End of disussion.

  • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    and they do the same over their bullshit conceptions of gender, religion, and nationhood, what’s your point? My point is that if someone says they want to kill women, it would not be helpful to say “Bro gender isn’t real, stop getting offended on behalf of an identity only sociopaths and losers identify with”. If someone says they want to kill Mexicans, it would not be helpful to say “Bro nations and race aren’t real, stop getting offended on behalf of an identity only sociopaths and losers identify with”. And if they want to kill socialists, … etc. Those top two, and sometimes even the third, aren’t things people choose to identify with, and in the case of trans people and immigrants, self-identity is often ignored.

    because to successfully mirror something it would need to possess an equivalence of intent, scale, power, and social reach

    I didn’t mean ‘mirror’ as in a literal identical copy, I meant it more loosely, recycling is maybe a better word. I don’t really understand this weird implication that racism has to be the entire institutionalized system. A white nationalist going into a church, shooting people and going to jail for life without parole is racism. They don’t need an institutionalized system or abnormal power to do that. A person denying a job based on stereotypes of their race is racism. They don’t need intent, scale nor reach for that. Racism is still divisive garbage that fucks up social movements no matter if it’s instutionalized or not.

    you don’t overcome it by essentializing whiteness or labeling it an unbridgeable obstacle we can never change, because hey the racists imposed it, so what choice do we have but to identify with that imposition

    I’m not doing either. I support obsoleting and ripping down the entire concepts of race and whiteness. I don’t identify with it, we both agree it’s garbage.

    Now, how are we meant to overcome those obstacles (even just within a local setting like a socialist org) with people like Othello embracing it? I don’t see that as a way forward. As far as I’m concerned, their redacted reply made it clear that they think continuing dividing the movement on whiteness is justified because of historical racial injustices in US socialist orgs. They appear to have just embraced the white/non-white dichotomy and doubled down on the hatred.

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those top two, and sometimes even the third, aren’t things people choose to identify with, and in the case of trans people and immigrants, self-identity is often ignored.

      Ok, and I’m saying whiteness IS something you can choose to self-identify with because unlike many minority groups, “white” people do have the social capacity and ability to affect change in that arena

      Also you’re conflating light-skinnedness with whiteness again, people can’t help light-skinnedness, but they can help identifying their light skinnedness with an over arching political and social ideology like whiteness, and there’s only one way to do that, which is what op in that thread was decrying, so your previous examples don’t apply

      A person denying a job based on stereotypes of their race is racism. They don’t need intent, scale nor reach for that. Racism is still divisive garbage that fucks up social movements no matter if it’s instutionalized or not.

      Ok, but that’s not happening to “white people”, you know why? Because if the “person denying a job based on “light skin” stereotypes” is discovered, they’re the ones who are gonna get fucked, as they should. Because you actually do need intent, scale and reach to enforce prejudice, otherwise society and most importantly the state is gonna push your shit in

      But people who identify with whiteness don’t suffer from that dynamic, instead they prevent others from enjoying that protection, which is why it’s inappropriate to talk about “mirrors” or equivalences of any sort when it comes to this topic and why you shouldn’t conflate skin color with the ideology itself

      Now, how are we meant to overcome those obstacles (even just within a local setting like a socialist org) with people like Othello embracing it?

      Except they weren’t embracing it, they were literally decrying it, because they recognized that people who identify with whiteness don’t have their best interest at heart, the worst you could call that post was cynical or doomer, but not racist

      As far as I’m concerned, their redacted reply made it clear that they think continuing dividing the movement on whiteness is justified because of historical racial injustices in US socialist orgs.

      Ok and you’re dividing the movement because you want to preserve some kind of organic conception of whiteness, tied to people’s phenotypical traits, devoid of its historical and social role in human affairs? Because otherwise we’ll start being racist to light-skinned people? We don’t live in a world of simply light skin supremacy, we live in a world of white supremacy and to combat it we have to deconstruct whiteness and the ideologies and assumptions that underlay it, and yeah average people who ignorantly identify with it are going to get pissed off, but that shouldn’t prevent critique or making fun of people who turn it into their central personality trait