http://tigron-x.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
Entry tags:
Republicans should have safe places to preach misogyny and racism.
And Democrats should be the sole party that defines what is racism and misogyny.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Haha... no they don't.
If it can't be defined objectively, then it's nonsense. And white men are right to laugh at it.
If it can't be defined objectively, then it's nonsense. And white men are right to laugh at it.
Republicans are welcome to define "racism" and "misogyny," once they're able to get their heads around what it actually is.
Even if we were to drop the power dynamics element of the definition of "racism," the right's accusations of "racism" are bizarre and convoluted. They're not even talking about open discrimination against white people; they're talking about things like the slightly-less-than preferential treatment of white people or white people being accused of being "racist" when they quite plainly are.
Put simply, we can define racism "objectively." The problem is that Republicans still wouldn't know how to use that "objective" definition correctly. They want it to mean something other than what "racism" means. Specifically, they want "anti-racism" to be defined as "racism."
Put simply, we can define racism "objectively." The problem is that Republicans still wouldn't know how to use that "objective" definition correctly. They want it to mean something other than what "racism" means. Specifically, they want "anti-racism" to be defined as "racism."
And you've just presented another ultimatum. "You either agree with our ideology, or suffer the consequence of our actions."
You're not going to get what you want. The moral superiority you think exists on your side is a false one.
You're not going to get what you want. The moral superiority you think exists on your side is a false one.
Moral superiority does not require the acknowledgment of the inferior. Indeed, it would be incoherent if it did. Part of what makes the morally inferior so inferior is the lack of judgment, maturity, and sophistication inherent in that failed acknowledgment.
Like I said in my other comment, we can suspend the normal ideology surrounding "racism" and "misogyny" if you like, but even when we do so, it's hard to make sense of Republican claims to these terms but by seeing them as simple rejection of the concepts themselves.
Like I said in my other comment, we can suspend the normal ideology surrounding "racism" and "misogyny" if you like, but even when we do so, it's hard to make sense of Republican claims to these terms but by seeing them as simple rejection of the concepts themselves.
There is no power dynamic element inherent to the term. The only objective definition to racism is judging someone's character solely on race. And, that can be done regardless of one's social position.
If people extend the definition of racism to include people behaving ethnocentrically, then the truth is that everyone is racist because ethnocentricity is an innate human quality. From an evolutionary standpoint: Not knowing you're not with your tribe can get you killed. So, if behaving ethnocentrically is an element of racism, which is an innate quality, then that makes the label of racism meaningless as we would just be coming up with another word that implies tribalism.
Hence, the need for introducing a power dynamic. Those in a majority position are the one's in power, thus their innate ethnocentric behavior must be deemed immoral in order to give the minority groups leverage in a society that is not of their own kind.
However, as pointed above, the reality is that everyone behaves ethnocentrically. Thus, what "racism" is actually all about is the destruction of a white majority.
And, if you're in a position to achieve that, then you aren't oppressed. And, if you agree with this outcome, then you are actively advocating for the suppression of another race. And, that is a form of genocide.
This goes beyond the democrat VS republican dichotomy.
If people extend the definition of racism to include people behaving ethnocentrically, then the truth is that everyone is racist because ethnocentricity is an innate human quality. From an evolutionary standpoint: Not knowing you're not with your tribe can get you killed. So, if behaving ethnocentrically is an element of racism, which is an innate quality, then that makes the label of racism meaningless as we would just be coming up with another word that implies tribalism.
Hence, the need for introducing a power dynamic. Those in a majority position are the one's in power, thus their innate ethnocentric behavior must be deemed immoral in order to give the minority groups leverage in a society that is not of their own kind.
However, as pointed above, the reality is that everyone behaves ethnocentrically. Thus, what "racism" is actually all about is the destruction of a white majority.
And, if you're in a position to achieve that, then you aren't oppressed. And, if you agree with this outcome, then you are actively advocating for the suppression of another race. And, that is a form of genocide.
This goes beyond the democrat VS republican dichotomy.
Well, liberal logic isn't logic. So, good luck with facts absent of logic. It's just a language that makes no sense, except to the initiated.
Edited 2017-02-09 21:35 (UTC)
Today's ideology surrounding racism and misogyny is absent of sound logic. They're false moral theories. At this point, they're tantamount to the word 'heretic' or 'blasphemer'.
In order to prevent the 'genocide' of whites, I guess that means the country needs to maintain an overwhelming majority white population, right? About 70%, 80%? And to really be safe, those colored people that are citizens need to be largely relegated to lower labor positions. To be perfect, women shouldn't have reproductive rights and also should be kept to lower positions. Is that about it? Otherwise, it's reverse racism and reverse sexism, right?
Reverse racism and reverse sexism are stupid terms. It's not a one way street. Usually when you have a moral theory that isolates one group as capable of being racist, for example, but another group cannot be, then you have a bad moral theory. And, that's what we see being thrown around today. The reality is everyone is behaving ethnocentrically, but only one group is being vilified for it. And it deserves to be mocked for the absurdity that it is.
As far as your questions go, there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere. One that doesn't subvert the host population in favor of foreigners with anti-white policies. Otherwise you end up with a form of genocide.
I don't see why foreigners couldn't be granted various worker visas. But, they would have to go back to their own ethnocentric nation with the skills they've learned.
