Do you agree with the Black way of seeing the world? Oh . . . wait a minute. There is not one "Black" way of seeing the world and this is one of my biggest problems with modern social justice/CRT rhetoric. This video illustrates the how misguided it is to try to shove people into ideological or political silos based upon immutable physical characteristics.
I enjoy reading the writings of Freddie deBoer, who describes himself as a "Marxist of an old-school variety." Here is an excerpt from his most recent Substack post: Title is "I want a political movement that is . . .
We would be concerned first and foremost with reality, and we would therefore privilege “is” statements over “ought to be” statements. My ideal movement would recognize that the obsession with the symbolic has become a road to nowhere for the left-of-center. Our relentless habit will be to say, what does this do for actually-existing poor people? What does this do for actually-existing Black people? What does this do for actually-existing women or gay or trans people? What does this policy, argument, or claim do in fact, for real human beings, in material terms? Put another way, if we got our way, could we see the effects of that with our own two eyes? I can see hungry Black kids getting food. I can’t see white liberals “holding space” for Black people. We must return to the real. It’s past time . . .An effective left movement would identify building a mass movement by appealing to the unconvinced as its most central, most essential goal. All strategies and messaging would be bent towards the goal of rational appeal to potential supporters. We would identify obscurantism, factionalism, purity signaling, and other behaviors that limit the potential numbers of the movement as counterproductive. We would limit the use of specialized vocabulary and other forms of in-group signaling. We would constantly consider how our practices and discourses actually grow or fail to grow the ranks of the movement.
We would not abandon principle in the name of popularity, but we would insist that principles that inherently exclude large swaths of the human population cannot be the basis for a successful movement. We would seek to welcome, not alienate, those not already convinced. We would utilize traditional democratic principles such as voting and representation for decision-making. We would recognize that all “flat” movement structures, leaderlessness, and other anti-hierarchical systems of decision-making have repeatedly failed as means of governance in past left-wing movements. We would affirm and defend the rights of minority voices and dissent within the decision-making process. We would recognize the basic, beautiful radicalism of voting and democracy and defend them against the tyranny of structurelessness . . .
We would recognize that left movements have traditionally suffered terribly from assaults on individual rights, such as in anti-Communist purges, redbaiting, and anti-left eliminationism. We would acknowledge that the illiberalism and rights-trampling of several so-called Communist governments in the 20th century prompted an enormous backlash to left anti-capitalism. We would understand that a robust, functional left social movement would be strong enough to live alongside those who disagree with it, and would have no need of silencing them. We would move confidently in the knowledge that our core beliefs will eventually win because they are correct, and so feel no particular desire to silence those who dissent from those beliefs.
There is no evidence that Joe Rogan has ever used the N-Word as a racial slur. He has discussed the word and joked about the word, but there is no evidence he has ever used the word as a racial epithet.
CNN hires writers who refuse to acknowledge the use/mention distinction. It's a very bad thing to use the N-Word as a racial slur. There are valid and admirable reasons for mentioning the full N-Word. For instance, professors should be admired for mentioning the N-Word when teaching the brutal and despicable history of American slavery. Or when discussing language or culture. CNN must certainly understand this distinction between using a word and mentioning it, but acknowledging this very basic thing doesn't fit CNN's mission: dismantling Joe Rogan's big audience by pandering to CNN's increasingly woke but numerically dwindling audience. Many have suggested that CNN is doing this out of jealousy, given CNN's paltry audience numbers.
Or maybe CNN finds it much easier to attack Rogan for something trivial than to do the hard work of reporting real news, something CNN used to do.
Here's Coleman's tweet. I agree entirely with this sentiment and I enjoyed the entire thread of comments. Use of the N-Word as a racial slur is (and should be) socially and morally abhorrent. Mentioning the N-Word where it is not being hurled as a slur should not a big deal, but it is a big deal to those who believe in religious taboos. CNN apparently believes that the N-Word is like the word "V------." OK, I'll actually risk death by writing it out: Valdmort.
