What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dps]

but you don't have an active racially-underpinned culture war raging there right now.

We seem to be exporting it abroad though. Thanks to the internet.

It was a fight that was bound to have happened anyway in all the western countries.  I think the pragmatic mistake that liberals made was discounting how much diversity can be perceived as a threat to culture, and how much people value their culture.

But then you have people like Grallon who are on the left on economics, but are opposed to diversity, and people like me who are on the right on economics who have no problem with multiculturalism.

[derspiess]

and people like me who are on the right on economics who have no problem with multiculturalism.

Hippie

[Malthus]

I would argue at some point people need to decide whether or not what is more important to them is fighting racism, or derailing debates with ad hominem attacks.

Of course. But how prevalent is this? Unless I am misremembering, the topic was discussed here because people took exception to the expression "systematic racism", not because someone was actually called a racist. Again, *that* form of derailing has been going on since at least the 60s. There is a moment when such reflex is more about keeping the discussion at arms length than about the appropriateness of terms.

The notion being questioned was that anyone who denied that current systemic racism was "the" cause of the perceived inequalities of outcomes between racial groups in America (which everyone in the debate admitted existed) was a "racist". 

[Oexmelin]

And I provided an answer, which certainly was open for discussion, but didn't use such a broad brush ("anyone") nor such monolithic constructs ("only", "sole", "unique").

[Malthus]

And I provided an answer, which certainly was open for discussion, but didn't use such a broad brush ("anyone") nor such monolithic constructs ("only", "sole", "unique").

You aren't the only one participating, though. That was a notion that arose in the debate. If you don't agree with it - well, then we don't have a debate. 

[Oexmelin]

But I thought we were discussing the appropriateness of white supremacy and systemic racism to describe the current situation. I argue that it captures something that previous discussion of racism didn't. You seem to argue that it detracts from genuine discussion. But thus far, the questions about systems that Jacob, JR or I asked have all been deflected by how the loony left is using distracting words.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are numerous politicians and opinion writers who are both very much on the right and very much opposed to Trump.

yes but in the US they are political marginalized.
It's likely that the majority - perhaps vast majority of GOP officeholders are not Trump fans and would be happy to see the back of him.
But they are all cowed by his core supporters.  So instead of standing ground on principle, most make excuses and enable. 

[Jacob]

My problem is you have people who are not necessarily opponents, just skeptics and/or people who have been sheltered from what you are saying. Then you blast them for being vile. I don't think that is productive.

Yeah the important thing in these kinds of situations is to not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the well meaning moderate who really means well but doesn't want to rock the boat too much.

Sarcasm aside - I've been on both sides of that, so it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the viewpoint. I've definitely thought things like "FFS, we agree on 98% yet I'm the bad guy?" and "look, to affect change you need a large number of people behind you and while I'm sympathetic to your cause, haranguing me  tempts me to oppose you just out of spite. You better change your tune, because if you can't persuade me there's no way in hell you'll get the level of support you need." There are some issues where that's how I feel right now even.

Yet when I look at the progress that's been made on issues it seems it happened in spite of me feeling people were pushing too hard. I can't think of any social issue where progress has been made that didn't have an abundance of well meaning moderates counselling caution on something that is now the accepted status quo by those same moderates and even many opponents at the time (and that includes myself on a number of occasions). Conversely, I have a hard time thinking of times where heeding the calls for less militancy (within the parameters of the debate within a democracy, so leaving out things like terrorism et. al.) has actually produced significant progress. This also appears to be how it works in the reverse - the victories for reactionary politics have come where radical reactionaries have been the most militant and least willing to engage in rhetorical compromise IMO.

From where I'm sitting the dynamic looks like this:

The well meaning moderate thinks of himself as a good person and fairly objective.
The basic facts appear to indicate that there is a problem.
Therefore the well meaning moderate agrees with the radicals that yes, there is a problem, and agrees that something should be done.
However, the well meaning moderate is fairly well served by the status quo even if he accepts that it's not that fair.
So the well meaning moderate counsels caution and prefers solutions that only shifts the status quo in small steps if at all.

The reactionary, of course, either refuses to acknowledge the situation exists at all or if it does justifies it with a variation of "fuck those people, they deserve it." The radical progressive meanwhile thinks the problem is the most important thing and demands that everything be done to fix it, but is willing to settle for something drastic.

So it appears to me that yes the well meaning moderate matters because it is true, they'll provide the critical mass at some point. I don't think, however, that the way to get them there is to seek compromise with them to minimize the impact on the status quo. Rather I think what works is to continue to harangue them until they face up to the discomfort they experience between accepting the facts (that things are unjust) and their inclination (but I don't want things to change because I'm pretty comfortable). Yes, that can resolve to favour a reactionary solution ("wait no, there's no actual problem" or "fuck those people, I've got mine"), but I think it is more likely to result in a slow acceptance of more radical solutions.

Where the well meaning moderate does resolve in favour of reaction I think it's more a function of existing reactionaries successfully providing a narrative that allows them to reframe the problem altogether ("there's no problem" or "they deserve it").

Bottom line though - IMO the tension between justice and comfort that causes the well meaning moderate discomfort is for him to resolve for himself. There is no point to cater to those sensibilities, and in many cases it's actually counter productive.

[Jacob]

But I thought we were discussing the appropriateness of white supremacy and systemic racism to describe the current situation. I argue that it captures something that previous discussion of racism didn't. You seem to argue that it detracts from genuine discussion. But thus far, the questions about systems that Jacob, JR or I asked have all been deflected by how the loony left is using distracting words.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for an alternative vocabulary or framing for discussing the issues encapsulated by the terms "systemic racism" and "white supremacy". I'm perfectly happy to avoid those terms, especially on languish, if they're a problem but I'd like to be able to discuss the underlying facts nonetheless.

So what's the best way to proceed? How do we talk about this?

[Valmy]

My problem is you have people who are not necessarily opponents, just skeptics and/or people who have been sheltered from what you are saying. Then you blast them for being vile. I don't think that is productive.

Yeah the important thing in these kinds of situations is to not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the well meaning moderate who really means well but doesn't want to rock the boat too much.

Sarcasm aside - I've been on both sides of that, so it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the viewpoint. I've definitely thought things like "FFS, we agree on 98% yet I'm the bad guy?" and "look, to affect change you need a large number of people behind you and while I'm sympathetic to your cause, haranguing me  tempts me to oppose you just out of spite. You better change your tune, because if you can't persuade me there's no way in hell you'll get the level of support you need." There are some issues where that's how I feel right now even.

Yet when I look at the progress that's been made on issues it seems it happened in spite of me feeling people were pushing too hard. I can't think of any social issue where progress has been made that didn't have an abundance of well meaning moderates counselling caution on something that is now the accepted status quo by those same moderates and even many opponents at the time (and that includes myself on a number of occasions). Conversely, I have a hard time thinking of times where heeding the calls for less militancy (within the parameters of the debate within a democracy, so leaving out things like terrorism et. al.) has actually produced significant progress. This also appears to be how it works in the reverse - the victories for reactionary politics have come where radical reactionaries have been the most militant and least willing to engage in rhetorical compromise IMO.

From where I'm sitting the dynamic looks like this:

The well meaning moderate thinks of himself as a good person and fairly objective.
The basic facts appear to indicate that there is a problem.
Therefore the well meaning moderate agrees with the radicals that yes, there is a problem, and agrees that something should be done.
However, the well meaning moderate is fairly well served by the status quo even if he accepts that it's not that fair.
So the well meaning moderate counsels caution and prefers solutions that only shifts the status quo in small steps if at all.

The reactionary, of course, either refuses to acknowledge the situation exists at all or if it does justifies it with a variation of "fuck those people, they deserve it." The radical progressive meanwhile thinks the problem is the most important thing and demands that everything be done to fix it, but is willing to settle for something drastic.

So it appears to me that yes the well meaning moderate matters because it is true, they'll provide the critical mass at some point. I don't think, however, that the way to get them there is to seek compromise with them to minimize the impact on the status quo. Rather I think what works is to continue to harangue them until they face up to the discomfort they experience between accepting the facts (that things are unjust) and their inclination (but I don't want things to change because I'm pretty comfortable). Yes, that can resolve to favour a reactionary solution ("wait no, there's no actual problem" or "fuck those people, I've got mine"), but I think it is more likely to result in a slow acceptance of more radical solutions.

Where the well meaning moderate does resolve in favour of reaction I think it's more a function of existing reactionaries successfully providing a narrative that allows them to reframe the problem altogether ("there's no problem" or "they deserve it").

Bottom line though - IMO the tension between justice and comfort that causes the well meaning moderate discomfort is for him to resolve for himself. There is no point to cater to those sensibilities, and in many cases it's actually counter productive.

It is not about catering to sensibilities. It is not about comfort. It is about having productive discussions to discover good ideas. I mean I guess if you think there is a group of people out there with infallible ideas I could get behind this but otherwise I don't really see how not using ad hominem attacks is counter-productive.

Destroying the status quo is all well and good but without a strong vision to unite behind it usually fails. A strong vision is built through discussions not mindless righteousness.

[DGuller]

Let's not keep changing words to keep up with the treadmill.  Every term will eventually get abused, and we're eventually going to run out of combinations of letters to put together if we keep coming up with new and improved versions of the terms to shed the baggage of the prior version.

[Jacob]

Let's not keep changing words to keep up with the treadmill.  Every term will eventually get abused, and we're eventually going to run out of combinations of letters to put together if we keep coming up with new and improved versions of the terms to shed the baggage of the prior version.

Okay "white supremacy" is divisive and part of the "treadmill". What term and vocabulary would you like to discuss the fact that the US is set up - in some cases deliberately and in some cases with no overt intent - to consistently treat white people better than black people?

Or do you disagree that that is a fact? Even if you do, I'm still curious what term you'd prefer to discuss the subject since it appears that many people think that it is a fact. Presumably it'd be good to have the argument over whether it's a fact in a less divisive and treadmill-like fashion. So what alternative vocabulary do you prefer?

[Valmy]

White Supremacy is a good term, I think, to use in the context of this hemisphere since most of our nations (or at least in their colonial past) were designed with that assumption. Elsewhere it may not map as well.

[Razgovory]

I'm okay with the words "Systemic racism".

[Malthus]

What is really annoying is that, like it or not, we are all cast into the political left these days, because the political right has lost its collective marbles. In an era in which a polarizing choice is being forced upon us, we have no real choice; a thinking person cannot go with the political right.

Trumpism does not define "the political right".  There are many 'thinking people' on the political right.

The problem is the polarization.

At least in the US, if you are on the political right, your party has been yanked out from under you by the crazies. If you aren't opposing them, you are enabling them; and opposing them, it seems, requires migrating to the other party, since internal opposition has proven ineffective or non-existent.