Please define "intersectionality"
What the McCain Eulogies Tell Us About the Media and the Regime
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
Please define "intersectionality"
That's just saying that Democrats are conservatives. You work hard to make no sense.
Since intersectionality is the foundation of racism, and also the main component of democratic success more and more since LBJ, your statement can only be wrong.
What I actually said was that in the past the Democratic Party protected the traditions of the South and resisted progressive action in both the legal and social spheres. When that changed the South found a new home in the Republican Party, as it began to transform (and partly with their help) into a much friendlier environment for their concerns.
How so?
Again, how so? If you're going to argue the points you need to support them with a framework of reason along with the connection to your conclusion in rebuttal.
No, what you said was "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of tradition". That's wrong because what "tradition" is changes. If you had said "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of a tradition of slavery", then you would have been more consistent, and correct. The protectors of the tradition of slavery were the democrats.
Democrat success is predicated on a coalition of groups of individuals based on superficial traits; non-white races, the have nots, women, homos, and any number of sub-groups within those groups.
Racism at its foundation decides one race is superior to another based on a superficial trait.
Once one accepts that a person's status is decided by a superficial trait, their belief about races and politics must be consistent.
I've actually said both in a number of threads where this has come up before. But they aren't mutually exclusive positions. I've noted the movement away from the Republican Party coincided with the rise of protecting and advancing minority interests on the heels of Johnson's Great Society and what followed.
Conservatives hold the line on social norms. In the South that meant laws predicated on racial distinctions. And so long as the Democratic Party defended them the South was on board.
No, because change is the result of progressive social forces. And conservatives hold the new line as the norm moves farther afield. That's why, as I noted in one thread on the topic, that Reagan once famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."
I know how much the party part matters to you, but you can't recognize that traditions change then pretend the parties that carried banners in relation can't or haven't, when they clearly have, supra.
And no, it wouldn't have been more consistent, because the issue of race relations is larger than slavery and at different times in our nation's history different parties have been at the forefront of dealing with them.
No, it isn't. That's as unfair as suggesting the Republican Party is mostly about white people, because most of its membership is white. As with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has a philosophical approach reduced to writing, a guiding ideology. Now what's been true for democrats for a while is that it tends to be a larger tent, with a greater diversity of opinion and membership.
You should avoid derogatory terms if you're going to mix it in with race, because it invites an ugly interpretation. Else, you just noted the Democratic Party isn't a superficial organization, because it hosts a diversity of interests. The Republican Party rank and file, by contrast, often try to push the less monolithic from their ranks, even creating labels like RINO to help them do that.
Right. Race.
The reason for a larger representation of minorities and women in the Democratic Party isn't because one superficial trait controls the mentality, but that minority interests, which are numerous and not always harmonious, dominate their process. It's the same reason you see corporate bosses and businessmen disproportionately within the Republican ranks.
That's what I said. And each minority is defined by their superficial trait. Go ahead, pick one; you can't do it without describing them by their superficial trait.
No, you didn't. Because you don't recognize that what you call superficial is anything but in terms of its impact on the individual and collective, historically and even to the present day. More on that in a moment.
Spoken like someone who has never had to think of being addressed, judged, restricted, and unfairly treated because of a trait you'd call superficial. And it's that association and treatment, for generations established in law and social restrictions that governed everything from property rights to essential human dignity, that makes what you call superficial something with a much more profound meaning than you appear to realize.
Gender isn't a superficial trait. It's pretty profound, biologically and socially. Race isn't superficial, for the reasons noted above. People who would call being part of a minority a superficial demarcation are almost guaranteed to be white and insulated from the deeper understanding of race, either by time and geography or a willful exclusion of the consideration. Because being white means never really having to address inequity as a part of your racial past and memory. The worst thing that happened to white people related to their race was affirmative action keeping a sliver of them out of certain institutions and opportunities routinely and generationally denied to minorities almost to a man.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I don't know about you but it seems to me that what white men are being attacked just because they are white:
"These matters of race and context arose yet again (as they have almost incessantly in recent years) when tweets by Sarah Jeong, a newly hired member of the editorial board at the Times, resurfaced last week. Jeong tweeted, among other things, “white men are ********”; “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture”; “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”; and “#CancelWhitePeople.” Jeong said in a statement that the tweets were intended to be an inversion of the racist and sexist trolling that had been a feature of her digital life—an attempt to fight racism by deploying its own language against it. She said, “While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.” She added that she understood how, out of context, tweeting such remarks was “hurtful,” and that she would not do it again. When the Times opted to stand by Jeong, apparently accepting her explanation, conservatives were quick to declare a double standard, pointing to the demise of Roseanne Barr’s show following her racist Twitter attack upon Valerie Jarrett and other incidents.
This is clearly a case of racism but despite that the New York Times hired the author of those horrible words. Frankly, I am glad that I am living in Mexico because it won't be long until even more people from the left in the USA declare all out war on white men and white women!
Today no one dares say anything bad about black men or the Muslims but it has reached a point where it is open season on Christians and white men.
I think there's a segment of society that's bitter about white privilege and the time it has taken to make serious inroads into that. I can understand it, but I don't find it productive for anyone.
I recall that one. I think she got upset and decided, without all that intellectual justification, to essentially give them a taste of it in reverse. To goad and denigrate. It's just rarely going to do anything positive for anyone. I believe that happened a few years ago, when she was early to mid 20s. An age of general foolishness and impetuosity to begin with.
