Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
White dude goes out of his way to write a specious takedown of a book even you think is enlightening on race and you want a detailed explanation of how that's a racist thing to do?
It's beyond evident that you enjoy bloviating at length about literally nothing, but you really shouldn't expect others to join you.
|
I think Ty might've more eloquently described your view. Do you think that anything which is not helpful to (or critical of) the cause of antiracism is racist? I suspect you do, though you'll deny it like crazy because when I write it so plainly, you can't help but realize how flawed such thinking is.
This is a very strange form of thinking I've seen emerge in the past 20 or so years. I think it started in politics, with Bush, or maybe Clinton. It neared peak during Obama's term, and has now gone off the charts in the Age of Trump.
It goes like this:
1. I think this president is awful;
2. I am committed to or desirous of his removal;
3. I am against those who like him;
4. But I am also against those who are not universally critical of him at all times;
5. I am against those who criticize the actions or positions of those who are against this president;
6. The only thing one may say about this president is that which is negative or damages him;
7. There can be nothing said about him which in any way is positive, even if I agree with one of his policies;
8. There can be nothing critical ever said about the efforts of those of us vehemently committed to his removal;
9. Even if we are wrong, or our thinking on an issue is poor, if our flawed policy or our action would help to damage or remove the president, it is okay, and if you say anything against it, you are the enemy
This can be applied to any number of things beyond the presidency, of course. It's a scorched earth way of thinking that sees only ends and feels justified in doing so.
Stridency replacing sanity.
