Kamala Harris as VP Candidate

[financeguy]

Your concerns will be taken seriously if real concerns. Unfortunately for you (or anyone who has a concern of any kind) the degree to which they are considered "real" concerns is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think there's a likelihood anywhere in the entire country that someone can engage in behavior such as joining a group based on racial superiority, using a racial slur, refusing to hire, promote or serve specific groups in a business, physically attack or otherwise openly wrong a member of a minority group without significant reputational and/or legal cost.

If you expect the following from whites, you probably will never be happy:

-To "be quiet" on certain issues, waiting for accepted groups to give the twitter approved position.
-To accept that they are "all racist" based on institutional bias.
-To accept that they are not allowed to defend themselves against an accusation.
-To pay shakedown artists who have ulterior motives.
-To never critique a member of another group, especially when related to their own bigoted behavior.
-To accept affirmative action is not a racist policy.
-To in general accept someone using race as a weapon against them who does not have a good faith grievance.

Whites are just tired of hearing BS complaints. Not every issue is a 10. Realtors aren't supposed to say "master bedroom" anymore? Sorry, for you; this is not a real problem. The L.A. times today has an article about how to get more black people into camping to increase diversity in the activity. Huh? Who cares? This is a hobby that NO ONE gets paid for. It's not even a business advantage for networking like golf. Pardon me if I could not possibly care less how many black people want to sleep in a tent. The libs need to learn how to pick a battle and then triage. Whining and whining and whining about every small thing just destroys credibility for real issues. The average left winger can't distinguish between a woman's head being lobbed off in the middle east or needing her adult son's permission to perform certain daily tasks with a limit on their paid maternity leave. Get a grip on reality; you look like lunatics to everyone.

[ergative]

I think that a lot of the demands from the left fall into some sort of bell curve. There are moderates who aren't too bothered but identify as Democrat; there are the reasonable lefties who think that social problems like mass incarceration, wealth inequality, etc. need addressing; and there are the radical lefties who think that the term 'master' is offensive in the real estate context.

It's a pity that the super radical people are taken to represent all of us, because that gives an easy way out for right-wing a-holes to reject all of the more reasonable claims. 'Why should I pay attention to structural inequalities that permanently disadvantage black people? You want to rename 'master bedrooms', so of course you're ridiculous and don't need to be listened to.'

[downer]

It's a lot to do with media portrayals. Someone makes a suggestion about changing language and the media, knowing people love to be outraged, picks it up and runs with it. The EU won't allow "veggie burgers" to be called burgers, they have to be called "veggie discs." I was outraged about that.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that when it comes to politics, we can distinguish between those rather trivial issues and dealing with fundamental unfairness in society. It is sheer disingenuity to suppose that anyone is confused about that.

(There are issues in universities about the policing of language and free speech, but they tend to be restricted to academic life and don't spread much to the outside world. )

On the other hand, looking at the right, it's far less clear to me in the US that it is possible to distinguish the old conservatives from the fascists and those who want religious law implemented. That doesn't seem to be something we can just say is down to media hype.

[marshwiggle]

I think that a lot of the demands from the left fall into some sort of bell curve. There are moderates who aren't too bothered but identify as Democrat; there are the reasonable lefties who think that social problems like mass incarceration, wealth inequality, etc. need addressing; and there are the radical lefties who think that the term 'master' is offensive in the real estate context.

It's a pity that the super radical people are taken to represent all of us, because that gives an easy way out for right-wing a-holes to reject all of the more reasonable claims. 'Why should I pay attention to structural inequalities that permanently disadvantage black people? You want to rename 'master bedrooms', so of course you're ridiculous and don't need to be listened to.'

But that happens the other way as well; anyone who doesn't fall into line with all of the progressive talking points gets labelled a "white supremacist" as though they represent a significant portion of the population.  They don't.  (Although it could be argued that there are some on the left, such as those who expect all black people to vote alike, who think "merit" and "hard work" are white ideas, and so on.)

[nebo113]

I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture.  For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.

There is a post above  that turns my stomach and reinforces what you are saying. I chose not to dignify it by name.

[writingprof]

I don't think there's a likelihood anywhere in the entire country that someone can engage in behavior such as joining a group based on racial superiority . . . without significant reputational and/or legal cost.

Well, if the group based on racial superiority is the modern Democratic Party, they're probably all right.

[marshwiggle]

I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture.  For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.

There is a post above  that turns my stomach and reinforces what you are saying. I chose not to dignify it by name.

So, what "anti-terrorist" actions should a person take today?
What "anti-child-pornography"  actions should a person take today?
What "anti-human-trafficking"  actions should a person take today?

This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly, can)immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely)  and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.

It's no surprise to hear of self-described "male feminists" who are found to harass female subordinates or cheat on their wives. Why? Because they only declare themselves as "feminists" because of the cultural pressure. Meanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".

