(no subject)
10/10/13 13:11![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDemocratic Underground, 2002 -- In the eyes of many modern conservatives, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is a battle between the Godly and the Satanic. To call this mindset a rejection of civility is to seriously underestimate the danger it poses. It's a rejection not merely of civility, but of the assumptions about tolerance and equal access that drive our political process….
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 17:31 (UTC)It doesn't, no. That's the point of the closed doors thing, when it gets out into the open it becomes the problem.
White privilege much?!
Not a thing.
David Duke got elected to federal office. You have offered no explanation for David Duke could not get elected to local office.
You realize that was 25 years ago in a very unique circumstance, right? There is no reason to believe it could ever happen again, as those circumstances are unlikely to ever align in such away again. There are too few racists to make it happen, and no racist with Duke's profile available to get into a position to be a serious contender.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 20:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:46 (UTC)How have you gotten this far in life and not learned what "behind closed doors" actually means???
According to you, it is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to behave racist, behind closed doors.
But fuckit, why not just ask:
What do you mean, when you say "behind closed doors"?
When I say it, I mean "in private". That is, a racist who is racist "behind closed doors" is a racist "in private" which means he will not publicly discuss his racism, but that does not mean he will not act upon racism.
Fuck man. Why the hell do you think the KKK wear hoods? Anonymity, because they are PUBLICLY different people than they are PRIVATELY.
What the hell.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:48 (UTC)Right. If he's now acting on his racism, it's not quiet and in private anymore.
Fuck man. Why the hell do you think the KKK wear hoods? Anonymity, because they are PUBLICLY different people than they are PRIVATELY.
So tell me this: if there's a guy who owns the shop down the street, and he's a member of the KKK, but he hires minorities and serves everyone, what does that result in?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:20 (UTC)WHAT DO YOU THINK RACISM IS?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:37 (UTC)He could.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:42 (UTC)The more you avoid this question, the more obvious it becomes.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:49 (UTC)"We got a raghead in the White House"
PLEASE tell me how that is not racist.
on second thought, do not dothat, because it is racist, please admit it is racist and he is an elected official.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:00 (UTC)There was NO COMEDY IN IT! It was a racist comment and you are accepting his back-track as if it was fact.
If referring to Obama as a "raghead" is not evidence of racism, WHAT IS?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:01 (UTC)He's probably not going to answer this.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:05 (UTC)Did you note, upthread, where he says that any action taken is "not behind closed doors" since if you take an action, it cannot be private?!
He is so far unhinged, it is really hard to imagine he is a real human who believes this.
How can he claim that "racism behind closed doors can do no harm"? Oh, cause he claims that ANY ACTIONS mean it is not behind closed doors. It is the most insane idea....it's really hard to believe.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:11 (UTC)I don't recall saying I found it funny.
There was NO COMEDY IN IT! It was a racist comment and you are accepting his back-track as if it was fact.
It was a racial joke, sure. Stupid, racist joke, but the intention does not appear to be malicious.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:01 (UTC)What we can be sure of is: elected officials make racist remarks. I have given you a documented case and you have decided to allow it to be called a joke. But guess what? THERE WAS NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT IT
There was no punch-line. There was no pun. There was NOTHING FUNNY AT ALL
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:03 (UTC)http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/video-exclusive-raghead-attack-on-nikki-haley
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:08 (UTC)You're parents did a bad job of raising you and schools did a bad job of educating you. Tragic.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:13 (UTC)If a friend tells you that you "gypped" him, not understanding the etymology of the term, is that racist?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: