I am NOT RACIST
But what I observe is that they who scream "racist" most loudly are taking out of context the comments presented.
My question is "Are we no longer allowed to have an opinion that is not conformist?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2021 02:31PM by thedesertrat1.

OPie's racist thrad ~


must now be deleated cuz ~


it is so racist ~

hey Ziller
are you saying that opinions are no longer allowed?

Opinions are like noses. Everybody has one.

I protest. In the Air Force we learned that opinions are like assholes.

>> My question is "Are we no longer allowed to have an opinion that is not conformist?"

Are you saying if your opinion is racist, its just not conformist?

You can have whatever "opinion" you want and so can others. I don't see it having to do with conformity.

Dude 1 opinion: I think (insert race here) are stupid, lazy and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Dude 2 opinion: I think you're a racist.

Let's see. You could care less about what the Mormons do and it is their business but you care about what is on T.V. and post about it here? Is there something I can help you recover from?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see. You could care less about what the
> Mormons do and it is their business but you care
> about what is on T.V. and post about it here? Is
> there something I can help you recover from?
Yes My insanity

What is "out of context" for you is well within context for others. Your perspective is likely very much different than the points of view of those who have suffered that which you haven't.

I agree

in before the news ~


media watches OPie ~



for his opinion ~

How does this:

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am NOT RACIST
> But what I observe is that they who scream
> "racist" most loudly are taking out of context the
> comments presented.

correlate or connect even peripherally in any way with:

> My question is "Are we no longer allowed to have
> an opinion that is not conformist?"

and "conformist" with precisely what?

================================

Do explain. Be my teacher. Please.

Thedesertrat1 wrote in part:

"...But what I observe is that they who scream "racist" most loudly are taking out of context the comments presented."

Human beings are not mind readers and you have absolutely no idea what the antagonizers in these situations are thinking.

That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I used to think the way you (at least according to your post) are thinking now. During the 1980s and 1990s, I became increasingly alarmed by those trying to keep the Hollocaust in everyone's memory. To me, it felt like those doing this were fixated on the past and that we should just acknowledge what happened and move on with our lives.

I've certainly changed my mind about this topic as I've now seen what happens as the generation who actually lived through the horrors of Naziism dies out. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, authoritarianism and Nazi-type thinking are on the rise. Populism, the belief that whatever group you are a part of is better than any other group which justifies the troddening down (sometimes violently) on the rights of minority groups, is very much on the rise worldwide. Back in the 1920s, Adolf Hitler took advantage of this unhealthy view of other human beings to rise to power and attempt to destroy the world. And now, in places such as Brazil and India and Poland and Hungary, one is seeing the rise of new and dangerous strands of authoritarianism determined to put down the rights of minorities and refugees.

While one might like to think otherwise, it isn't primarily those who converse with minorities with understanding and respect that are hurting those minorities; rather it is those throwing epithets at them who are now carrying those epithets further and performing violent acts against them.

Yes, we must treat individuals with respect; but we must also treat the groups those individuals belong to with respect even if we disagree with them on absolutely everything!

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Populism, the belief that whatever group you
> are a part of is better than any other group which
> justifies the troddening down (sometimes
> violently) on the rights of minority groups, is
> very much on the rise worldwide.

That isn’t even close to what Populism means, despite that kind of framing being repeated ad nauseum in the MSM.

Here is an interview with Thomas Frank that might help:

https://www.publicbooks.org/public-thinker-thomas-frank-on-how-populism-can-save-america/

Snippet:

CZ: In your current book, The People, No, you go after journalists for misdiagnosing populism and promoting anti-populism. You also argue that there’s a class interest behind that position, that journalists’ and elite intellectuals’ rejection of working-class movements stems from their interest in protecting their status and influence.

TF: Yes. Exactly so. The Populist movement, the people who invented the word, were not Trumpists or protofascists or any of that. They were a typical left-wing farmer-labor party. But the word got redefined so that “populism” meant “the built-in danger of working-class movements.” It meant, “Working-class movements are racist, they are sexist, they are xenophobic, and they represent mob rule.” Populism was in this way redefined as the opposite of rule by the white-collar elite: something inherently dangerous that you must do everything in your power to avoid or suppress. This is what I call anti-populism.

Anti-populism is all around us these days, and if you know anything about the original Populist movement it can be quite shocking.