As long as shouting slogans, waving placards, and things of that nature are the measures of apparently good character, there will be lots of hypocrisy as well as little obvious engagement of people who uphold the principles in practice but refuse to jump through hoops for the social approval.

[mahagonny]

I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture.  For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.

I think you meant to post 'feminist' not 'anti-feminist.'
Nothing I say can influence a trend. We not only have feminist movements, they have a stronghold in academia. I just hope the democrats don't start talking about feminism while debating, because it won't help them defeat Donald Trump. Who, BTW, objectifies women, pays them off to keep quiet about his extramarital affairs, calls them pigs, makes jokes about Stacey Abrams being overweight, etc. He is your worst problem. You could team up with women who aren't feminists to call him out, if you could stand to. But I'm not aware of feminists colloborating with anyone who doesn't at least pretend to endorse their world-view wholesale.

[Cheerful]

I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture.  For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.

I don't understand the despair.  There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s.  It seems many people think conditions today are the same as decades ago -- or want to promote the idea that there has been no progress.

Things aren't perfect and there is always room for improvement, but many good things have happened in the last 60 years.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's because everyone knows what racial and gender politics are actually about: Shaking down people who do not wish to be called racist or sexist. The BLM and MeToo movements have a list of things they want and if you disagree with them or out the behavior of their members, you're going to get called one of the naughty words ending in "ist" that gets you fired from your corporate job, regardless of how legitimate the claim is.

There are ways of disagreeing with someone that aren't going to lead them to think you're a bad person, or think of you as/call you an 'ist' word. And for the record, I think that the ways of disagreeing that you've expressed on this thread and elsewhere on this forum currently do you no favours. If you start from a position of respect and care and are well-informed, people will notice and respond in like manner (sure, a few Twitter enthusiasts are bound to take umbrage, but that's going to be true for any and all propositions you might care to make). If you start from a position of ridicule, dismissal, outright hostility, and are poorly informed, people will notice and respond accordingly.

There's an awful lot of reasonable disagreement (both internal and external) out there about all the things that get your goat. If you don't care for the responses you're getting to your discourse in your own life, then I suggest modelling reasonable, rather than inflammatory, discourse instead. To do that, you should take the time to get informed and understand your dialectical opponent's premises. Then take issue with those premises, not the conclusion of the argument; that's how you convince people and engage in rational disagreement.

And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out.

So: Kamala should have said "That's racist Joe!" And then he would have replied "I'm not racist, I have lots of Black friends!"

But that wasn't her point, or the discussion she wanted to have. She wanted to talk about what he did, and what he supported. She explicitly said that she doesn't think the fact that they're on opposite sides of an issue means he's racist. This is exactly what you were demanding earlier in your post. This is what reasonable disagreement without "ist words" looks like, especially when the person you're taking to task is likely to misinterpret the nature of your disagreement.

I, for one, could be a lot nastier in my replies to you and others here. But how helpful would that be? How do you think you'd all react?

Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.

I don't think you're a pedophile, but you shouldn't be touch kids without asking for their permission.

"I don't think you're p" is a way of lowering the stakes and making what you're about to say more palatable. If I just say "Don't touch kids without asking for their permission," you're much more likely to take umbrage and respond with "I'm not a pedophile, fuck you" than you are to respond by not touching children who don't wish to be touched.

If you expect the following from whites, you probably will never be happy:

[...]

Whites are just tired of hearing BS complaints.

Who are you to speak on behalf of white people? I'm a white person, and you don't speak for me. Nor do I think I speak on behalf of all white people, either. Or even a significant subset of them.

In fact: why are you speaking for "white people" in general rather than yourself and those who think like you? It seems to me that you should own what you're saying and not hide behind the shield of "white people" in general.

This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly, can)immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely)  and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.

I would think that the alternative is to work to ensure that opportunities to do good things do not go unnoticed. That's the whole point of virtue ethics, for example: you don't just cultivate virtues because having virtues is a good thing; you cultivate them because what you want is to be the kind of person who's habituated to act well. (Well, that's the individualist Greek model; other models are available, such as the more communitarian Aztec model)

This all leads me to wonder about the kind of behaviour I see on display here and elsewhere. Is it perhaps best-characterized as vice-signalling?

Meanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".

Talk is indeed cheap. But so is "treating the women [you] encounter with respect". That's nice and all, but it's just a basic pre-condition for interacting with people. I, for one, would like to see people (men, in particular) going beyond the bare minimum.

I don't understand the despair.  There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s. 

