged simply because it's not as important as the more significant and material effects of racism on POC.

I'm legitimately done now, because now I'm fucking depressed.

You literally told me how this issue affects you as a mixed race person,

And you literally didn't listen, instead opting to reiterate your own preconceptions on what mixed-race people experience and why.

Also, be careful, because apparently pointing out racism is the real racism, and you accused me of “whitesplaining”, so apparently you were being anti-white racist, which I hear you really care a lot about as an issue.

If you couldn't read the bitterness in

Fucking ridiculous. How did you put it before? "Whitesplaining"?

I can't help you.

But anything to denigrate minorities who don't have your views., huh? People like you only listen when it fits your preconceptions.