Why are liberals abscessed with race?

I don't think its unprompted. I would bet the OP saw the reasoning by the left as to why Youngkin won. Want to guess what their "reasoning" is?

 

If you are against teaching CRT in schools, against paying illegals aliens $450,000 each, against high gasoline prices, against kneeling at sporting events, against gun take-aways, against gov paid abortions, against free child care, against vax mandates, and against high inflation -- then you are not a democrat.

 

And the problem with this is?

 

And now the racists are speaking up.


Tweet

See new Tweets
Conversation





Jemele Hill
@jemelehill

It’s not the messaging, folks. This country simply loves white supremacy.

11:19 PM · Nov 2, 2021·Twitter for iPhone


https://mobile.twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1455766504650067971

 

How much does free childcare cost?

 

Truth is that race is being used as a political tool. True racism was virtually dead, huge changes have taken place.... and now, those are being reversed; the image of a black person is actually losing ground.
This is manipulation, and it's not legitimate. It's designed to appeal to the worst of people- to actually lower the bar, which is turn.... motivates people to vote for the sleaziest of politicians. It's a lot easier to promote hate than respect and performance. And consider this- All these sleazy examples that we from people in high office are also Examples-Role models that you children will see, and think- if they can, I can.... this it the way. Lose your temper, abuse and punish people to get your way. This is what they are training your kids to be.... as low as they are.

 

i hear that from conservatives far more frequently than i actually hear liberals call people racist.

also, if you are not racist why do you think they are talking about you?

 

Methinks the posters protest too much.

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You may want free child care or be willing to pay for others' child care. I always took care of my child's care and never asked someone else to pay for it. And I don't want to pay for anyone's child care. Free child care means you are taxed to pay for it, then a government department is set up to administer it, they will have a huge budget, then there will be rules and regulations and red tape. But some folks don't provide for their own, are too lazy, or actually think something from the government is free.

 

You haven't watched the video yet have you?

Not just that one though.

You have Marx.

And then you have Sweden . . .

What about China?


Leftist socialist countries aren't obsessed with race because they like racism.

 

You made a claim, I asked you to back it up and you won’t. Whiniest white guy? I’d ask you to back that up but you probably won’t do that either and then hit me with another ad hom.

Dont you get tired of everything being blamed on the white man? Even today, a white man beating another white man in a election is racist. When will it stop?

So you’re happy being white. Are you proud to be white?

 

Because slander is their weapon of choice. Why? It tends to divert attention from their own evils, and paint others as evil.
If you have no moral compass, that looks like a good choice.

 

Then you're not paying attention. Take the blinders off.

 

Abscessed or obcessed? Probably both.

 

To be fair two countries in Europe I am aware of definitely play race as much if not more than us. The ones I know of are the UK and Germany. Brexit was just as much about non citizens as it was about economics. Germany battled Muslim discrimination probably more than any other country out there.

 

Don't know but if it helps get people off of welfare I think its worth it.

 

Tough, life's not fair.

 

What is "the left"? How many individuals actually made any relevant statements to be representative of such a broad and ill-defined (and, notably in the context of this thread, international) grouping?

I've not followed the recent US elections but in general terms, I've seen Americans from all sides of the political divides bring race in to discussions in some way when it wasn't justified (or at least was significantly overplayed). The idea that this tendency (or indeed pretty much any other) is exclusive to any generically labelled political grouping is just wrong. It is interesting how much people can view themselves as being so fundamentally different to another when from the outside they're pretty much indistinguishable.

 

Well. Firstly. The terms left and right are rather meaningless. Seems like they're lazy phrases which are applied to discourse to avoid having to think about one's actual principles or to look at the critical issues in any complex/rational way.

Placing that aside, racism is just another form of collectivism. A very nasty form of collectivism, but still collectivism none the less. It's the same mindset which observes human beings as members of groups and never as Individuals just because they may share some superficial characteristics.

As racists, collectivists only see things through the lens of groups. They never think in terms of Individuals. Ever.

Now. I'm not going to use the term 'left' here. As I said, I think it's a rather meaningless, empty word in scope. What I would contend, however, is that the proponents of so-called 'diversity' routinely encourage the electorate to adopt a group mentality for the express purpose of perpetuating racism as a narrative. But the narrative is just a shortcut to promoting collectivism.

End of the day, collectivists need Americans to adopt a group mentality because it's the only way they can forward their agenda and influence policy. That's what they mean whe they say 'we gots the culture'

While their constant focus on race is itself racist (collectivist) and while the constant focus on race certainly perpetuates racism (collectivism), this is ultimately just a by-product of the same colectivist logic that defines modern liberalism itself.

The remedy to the collectivist/racist mindset of modern liberalism is limited, constitutional government, dedicated to the protection of Individual liberty rather than promoting and placating group claims. We should encourage the notion of a free society where human beings gain a sense of individual pride and responsibility rather than being indoctrinated to adopt a group/victim mindset.

Anyway. It's early in the morning. I likely could have expanded on it or perhaps explained a bit more thoroughly. But you get the idea.

 

Where did I say or even imply that this was exclusive to any political group? All that I did was respond to a poster that claimed the OP started the thread for no reason. That it was "unprompted".

If you care to you could take a look through my past postings admitting that both sides are not clean in their rhetoric. That they are just two sides of the same coin.