I can't speak for Hegemony, but I imagine it's got to do with (1) always having to fight the same old fight, over and over again, time without end, and (2) top-level political gains not necessarily being reflected at lower levels of society (like the fora). Material conditions have certainly improved for most people, but slowly, and not enough, and those material gains aren't echoed by a similar shift in public attitudes and behaviour. To be fair, I think a lot of the public has so-shifted; but there's an intractable minority, and it's very, very loud. And that, in turn, means that we're still stuck fighting the same old fights, over and over again, time without end.

[marshwiggle]

Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.

I don't think you're a pedophile, but you shouldn't be touch kids without asking for their permission.

"I don't think you're p" is a way of lowering the stakes and making what you're about to say more palatable. If I just say "Don't touch kids without asking for their permission," you're much more likely to take umbrage and respond with "I'm not a pedophile, fuck you" than you are to respond by not touching children who don't wish to be touched.

Actually, asking "Do we agree that generally it is inappropriate to touch kids without their permission?" is vastly more useful. It doesn't presume to lecture ("Don't") the other person, and it allows the caveats to be raised about caregivers, medical professionals, first responders, etc.; i.e. all kinds of situations where adults will need to touch kids without their express permission. (And for a kid trying to run  into the street, against their wishes.)

This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly, can)immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely)  and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.

I would think that the alternative is to work to ensure that opportunities to do good things do not go unnoticed.

You don't get a merit badge for shoveling your neighbour's driveway! You don't need a freaking gold star for being a decent human being!!!!!

All of the virtue-signalling activities are contrived, and only exist for the purpose of getting noticed.

This all leads me to wonder about the kind of behaviour I see on display here and elsewhere. Is it perhaps best-characterized as vice-signalling?

Can you point to examples of people on here actually saying racist or misogynist things, rather than simply refusing to say "anti-racist" or "anti-misogynist" things?

Meanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".

Talk is indeed cheap. But so is "treating the women [you] encounter with respect". That's nice and all, but it's just a basic pre-condition for interacting with people. I, for one, would like to see people (men, in particular) going beyond the bare minimum.

Bare minimum? Since when is trying to treat everyone with respect and dignity a "bare minimum"? If everyone did that, the world would be a VASTLY better place.

I don't understand the despair.  There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s. 

I can't speak for Hegemony, but I imagine it's got to do with (1) always having to fight the same old fight, over and over again, time without end,

But that's just it; it's not the "same old fight"; it's a fight using the same language for smaller and smaller stakes. Race-segregated washrooms, drinking fountains, and seats on public transit are pretty hard to find these days.

That doesn't mean everything is perfect, but it's disingenuous to pretend that the situation is remotely as bad as it was decades ago.

and (2) top-level political gains not necessarily being reflected at lower levels of society (like the fora). Material conditions have certainly improved for most people, but slowly, and not enough, and those material gains aren't echoed by a similar shift in public attitudes and behaviour. To be fair, I think a lot of the public has so-shifted; but there's an intractable minority, and it's very, very loud. And that, in turn, means that we're still stuck fighting the same old fights, over and over again, time without end.

So do you count the people here who disagree with you as part of that "intractable minority", who are nostalgic about the good old days when white men ruled? No-one has said anything that suggests that to me.

[mahagonny]

And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear.

Thing is, most of the time it is white people making the insinuation, so it would be an argument between whites. Which, honestly, a part of me would welcome. Maybe I've hung out in the faculty lounge with my mouth shut for too long.

[financeguy]

Why am I speaking for whites? I'm no more doing this than someone who observes that if you start throwing grenades into a crowd they will disperse is "talking on behalf of the crowd." I'm pointing out the expected response that certain activities and statements are likely to receive, backed up by the recent resistance among whites to tolerate some of the more nonsensical claims against them.

One recent example is the BLM organizer who compared looting to reparations. You can make statements like that, but don't be surprised if you begin to be viewed as a terrorist organization rather than a group of civil rights protestors. Someone going about their day to day life in cubicle land trying to make their rent payment is simply not going to listen to some lunatic excuse away their criminal behavior, regardless of how woke they may be.

[mahagonny]

Why am I speaking for whites? I'm no more doing this than someone who observes that if you start throwing grenades into a crowd they will disperse is "talking on behalf of the crowd." I'm pointing out the expected response that certain activities and statements are likely to receive, backed up by the recent resistance among whites to tolerate some of the more nonsensical claims against them.

One recent example is the BLM organizer who compared looting to reparations. You can make statements like that, but don't be surprised if you begin to be viewed as a terrorist organization rather than a group of civil rights protestors. Someone going about their day to day life in cubicle land trying to make their rent payment is simply not going to listen to some lunatic excuse away their criminal behavior, regardless of how woke they may be.

General rule that has been true my entire adult life: whatever one is hearing from academics about the plight of non-whites and women in the USA, that sounds like it came from an academic, is a view held my a minority of Americans.

[marshwiggle]

It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.