I went to graduate school to study Populism in 1988. I’m from Kansas, and Kansas was the number one Populist state. When I got to graduate school—in history at the University of Chicago—it turned out that lots of other people were also writing about Populism. It’s this romantic thing, this left-wing party that never took off. It had its moment and then failed and died. Historians are drawn to it, though; they write about it constantly. So, I decided to write about something else and I changed subjects. When the word started getting abused around the time when Trump got elected, I decided to dust that old research off and to go have some fun with it.


There’s more in the interview, and much that American citizens desperately need to understand.

I'm in my 60s and see the word populist in the same way you do -- pertaining to working class interests, specifically economic interests. A politician with populist appeal is able to speak plainly to working people in a way that they can understand and connect with. However I don't see populist politicians as being necessarily liberal. I see them as speaking for "the little guy."

I'm trying to remember some good examples -- Ross Perot comes to mind. I think that President Reagan had populist appeal as well. Maybe Bobby Kennedy? Former President Trump has unfortunately hijacked populist appeal to include unsavory elements.

Ya, the right wing from Reagan on to the Tea Party and then to Trump have successfully hijacked the language of populism to serve Corporate interests. Harvard/Princeton types like Ted Cruz are successful at this. Thomas Frank is excellent on this hijacking in What’s The Matter with Kansas, which is actually the State Frank is from. Alberta is a lot like Kansas, in that it’s early Populist politics (Ernest Manning) was eventually inverted to, well, hose the very citizens that vote for this inversion at every possible turn.

But I think Frank’s insistence on capital “P” Populism is essential going forward, as he lays out in The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism. For anyone interested, here’s Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs interviewing Thomas Frank on Populism etc.:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/02/thomas-frank-on-populism-cool-brands-and-the-problem-with-the-democratic-party

Snippet:

NJR: Well, I don’t want to take any more of your time. I really appreciate you talking to me, and usually I like to end on an upbeat note, but I think that would be a disservice to your work.


TF: That would be a strange thing to do. Do you want to know what I’m working on now?


NJR: Yeah, let’s hear it.


TF: Populism. The real deal. The real deal. And also on anti-populism, which is in some ways even more fascinating. Why people hate populism, from 1896 to the present.


NJR: Isn’t that crazy? The Center of American Progress collaborated with the American Enterprises and I think they paid them a pile of money to do a joint study on the dangers of populism.


TF: I know. So I’m extremely partial to populism because I’m from Kansas and that’s one of the places where it caught on in a big way. And they took over the state and they did all these things. And every time I hear some European commentator describe some local racist as a populist, I’m like, “What the hell are you talking about?” You’ve got it completely upside down. They’re on the other side of that.


TF: I read an article that called Netanyahu a populist. You know?




Labels today are thrown around recklessly or, worse, propagandistically. I’m grateful to scholars like Frank for
cutting through MSM bullshit, and for being one of the few liberals left willing and able to call out the bullshit that passes for “liberal” today.

That is an erroneously narrow view of populism.

Your definition is founded in the 19th century--hence you speak of "a typical left-wing farmer-labor party." But populism is a Roman word about Roman phenomena, and there are scholars who have identified clear examples of populism in many pre-modern cases and many non-European countries. That fact should be your first clue that your definition is too narrow.

It is also wrong to ignore the evolution of the word since the 19th century. You state that populism "never took off," but that is only correct if you limit the term to European farmer-workers 150 years ago. You thus miss Huey Long, Mussolini, Hitler, Juan Peron, Mao Zedong, Stalinism and many other movements that tied populism to nationalism and created powerful modern political movements.

By this point the left-wing aspect of your definition no longer worked: populism had become a political technique of right or left adopted as a means to challenge existing social and political structures to people who considered themselves victims. That is the sense in which blindguy speaks of populism, and his usage is correct and correctly employed--as attested by the volume of books on the topic by top researchers and top publishers.

That's what some non-Americans must learn: that the meanings of words change over time, and blindguy's usage is apt and insightful in today's circumstances. Just as in Rome, politicians and movements are using populist techniques to attack constitutions and conservative institutions.

The first thing a racist will tell you is that he/she is not a racist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The first thing a racist will tell you is that
> he/she is not a racist.

Really? I've known plenty of racists who are open about their preferences, and "anti-racists" who say this before anything else.