As for what is the left? Here: LINK: Left-wing politics - Wikipedia

Not all that ill defined after all hmm?

 

It is the clear intent of the OP you defended by repeating the accusation against "the left", generically and in it's entirety, still with zero backing. You've apparently concluded that anyone who refers to race in the context of that election must be part of "the left" because that is what "the left" does, so you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It may have been prompted by statements of specific individuals but even if that was the case, it doesn't justify attributing that negative position to, from their point of view, around half of the population of the world (not withstanding the implicit American-centric contradiction in the OP I highlighted).

How far do you need to go along this logic before you realise they're not really sides at all? The political partisans have infinitely more in common with each other, however far apart their positions might be, than they do with the a typically non-political person.

That just explains how varied, diverse and constantly shifting such terms are. The consequence is that saying "the left" or "the right" do anything is less than meaningless, especially with no context.

 

If people said that one of the top reasons that they voted for Youngkin, was because he was going to "remove," CRT from the schools (where it is not taught in any of the grades of public
education, K - 12), how does that not suggest at least an inclined willingness, if not even an eagerness, to embrace the idea of some anti-white conspiracy, or at a minimum, a strong bias against the white race, by government (which itself, is mostly white)?

 

And if you are against misrepresenting the truth, does that mean that you are not a Republican?

1) CRT is a COLLEGE-LEVEL course, and only for those who chose to pursue particular disciplines.

2) No Democrat has even suggested paying money to people, based solely on their being in the U.S., illegally. Please substantiate your bulls*** claim with proof. If there was any truth to it, Democrats would be against it as well-- so, more accurately, you should have written: if you're not against getting worked up, over unreal, anti-immigrant fantasies, then you're not a Democrat.

3) I don't even know how you are blaming Democrats for high gas prices. Something to do with legislation concerning a Green economy, which hasn't even been passed? You realize that it was Trump who pressured the Saudis to cut back on oil production, in 2020, to boost the price of our own petroleum, right? I can get you a link & a SNIP, if you'd like.

4) To be against a person's right to kneel, if he or she so chooses, at a sporting event (or almost anywhere) is to be against FREEDOM. I encourage you to think about that.

5) Taking away people's guns is not a stance of the Democratic Party, if there are even any Democratic Congressmen who are on the record, advocating this. Once again, your post should have read, "if you subscribe to the hyper-paranoia, that any control whatsoever, on access to firearms by anyone, is only the first step in disarming every American, then you are not a Democrat."

6) Free child care has not been proposed-- that is yet another of your gross exaggerations/untruths/woefully ignorant beliefs. The actual proposal is to cap child care expenses at 9% of one's total income. The intention-- if I need explain it-- is to allow people to afford to work (which Republicans, purportedly, favor) while also raising a family (which is also part of the Republican imagery).

7) No Democrat favors, "high inflation." What I assume you must mean, but are describing dishonestly, by omission, is that Democrats support the idea of an increase in the current minimum wage, which has lagged far behind our country's growth in productivity, executive pay increases, and the rate of inflation in various areas (such as in medical costs/insurance). In short, Democrats are for what they call a, "living wage," and against leaving low-wage workers out of our country's growth in prosperity, which has compounded an unmaintainably-growing disparity in wealth.

If your post were considered representative of Republicans, in general, its message would be that they, as a Party, are against honest debate of any issues; hardly something to tout.

 

You know by allowing the police to investigate, and then paying attention to the results. Let me give you an example. Three female students at Syracuse University filed a police report claiming they were assaulted by several white men on a local city bus. This made national news, and the liberals through them this big rally. Right after the rally, the three women were arrested for filing a false police report. The real story was that these three women were harassing, including physically assaulting, a white woman on the bus. Several male passengers on the bus, including blacks, intervened to stop the assault. The driver stopped the bus and ordered the three women off the bus. So, they called in the fake report. Now, the initial story made national news, but the aftermath did not. So, unless you follow some conservative news sources, or read the Syracuse Newspaper, you would continue to think that these three women were in fact victims of racism. But the facts disprove it.

Sometimes, you just have to take a step back, and view a situation through the eyes of common sense. Not too long ago, a college student body was holding a rally to protest the name of the building on the campus. The building was called the Lynch House. What they failed to realize was that the building was named after the family whose donations funded it. It had nothing to do with the ideology of hanging someone. Then there was the recent story of the President of a college campus conservative law student group that was sending out flyers announcing an open house party. It used the phrase "drop house". Where he came from the phrase was used by everyone to mean a wild party. Yet, some black students claimed that the chapter President was appropriating their culture. The school leadership wanted him to read a statement on the schools TV station. They even wrote a script for him. He refused. Instead, he offered to post a statement on the same chatroom where he had posted the flyer. He said that he would welcome the chance to address the issue with those that claimed offense. The school claimed it was not enough, and threated the expel him. When the media got wind of the situation, the school changed their tune. What this shows is that sometimes something that is perceived to be racist has no racial intent at all.

And yes. Sometime it really is racism. Something that really needs to be discouraged by all parties, but that includes racism by minorities also.

 

Not me. Probably over 1/3 users here are Non-Americans.

Because Racism is a big problem throughout the world. Most liberals address this problem. Most conservatives don't care about racism.