oscarBravo wrote: » Really. Not that it would matter if I had; individuals can say all sorts of stupid things. The fact that someone may have claimed that black people can't be racist against white people doesn't negate the message of BLM, no matter how utterly desperate some people are to negate that message at all costs. Because, let's face it, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people who only too eager to reject out of hand the idea that black lives matter. Framing that rejection in empty truisms like "all lives matter" is just a way of saying "no, black lives don't matter" while still managing superficially not to look blatantly racist.
Yourself isit wrote: » Really?
midnight city wrote: » We are talking about the west. The subject is the alt right. They are not in the countries you mention.
marienbad wrote: » So where are these left wing authoritarians in the west then ? Una Mulally ?
midnight city wrote: » They are to be found in campuses all over America for a start.
marienbad wrote: » I remember reading a few books and articles years ago along those lines . Please don't ask me to link to them as I wouldn't have clue how to find them now . But they were all part of the expending and exploring theology of the black experience in not just the USA but the western world in general .You could actually find a similar arc in jewish literature on the Holocaust - going from initial shame through acceptance to resistance . I am sure you could find the same on the Irish Famine or the Armenian Genocide It is interesting that at every stage the 'perpetrators ' for want of a better word resisted this enquiry and always at the end said ok ok we recognise your pain etc etc , apologies - is that not enough for you blah blah blah . But to your point -it was out of these inquiries that ideas like compensation for slave descendants/ rejection of slave names and religion / and the notion that all white people were inherently racist and that black people were not . But these were discussions papers and have to be taken in the totality . The notion was the if the prevailing power was White then it was impossible being brought up in that world not to be racist and that those at the bottom of the pile being racist in return was just a meaningless idea given the balance of power. The imbalance is so vast that the notion is laughable or so the argument went ( if I remember correctly ) Made a big impression on me anyway The same of course would have applied to Irish Catholics in the 19th century , or Christians in China today .
Yourself isit wrote: » I've no idea what any of that means.
Yourself isit wrote: » The ideology of white privilege or supremacism as promoted by American universities insists that racism is both prejudice and power. So blacks can't in fact be racist.
20Cent wrote: » Did she say it shouldn't have been published at all or in the Irish Times? Difference there. People expect a high degree of truthfulness from that paper.
Should an opinion piece advising parents not to vaccinate their children be published? Old people shouldn't bother with flu shots?
How about advertisements disguised as stories.
Not as straightforward as "shutting down" or censorship. More about quality.
Brian? wrote: » You seem to see any type of editorial bias as censorship. I disagree. Publishing an article means that the editor of a newspaper has given tacit approval or at a bare minimum agreed that it's contents are intellectually robust.
In your vision of a world free of editorial bias, all ideas will hold equal validity and worth. This simply isn't the case though. An article praising Hitler's dealings with the Jews doesn't deserve to be published by the Irish Times and I'm happy for the editor to dismiss it as not worth publishing.
There is no right to free speech in Ireland, unlike the US. There are hate speech laws that already prohibit publishing some types of opinion. I wouldn't like to see it changed.
marienbad wrote: » SO you did understand me after all !:)
20Cent wrote: » Folks freedom of speech refers to freedom from government interference.
It doesn't mean everyone has to listen to your speech and not criticise or reply to it.
oscarBravo wrote: » I won't deny that it's blowback, but the idea that black people should have just shut up and accepted that they were disproportionately victims of police violence is abhorrent. If you're fighting for equality in the context of gross inequality, it's not "idiotic" to point out that you are disproportionately disadvantaged. I probably should have read this far before replying.
I have never - not once, ever, in my entire life - seen the claim that a black person can't be racist against a white person. Maybe you have, but I very much doubt that you can substantiate the bizarre and egregious claim that the "regressive left" (a loaded and meaningless term if there ever was one) has collectively made such a claim.