And, I have no idea what you're referencing, but women have plenty of reproductive rights. Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family. And it's absurd to think that's a lower position when it's an essential element to a thriving community of people.
As far as your questions go, there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere. One that doesn't subvert the host population in favor of foreigners with anti-white policies. Otherwise you end up with a form of genocide.
I don't see why foreigners couldn't be granted various worker visas. But, they would have to go back to their own ethnocentric nation with the skills they've learned.
And, I have no idea what you're referencing, but women have plenty of reproductive rights. Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family. And it's absurd to think that's a lower position when it's an essential element to a thriving community of people.
Maybe that would work if Capt. America was a commie.
In order to protect the fruits of the genocide of the Europeans against the Indians, it is important to prevent a sort of cultural genocide by multiculturalism, yes? And 'making America great' means keeping America white and white-led, right?
Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family.
And if they don't want to be childbearing housewives, they will just need to grin and bear it.
And the gays don't even make it in the equation, I suppose. Back in the closet?
Women tend to be happier when they're participating in making a family.
And if they don't want to be childbearing housewives, they will just need to grin and bear it.
And the gays don't even make it in the equation, I suppose. Back in the closet?
He beat up all sorts of totalitarians.
Maybe he'll start hitting liberals then since that's what they've been striving for.
You left out Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, and Margaret Thatcher.
In a similar vein as "RINOs" and "libtards," I'd suppose.
Anyway, you're moving the goalposts. Initially, you'd complained that any non-"objective" account of racism would be nonsensical. Now you're apparently claiming that "racism" per se is a "false moral theory." Is racism impossible, on your view?
Anyway, you're moving the goalposts. Initially, you'd complained that any non-"objective" account of racism would be nonsensical. Now you're apparently claiming that "racism" per se is a "false moral theory." Is racism impossible, on your view?
That sure presents things in a very twisted way. Women love bearing children and making a family. That's the stuff that makes most women happy because that is their true nature. The few exceptions you're referencing are not the norm. But, hyperbolic mantra like what you're touting has been trying to normalize this deviation by destroying the home women build with their men by depicting it as a cage, and now after a generation of that poison women are miserable -- evident by all the anti-depressants they're on.
This post modernism crap has taken everything and turned it on its head irrespective of any benefits produced by traditional ways. And lefties keeps doubling down until the entire society is destroyed from what it once was.
Basically, you have obliviously thrown the baby out with the bath water and pat yourselves on the back on how righteous you are for challenging all these traditional concepts. And, yet so many are drowning themselves in drugs, alcohol, and mindless TV to keep from pulling out their own eyes because they can't actually face the reality in front of their very eyes.
Lefties glorify...
-unhealthy eating;
-numbing oneself with drugs and alcohol;
-self mutilation;
-rejection of the womb and childbearing;
-emasculation of men;
And, that's just off the top of my head. Any notion that this ideology is liberating in any way is a complete sham. This is the decay of society, not the liberation of it.
MAGA is all about knocking this false god down and restoring all that was good again. And, no, it's not all about America being white led. Although any white person that thinks a white leader is evil or somehow wrong is being retarded and masochistic.
Multiculturalism is not and has not been the norm. The default has always been ethnocentricity.
So, you can take your ideology and hold up and worship it all you like. It's just another false god in the end.
This post modernism crap has taken everything and turned it on its head irrespective of any benefits produced by traditional ways. And lefties keeps doubling down until the entire society is destroyed from what it once was.
Basically, you have obliviously thrown the baby out with the bath water and pat yourselves on the back on how righteous you are for challenging all these traditional concepts. And, yet so many are drowning themselves in drugs, alcohol, and mindless TV to keep from pulling out their own eyes because they can't actually face the reality in front of their very eyes.
Lefties glorify...
-unhealthy eating;
-numbing oneself with drugs and alcohol;
-self mutilation;
-rejection of the womb and childbearing;
-emasculation of men;
And, that's just off the top of my head. Any notion that this ideology is liberating in any way is a complete sham. This is the decay of society, not the liberation of it.
MAGA is all about knocking this false god down and restoring all that was good again. And, no, it's not all about America being white led. Although any white person that thinks a white leader is evil or somehow wrong is being retarded and masochistic.
Multiculturalism is not and has not been the norm. The default has always been ethnocentricity.
So, you can take your ideology and hold up and worship it all you like. It's just another false god in the end.
No, I said the only objective definition that is valid is the one where judging an individual's character solely on race is erroneous.
If that's what racism was limited to, then I'd say run with it. But, that's not the case. So, from there I moved to tackle the moral argument that is actually being used when people invoke the term 'racist', This version is simply absent of merit because you can't have one group behaving ethnocentrically and holding that as moral or morally neutral while another group behaving in similar fashion is immoral. In the absence of objectivity you end up with this sort of inconsistency. That's why its nonsense.
If that's what racism was limited to, then I'd say run with it. But, that's not the case. So, from there I moved to tackle the moral argument that is actually being used when people invoke the term 'racist', This version is simply absent of merit because you can't have one group behaving ethnocentrically and holding that as moral or morally neutral while another group behaving in similar fashion is immoral. In the absence of objectivity you end up with this sort of inconsistency. That's why its nonsense.
maybe we can create a hate-freeze zone..
; '
; '
Page 1 of 9