> one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time)
This completely ignores the actual racism that exists, and makes the social left out to be some group of insanely judgemental people that are so furious for reasons as small as "[people don't] talk about systemic racism all the time"
I don't know anyone who's mad about people not talking about systemic racism all the time. But I do know a lot of people who are furious about racism, and they talk about racism much more than "omg can you believe that someone doesn't support Affirmative Action" Or "wow, this person isn't thinking about systemic racism 24/7? How racist of them!"
Yes, people do discuss "race-targeted policies", and people can get judged for not agreeing with them. And although a certain degree of tribalism definitely exists (on both sides), if someone could provide me a good, clear argument against a "race-targeted policy" that also accounts for the issues that policy seeks to fix, then I'd happily agree with them (and not think they were racist). It's a shame so many discussions about those policies end up being arguments over the definition of racism (instead of, you know, how to lessen its extent and effects), and that is the problem with both sides.
You may agree with that - if you do, I'll turn it around on you and ask - if what I said was a blatant strawman, why does it seem like the majority of the social-right in America think that the social-left automatically consider them racists? That's a message I hear continuously from the American right-leaning press. Either there really is something there; or the media is misrepresenting how the right-leaning community thinks; or the right-leaning community thinks that but are flat-out wrong.
I also hear all three things when discussing systemic racism - it is really there; the media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists; or the people in question do think there's a problem, but they're wrong and should get on with life.
You seemed to take offense at what I think was a pretty gentle characterization the tribalism seems to dominate discussion nowadays. (Well, offense at my description of one side of it, anyhow.) I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism. I don't think either are helpful to discourse or solutions.
> media and academics are whipping up a problem where none exists
TL;DR: a large number of social-right people say very racist things.
Here's the long version. I feel like you're completely ignoring the fact that racism exists, and ignoring all of the racist comments made by social-right. It feels disingenuous, but if you honestly don't see the social-right making racist comments, please look into what Republicans in America say. Here's an example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018...
Of course, that's not representative of all Republicans. For example, read the first and third paragraph of this: https://politi.co/2xDyEqc and you'll see an example of one republican being very racist, and another (DeSantis) denouncing that racism. But here's a list of things DeSantis has also said: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/eight-times-ron-desantis-...
While you might not consider all of those things racist, I'm sure you can agree that some of them are. You aren't outwardly denying that social-right people say racist things, but you aren't factoring it in either.
> You seemed to take offense ... I think there's a parallel between your response to me and the response many socially-right people have toward systemic racism
I agree tribalism is bad. In hopes of not being tribalistic, I'm providing you with lots of clear explanations and evidence so that we're on the same page. I'll explain my offense again. You said this:
>>> one side thinking (and saying) the others are racists because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time)
If you read through my links of racist rhetoric Republicans use, you should be able to see why it's outrageous to say that people of the social-left are mad about social-right not talking about racism all the time. Social-left people are mad about the racist things social-right say.
TL;DR: you are incapable of separating minority views that tend to choose one party from the views of people in the party in general.
>what Republicans in America say. Here's an example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018....
What a Neo-Nazi running as a Republican says != "what Republicans say". Someone can piss on the subway but that doesn't mean all subway riders piss on the subway nor does it make the description accurate.
Are you comfortable with the everything a few Democratic party members say being associated with the entire party? Cortez claimed that unemployment is low because people are working multiple jobs[1]. Do you think it's now fair to claim that "Democrats have no understanding of economics"?
>I'm providing you with lots of clear explanations and evidence so that we're on the same page.
Once you are convinced of something, it's easy to go through and find anecdotes to support your views like you have. But that doesn't make your broad claim any more true.
>If you read through my links of racist rhetoric Republicans use,
Again, that's not what you provided. You provided links of some Republicans using racist rhetoric. Until you understand that distinction and stop making conclusions based on that confusion, you are part of the problem.
It's unlikely you would be convinced all Democrats are racists if you were provided with anecdotes of Democrats being racist. Why are you so happy to accept that logic for Republicans (other than them being the out-group of course)?
1. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ocasio-cortez-wrong-on-cau...
Racism has been talked about for decades, centuries, yet we still haven't realized people are tribal. People are apprehensive against those not in their tribe. If I were in a position to hire someone and I had two equal candidates but one of them was a veteran I am going to hire them because we share a common tribe - we will understand each other better. Does this mean I am against the other person? No it just means I stuck with my tribe, and I won't apologize for that, its animal nature. It could come down to race, where they are from or any number of points that allow me to connect with them on a more personal level.