The idea that BLM was responsible for this abhorrent hate crime is a bare-faced lie - and it's only made worse by self-styled "reasonable" people arguing that if black people would only shut up about their very real problems, they wouldn't have to worry about backlash from racists.
Yourself isit wrote: » I'm not agreeing with that though. I don't think that power is entirely structural. And monolithic. It's multifaceted and largely class, not identity, based. So a black boss can discriminate against a white employee and can be racist. In the case under discussion the white guy is clearly powerless as he is tied up. On the other hand a black man calling his boss honky isn't much to worry about. What identity politics misses it that class and nationality trump race in most cases (see Oj). That said even rich black Americans have to worry about the police.
Palmach wrote: » She is an authoritarian leftist.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Explain which part of the article was factually incorrect?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » If they are clearly marked as opinion pieces rather than factual stories, sure.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Again, if they are clearly marked as sponsored or promoted content, sure. I'm pretty sure the IT already has these, btw.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So the opinions of an unpopular group are automatically low quality? Got it.
20Cent wrote: » It doesn't mention white supremacy anywhere. Bit like talking about Neil Armstrong and not mentioning the moon. Well I wouldn't, expect higher quality information in the Irish Times.
Think they are as well. Yes it is important to distinguish news from advertising.
Not at all. If you went into a posh restaurant and they served you a microwaved lasagna you'd complain also. Would expect anything in the Irish times to be of a higher quality. If I want to read trash I'd buy the daily mail or one of them.
marienbad wrote: » How can you seriously post this ??? Virtually every country in the democratic western world has moved to the right in the last 20 years , some of them seriously so .
RDM_83 again wrote: » Thats not really true for the discussion we are having here though. Economically there has been a movement to the right but socially there has been a movement to the left. Whats considered hard socially right now would have been a centrist/center right position 2 or 3 decades ago. A really good example is Chancellor Kohl, hailed as one of the great centerist european politicians sought to deport half the Turkish population, thats a position that would be labelled as far right populism today yet people on the social left think that the voting public has moved socially right when in reality its that the polite dialogue has moved to a social left.
marienbad wrote: » dialogue might have moved left but power has moved right .
RDM_83 again wrote: » Not at all, power has moved to free market globalism morally justified by left wing internationalist thinking, the backlash against this is has far less power, Le Pen's campaign is in serious financial difficulty a similar movement on the social left would be hitting up sources of funding like George Soros and other mega wealthy globalist social liberals rather than having to beg to Putin.
marienbad wrote: » social liberalism is a different kettle of fish to financial liberalism . it reality social liberalism is just a vast talking shop amidst a shift in real power to the right .
RDM_83 again wrote: » But social liberalism is used to give a philosophical justification for globalist financial liberalism e.g financial liberalism benefits from increased migration of lower skilled workers as it reduces labor costs and workers rights due to increased competition which hits the bottom 5-10% of society, social liberalism justifies this with the idea of open borders/internationalism/one world type thinking and the labeling of criticism as racism.
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » ? The founder of BLM is on the FBI's most wanted list, is a cop killer ... ... .
hatrickpatrick wrote: » BLM has nothing to do with the crime.
I'm simply saying that the above sentiment (white people cannot be victims of hate crime, because privilege) is why some on the alt-right seem to be happy that a white person has been a demonstrable victim of hate crime.
It gives them ammunition against the regressive left.
Personally I find it vile that anybody would celebrate an act of violence like this because it helps them to score political points, but I can still understand why it's happening.
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » Come on now , you can't say someone who says all lives matter is racist ! All lives matter literally means "all lives matter" black lives included.
What people don't like about BLM is the thuggery it attracts...
The founder of BLM is on the FBI's most wanted list, is a cop killer ...
The problem is one of police brutality, white people get shot too, just the MSM won't cover it.
And yes I am aware of the disproportionate amount of black men getting shot by police, but unfortunately this is due to the disproportionate amount involved in crime...