Not as proffered. Now if she had a history of expressing that bias so that it wasn't just an emotional response (however layered in after the fact analysis and justification) it would be more troubling. I'd file it under young and ill considered absent more.
Given the demographic it's not a thing I lose sleep over.
Really? I hear an ongoing attack on Islam, whole cloth, in many a corner, despite the fact (as I tend to point out) that the thing that has so many irate or worse is actually a thing confined to a fairly small portion of Islam. And I hear people slamming BLM pretty consistently. Not sure why not slamming black men outside of particular conduct would be something anyone would want to do. I don't believe it's about being fearful, it's just an issue by issue, action by action thing that isn't necessarily tied to race, a-la Kaepernick. That is, it's not fear but the realization that trying to lump sum black men or any group by gene pool tends to be the business of racists.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You might like it OK but it scares me to death to start to see the New York Times hire people who are clearly racist against white people.
And it scares me even more to hear people defending them.
And it scares me even more to hear people defending them.
You're such a victim. Look at you, all sad.
Like the hire? I'm not a subscriber so it's not particularly important to me who works there. And as I noted in my last, she's offered an explanation. I think it's probably true at the core, that she was aiming at saying as hurtful a thing as she could say to people who offended her by race baiting.
It's not mature, but it's not necessarily anything else absent a history supportive of the charge. And here's the thing, if she's actually a racist it's only a matter of time before she lets that into her writing for the Times, at which point her career will end. Or, if she's racist but manages to keep it to herself then it's her ignorant business.
I'd be much more alarmed if I was certain she was a racist and she got a job at People. Because, you know, a lot of people actually read People magazine.
lain:You seem remarkably scarable. As of 2014 whites comprised around 77% of the population. So in an average room that would be like thinking almost 8 of 10 people should be scared over the potential that the remaining 2 or 3 folks might be racist. Given history, it's a lot more reasonable for the 2 or 3 to be nervous on the point.
If it isn't superficial, it's only because there are people that believe in intersectionality. And that would be liberals/left/democrats.
So, yeah, that proves my point.
And if you need to look further, just look at who would have the government try and change society based on intersectionality. Think things have changed since slavery? then realize that democrats codified almost all of Jim Crow laws.
Liberals weren't turning the dogs on blacks in Alabama or fighting the Civil Rights movement tooth and nail. Those people lived and died over the difference you call superficial. The importance of the distinction to the oppressor created its gravitas.
It will be superficial in truth when people stop investing in hating and being wary of others for their differences and look instead to their character.
Of course I do. I'm rational.
There was a time when the Democratic Party was the instrument of racial injustice, at least in the South. A champion of segregation and the social order that kept blacks disenfranchised. And then the party changed and those Southerners moved over to the Republican Party, where they and their descendents remain to this day.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you really believe that she might not be a racist?
Yes, the southern Democrats who did that in the past have turned over a new leaf since the mainstream press joined their team. Now they are doing their attacking through the liberal media!
SOUTHERN STRATEGY
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it but popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
- Kevin Phillips, Richard Nixon's political strategist
While Phillips sought to increase Republican power by polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level. Gradually, Southern voters began to elect Republicans to Congress and finally to statewide and local offices, particularly as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP...
From 1948 to 1984, the Southern states, for decades a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, a reversal of the position held by southern states prior to the Civil War. Some political analysts said this term was used in the 20th century as a "code word" to represent opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and to federal intervention on their behalf; many individual southerners had opposed passage of the Voting Rights Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
*********************************************************************************
The "Southern Strategy" was a cynical attempt by Republican strategists to polarize American politics by promoting voting along racial lines.
By "gerrymandering" and suppressing the "non-white" vote, the Republicans were able to maximize the "white" vote at the state and federal levels whereby they secured control of Congress and the White House in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote!
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it but popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
- Kevin Phillips, Richard Nixon's political strategist
While Phillips sought to increase Republican power by polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level. Gradually, Southern voters began to elect Republicans to Congress and finally to statewide and local offices, particularly as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP...
From 1948 to 1984, the Southern states, for decades a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, a reversal of the position held by southern states prior to the Civil War. Some political analysts said this term was used in the 20th century as a "code word" to represent opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and to federal intervention on their behalf; many individual southerners had opposed passage of the Voting Rights Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
*********************************************************************************
The "Southern Strategy" was a cynical attempt by Republican strategists to polarize American politics by promoting voting along racial lines.
By "gerrymandering" and suppressing the "non-white" vote, the Republicans were able to maximize the "white" vote at the state and federal levels whereby they secured control of Congress and the White House in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote!
Last edited:
Sure. I think she meant to give it back to the extent she could. It's not what I'd have done, but then I don't have the same history and, again, this is a mid-twenties mindset. Different animal.
No, Jerry. Now they're overwhelmingly republican. That's what the South is and has been for a while.
Since Eugene Bull Conner was a liberal/democrat/leftist, you again prove my point.
The Democrats/left/liberals were racially unjust because they tended to believe that some races were superior to others. And they could tell who was superior by the superficial trait of skin color. That's classic intersectionality.
You contend that the politics of republicans/rightist/conservatives became a more amicable group for people that believed in intersectionalty because of some reason. Perhaps that reason is civil rights legislation (that generally republicans supported and generally democrats fought), perhaps it was dog whistles by Nixon (that no one can identify), or because you say so (which is what you've offered so far).
But the fact remains that since Andrew Jackson, intersectionality drives the beliefs of the left/democrats/liberals/progressives. And it's more evident today than ever before in American history.