| Disco King |
07-13-2019 11:45 AM |
I think it's remarkable how discussions involving politics often become more about indicating one's belonging to the group through the use of the appropriate symbolism and group markers, that one can have almost identical views to somebody else, and yet automatically construe that other person as being part of the opposing group and disregard/misconstrue the content of what the other person is saying for no reason other than that they don't feel the correct ritual symbols are markers are being performed or exhibited.
For instance, in this case, it should be clear to anybody with the requisite reading ability that I am not arguing against the position that white people hold disproportionate power in society, that racial minorities are disadvantaged, and that racism against minorities by the white people who are racist perpetuate this inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
(Post 4512744)
I think their rationale is that they don't want the racism of minorities against whites to be considered morally equivalent to the racism of whites against minorities. Especially when white racists try to make them seem equivalent to muddy the waters of debate, I can understand this intent. But it's unnecessary, because one can easily call any prejudice or discrimination on the basis of race "racism" while still holding that racism backed by power, namely the racism of whites against minorities, is worse because it has wider societal implications than a single interpersonal interaction.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
(Post 4512784)
If the goal is to serve as a response to people who try to downplay the significance of racism against minorities with "but minorities can be racist against whites, too!", then, as I said, I think the proper response to that is simply to explain that racism against minorities is often backed by societal power that sustains inequalities…
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
(Post 4512812)
I don't see how my position is similar to a right-wingers' when I specifically gave an accountant of how we can still analyze racism against minorities as a more pernicious and entrenched phenomenon than racism against whites without having to redefine any words. My position, for anyone who's been paying attention, is still that white people have power in society, rendering their racism against other ethnic and racial groups supportive of systems of inequality and oppression.
|
Despite making this abundantly clear, somebody might only see another person critiquing a certain rhetorical slogan that's use is a common symbolic marker of the good-guy group, and then suspend all critical engagement with the content of the text after that point because their brain automatically interprets this as proof that the person is a member of the opposing political tribe. All evidence that the person is not of that group is ignored, as the reader will substitute what is actually written with the opinions of the opposing group, and argue against those instead of agaisnt what was actually written. And, being assumed to be a member of the other political tribe, other beliefs associated with that tribe that weren't even discussed are then attributed to that person ("oh, they must also support straight pride and blue lives matter and be anti-abortion, I guess"). |