The key point is that if you are continually thinking about race, even if you deny it exists and say racism is ubiquitous and systemic... Then you probably are a latent racist yourself. There are some extremely racist people on the left as well as the right.

You can say what you want but as with everything in life there are consequences for your actions. Say something racist, be prepared to be called a racist. If you are associated with a business, people have the right to spend their money where they want to. If you are a politician people have a right not to vote for you.

That doesn't make you a victim.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That doesn't make you a victim.

Like!

When you have to watch television to feel like a victim you probably have no idea what it is like to truly have been one.

Elder Berry LIKED me! :)

I always have! ;)

What MOST people mean when they say racist is prejudiced rascal, individual American, funky custom clown, or simply someone who is naive, or even careless, or someone who is bold, mean, ugly, or simply isn't afraid of what others think of them, their language, preferences, or activities.

MANY (maybe most) times, when the subject is brought up, online, it's not [nearly as much] about race as much as it is about preferences, habits, beliefs, choices and tolerances, as well as fears and alarm buttons, or whatever they might be referred to.

People have proclivities to treat "different" people differently, or not. People aren't following the golden rule, or even the golden-yellow brick road.

Everybody has their own prejudice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2021 01:19PM by moremany.

I think there are times when charges of racism are entirely justified, times when those charges are erroneous, and a large grey area in between. For instance, I've seen people be called "racist" for having racial preferences in whom they date and marry.

And yes, a certain mob mentality can set in for just about anything. As Susan I/S says, you are responsible for what comes out of your mouth, along with the consequences of that. Having said that, not everyone is going to be a fan.

The people who shout "racist" the most usually have unresolved issues of their own. If they see "systemic racism" everywhere, they probably have systemic racism on the brains.

It's like that guy who goes on about gays all the time and is caught with his boyfriend.

"To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Mark Twain

In that Order Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The people who shout "racist" the most usually
> have unresolved issues of their own.

You seem to shout a lot.

I don't much listen to what people say... blah blah blah...

I watch what they do.


Genesis 51:1-6

1) And the Lord bit His lower lip, rather than say what He was thinking, for He knew that Kishka, son of Abjubele, was high and that what he spake was nonsense, but it would serve the Lord no good to intervene at this juncture...maybe the next juncture, at Market St.

2) Thus it was that it went about in the Land of Bijadua that the Lord was not pleased by words, and that He judged not what His children said, but what they did.

3) And so it was that in the 919th year of Life on Earth, the Lord decreed that Men would be judged by their actions and not their words, unless their words were actionable, under three or more of the future 10 Commandments;

4) And He waggled a finger at the sons and daughters of men, and raised an eyebrow, and it went about in the land that the Lord was neigh on to becoming sophisticated and the people trembled.

5) But then arose Glen, son of Vlad and Dolores, alighting from his five-legged stool and he did begin to preach that whomsoever acted as he spoke, such would be a real mensch.

6) And so it was that among the people, some were real mensches and some were total dicks.

I've waded through the mire or your prose and think I've isolated the lone blossom of meaning.

People are saved by works and not grace.

Do I have that right?

My prose?

I am merely quoting the bible.



Personally, I’m convinced it’s not who you are, but who know.

Everything meaningful was determined during the War of Mighty Preexistence, especially after the Enchanté Offensive, when the tide seemed to have turned in Admiral Lucifer’s favor... what a mess that retreat was!!

Anyway, I’m totally toast. I’m destined for banishment to Outer Mexico...

Verse 6 erratum: some were mensches and some were total schmucks.

My spell checker didn't choke on either of those words, so I guess they qualify as English words now.

BTW, never expected to see the word Kishka on RFM, not to be confused with the mother-daughter team of Pysanky and Kitska.

"You never want to watch how kishka is made. It's as disgusting as legislation."

--Otto von Bismarck, upon leaving his Junker pig farm to assume the easier job of Minister President of Prussia

Some beliefs are wrong and contrary to fact, but some people believe them anyway.

-- or --


There are some things you just can't say in public any longer.


Which do you mean?

Or both?


Here are some (very racist) examples:

"I've always said [-----], my father said [-----], and nobody's gonna tell me different"

"Well, everyone knows that [xxxxx] are lazy and don't want to work, why should they get anything"

"[xxxxx] have different muscles and are more like animals than humans"

"[xxxxx] anatomy isn't the same, theirs is sideways"


"[xxxxx] always get cushy jobs. They are hooked into everything and control it all"