What … Did Trump not say that?
Read the transcript
Got a link handy?
There’s a short video you can watch at the top of the page that highlights the relevant part .
1 Like
Thanks for that. And you’re right - he did finally get around to denouncing Nazis and white nationalists there. He probably should have led with those lines - but your point is well taken. Detractors will show the portions that drive home the point they want to make.
3 Likes
Wow… I wasn’t expecting that. Thank you
1 Like
That just creates meritocracy. Without equality of outcome there is no justice, no respect.
The economic principles of fairness and desert are coequal in the apostolic witness. I’ve mentioned this to you before and you either didn’t see it or ignored it.
Enlightenment thinking is what got us to this place where we think a single principle of reason will make for a good society. But if there are two coequal principles, it means you have a dilemma, and then the need for wisdom.
“The Enlightenment proposed a doctrine of reason that required no faith, a vision of society that required no tradition, and a politics that required no God, the source of all light and being.” John Betz
1 Like
It seems to me that equality of outcome, divorced from the skill and effort and merit of the participant, will never be just or respectable.
What about their need? What about the need of their children? So deprivation is just and respectable? Deprivation due to the skill and effort of social predators?
1 Like
I’m glad that is all you took from my post, thank you.
1 Like
I did take more, but I don’t think that the “academic” definition is relevant to the vast majority of people — even if that were the universal “academic” definition and no academic people or institutions differed at all.
99% of the population lives outside academia. And if academia is so homogeneous, that may be driven by cancelling any dissenting views.
Whose need, Klax?
Whose deprivation?
The current parlance around racism uses “racist” to describe systems and institutions. It’s not as interested in identifying individuals as “racists” (people motivated by racial prejudice) as much as it is interested in identifying one’s participation and complicity in upholding systems and institutions that enforce unjust power dynamics and privilege based on race. So when someone says, “That’s racist” now, it is often an evaluation of power dynamics of a system and a person’s willing participation or benefit from that system, it’s not the equivalent of calling someone a bigot or a prejudiced person. A lot of miscommunication, defensiveness, and retaliation happens because people don’t realize how “racist” is being used.
This is how the word is used academically. And it doesn’t need to be current prejudice either, it can be historical prejudice that has been codified into laws, policies, and procedures and currently affects outcomes for minorities even thought prejudicial attitudes of the general public have largely shifted.
But again, most contemporary discussions are not using racist in this way. Racist generally is not being used to mean a person w/ personal race-based prejudices. That’s why you will be corrected if you start insisting that Black people are racist too. The contemporary understanding is tied to institutional power.
A recent NYT investigation found that Tucker Carlson has pushed replacement theory in more than 400 shows, but FOX dropped the subject after the Buffalo shooter cited it in his manifesto.
I assume you mean accusing people of being racist, not making accusations that are racist. This shows part of the problem though. You can’t evaluate actual race-based injustice in our country and point it out without people hearing “accusations” and “insults.” Saying “this is racist” can just be an evaluation, not a character indictment, but people don’t hear it that way, they respond defensively and aggressively instead of empathetically and no progress can be made. I don’t think the answer is tiptoeing around white fragility though. Minorities have to be able to name systemic problems without white people getting all insulted and bailing from the dialogue.
Hillary is correct though, is not exaggerating, and you are not as informed on this issue as you seem to think you are.
If the public wants to have conversations about what academic institutions are teaching (witness the CRT hysteria) then they absolutely do have to understand how academics are using words.
4 Likes
I see that use all the time.
A cuppala resources from Biologos that are related, and I haven’t noticed here”
1 Like
I think it works both ways.
It’s wrongly accusing a person of being racist, and it works because of racial differences.
Like accusing someone of being a white nationalist because they are white and a nationalist.
Totally agree. But you have to also recognize that not all racial disparities are caused by racial injustice.
There was once a time when racial disparities were thought to be determined by genetics, and anyone who said otherwise was accused of being sentimental or unscientific.
1 Like
Again, people are not on the same page about what “this is racist” entails. “Being racist” in an academic sense does not mean holding personal animus toward people of an oppressed race, it means participating in and benefiting from systems that privilege white people. You have to understand what the evaluation “racist” means in its context before you decide it’s an “accusation” or an unfair characterization of reality. Often, while it might be unfair to use racist to mean personally bigoted, it is totally correct to use it in the sense of benefiting from white privilege. Benefiting from white privilege is “racist” in the academic sense and there is no insult embedded in it. It’s just an evaluation of reality in a culture and society that has been shaped by race-based prejudices and social constructs.
Yeah, that time is over. What’s your point? Race is a social construct used to explain societal phenonmena. The construct of racial injustice is derivative of the construct of race, so of course all racial disparities are caused by racial injustice because the whole issue is social/cultural, not biological/genetic. Are there other social and biological factors besides the social construction of race that contribute to observed inequities in outcomes between two individuals? Of course. But by definition racial injustice is shown to be linked to racial disparities created by society, not nature, because as we have already established, race is a social construct, not a biological feature. And when we are talking about the social construction of race and racial disparities we are talking about societal level/population level patterns, we aren’t talking about isolated individual cases.
3 Likes
…which might say something about the crowds you hang out in and the sources you imbibe.
Anymore, you probably hear that mostly (only?) from those who are still busy taking it personally, and going to great pains to demonstrate to everyone within earshot how personally innocent they are of any such thing. As Christy has said (and it bears much repeating) - if they’re going to criticize what they allege academics have been saying about racism, then it might behoove them to … you know … actually learn and understand what those scholars have been claiming.
4 Likes
I was focused more on this part:
“The white nationalist label is thrown at just about anyone who is white and a nationalist.”
Part of the problem is that people will excuse bad behavior by making the bad people into victims.
3 Likes