For an in-depth, riveting and enjoyable discussion of the use of the N-Word through U.S. history, consider reading linguist John McWhorter's excellent book, Nine Nasty Words (2021). Here is the description from Penguin's website:
One of the preeminent linguists of our time examines the realms of language that are considered shocking and taboo in order to understand what imbues curse words with such power–and why we love them so much.
Profanity has always been a deliciously vibrant part of our lexicon, an integral part of being human. In fact, our ability to curse comes from a different part of the brain than other parts of speech–the urgency with which we say “f&*k!” is instead related to the instinct that tells us to flee from danger.
Language evolves with time, and so does what we consider profane or unspeakable. Nine Nasty Words is a rollicking examination of profanity, explored from every angle: historical, sociological, political, linguistic. In a particularly coarse moment, when the public discourse is shaped in part by once-shocking words, nothing could be timelier.
BTW, I highly recommend the podcast of Coleman Hughes. He seems entirely too young to be as wise as he is on so many topics. Check him out!
Andrew Sullivan points out ADL's decision to take a reasonably clear and understandable definition of racism, replacing it with Woke mush that invites eternal confusion and strife:
I spotted Sullivan's tweet the day after Joe Biden promised that his nominee for the next Justice of the Supreme Court would be a black women. Hmmm. That's the equivalent of telling all highly qualified Asian-American, Latina-Americans and many other highly qualified potential candidates that they will categorically not be considered for this upcoming job opening because of their race, color . . . sex, or national origin.
Oh, one more thing. In this country it is
an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices. In my opinion, it would be a wonderful thing to have a black woman Justice on SCOTUS. That person should be appointed for only one reason, however: Because they would make an excellent judge. Their skin color is irrelevant to me and it should be irrelevant to any person filling any job in the United States.
It is sad and destructive that so many people in the U.S. are working so hard to roll back the clock to earlier destructive times when we should pay attention to a person's skin color. I look forward to the day when a person's skin color is arguably the least interesting thing about them.
Looking forward, it will be crystal clear that the person who gets Biden's appointment was chosen because she was a woman and because she was black. Colin Wright is spot on:
Matt Taibbi points out that we are too busy arguing with each other about masks and vaccinations to notice major league corporate theft. His Substack article at TK is titled "Vaccine Aristocrats Strike Again: As yokel-bashing reaches impressive new heights, reports of yet another year of record profits and a widening wealth gap go unnoticed." Here's an excerpt:
[W]ithout constant drumbeats about the treacherous stupidity of anti-vaxxers and “domestic terrorists,” at whom would the bulk of Americans’ anger be directed now?A good guess would be people like the Fed-fattened private equity takeover artists who were just reported to have swallowed a trillion dollars in companies last year. These are people who force conquered companies to issue reams of new debt to pay them bonuses (taking advantage of a massive public bond-buying program intended as emergency aid) while doing things like cutting shifts for E.R. doctors and nurses in the middle of a pandemic. Even grandfatherly billionaire Warren Buffett’s company Special Metals is currently asking 450 striking steelworkers to accept pay cuts and take on $725 more a month in health premiums, while Buffett himself just floated on our increasingly phony stock market to increase his personal wealth by $1.6 billion in a single day.
. . . “Banks so far have been using profits to invest in technology, pay bonuses and buy back their own stock,” the FT wrote. Meaning, the bulk of this new wealth — most fueled by roughly $5 trillion in Fed spending since the beginning of the pandemic — is being converted into compensation for a handful of executives. Buybacks have also been rampant in defense, pharmaceuticals, and oil & gas, all of which also just finished their second straight year of record, skyrocketing profits. We’re now up to about 745 billionaires in the U.S., who’ve collectively seen their net worth grow about $2.1 trillion to $5 trillion since March 2020, with almost all that wealth increase tied to the Fed’s ballooning balance sheet.