A large chunk of the racism talks I see come from the west coast (maybe biased as I live on the west coast and I am in tech), but the biggest thing I've seen is the most of them have never actually lived around a majority of black people. Originally, I am from the New Orleans (yes there are race issues there) so being around black people is quite natural. More importantly, I've lived in other countries, traveled through Europe and Asia, and lived/travel through the US. So being around other non-white folks is quite natural. Do I seek people like me to be around, yes. Does that mean they are white? No. Could they all be white? Yes, but that might be due to the demographics of where I am at the time.
Though most importantly, race issues have exploded due to the media, social media and politicians. Talk to REAL people and get to know them (talk to them as an equal) and you will see most people aren't racist, sexist or any other form of ist, we are people trying to make it in this world.
Lastly, I don't believe anyone in America is oppressed due to their race. Socio-economic status is far more oppressive and harder to get out of. For me it was the military along with a good portion of others I served with. One thing the military teaches and shows you is that race is not an indicator of how well you will do, it is your work ethic and commitment. Those who see this do well.
Are those, where the military is not an option, left without options? I couldn't say but its not do to race but their socio-economic status as I said above.
You must have not read enough of the article to see that the Neo-Nazi was polling second (first was the incumbent). Also, I didn't say the party in general was racist. I had a very simple thesis that you were mischaracterizing the social left!
> You provided links of some Republicans using racist rhetoric
See, you do understand my links - those are (some) Republicans using racist rhetoric. But why don't you get my thesis that "it's outrageous to say that people of the social-left are mad about social-right not talking about racism all the time"? It's very simple. The social-right does say racist things (NB: I'm not saying "everyone in the social-right does it") and clearly what social-left is mad about.
Your comment implied the social-left is mad about the social-right not talking about racism all the time, when really, it's because the social right says racist things (again, I never said "every social-right person does this").
> It's unlikely you would be convinced all Democrats are racists
I'd like to point out that I'm not a Democrat, nor am I defending Democrats. I'm pointing out that you're mischaracterizing the social-left big time when you say that what we care about is "everyone must think about racism all the time!" Also, I know tons democrats who make all kinds of racist remarks. I never said (nor do I think) that being a democrat == not being racist.
> What a Neo-Nazi running as a Republican says != "what Republicans say"
He's a Republican. Look up other Republicans and you'll see similar (although not always as inflammatory) racist quotes. I'm not saying "every Republican says racist things".
No it doesn't, but nice way to land into the left stereotype that the poster identified. Both sides can easily believe racism exists but have pretty wide gaps on how it should be addressed.
>if someone could provide me a good, clear argument against a "race-targeted policy" that also accounts for the issues that policy seeks to fix, then I'd happily agree with them (and not think they were racist).
Sure, any policies that give preference to a race that create an "equality of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity" environment are just trying to offset racism with more racism and are inflaming divides.
Example: Stanford choosing black students over equally (or even more qualified) Asian students due to race-targeted diversity policies. This leads to Asian students doubting the black students are as qualified as them, which leaves a lot of pressure on black students to prove they are there for the right reasons.
Sorry, but that post did completely ignore that racism exists, and it made the social-left out to be people who are mad about others who don't "talk about systemic racism all the time", which is outrageous. If you re-read that comment, you'll see that they did ignore the racism that occurs, and focused on the idea that social-left people are just complaining about stupid things.
> Both sides can easily believe racism exists but have pretty wide gaps on how it should be addressed.
Agreed, and that's not what I was talking about. The comment made social-left people out as caring about stupid details like "YOU MUST TALK ABOUT RACISM FREQUENTLY" instead of caring about things like actual racism
> Stanford choosing black students over equally (or even more qualified) Asian students
I'd like to say that while we disagree about how to "fix racism", this is a perfect point. You aren't picking white people like most people do, you're picking Asian students, who make the highest scores of all demographics.
> leaves a lot of pressure on black students to prove they are there for the right reasons
Talk about hitting the nail on the head! This is a serious problem. I totally agree. We have different ideas of how to solve the problem, but we can both agree that this sucks.
It seems like it has more to do with one's views of the relative position of cultural values ("America is pretty good at equality of opportunity" vs. "America has some important systemic challenges around race that compromise equality") rather than level of racism on either side.
Unfortunately that difference seems to get misinterpreted both ways - with one side thinking (and saying) the others are racist because they don't support various race-targeted policies (or talk about systemic racism all the time), and the other side accusing the social-left of creating divides and problems by stoking race issues.