PewDiePie - troll, racist, both?

[grumbler]

America's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.

To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.

To be fair, both of those things existed (in Europe and in the Americas) before Europeans discovered the New World.  Not that that excuses any particular group, but the idea that this is some kind of "original sin" unique to the US is very tunnel-visioned. American exceptionalism isn't always exceptional.

[Malthus]

What's wrong with it being outlandish?

Nothing wrong with being outlandish if you own it. The however makes it seem like you're not quite ready to stand behind your argument.

Huh? You are reading waaay to much into the use of a smilie. 

The " " was simply an "isn't this an odd thing?" comment.

You're posting links to people whose social justice activism is explicitly motivated by their (evangelical) Christian faith. Jim Wallis (first link) is a Christian activist. The Sojourners' tagline is "faith in action for social justice". It is far from surprising that Jim Wallis or the Sojourners frame their approach to social justice in the language of Christianity, but that is not evidence for the construction you propose - that "for the left racism can be sort of like sin in Catholicism."

If your argument is that a commitment to Christianity implies a commitment to social justice - and that conversely being a racist is sinful for a committed Christian - then I'm happy to agree. I expect the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - whom you link - agree as well. The current Pope probably does as well, as I expect the Dalai Lama and Aga Khan and many other religious leaders do for their respective faith groups.

If your argument is that the existence of the likes of the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - evangelical Christian social justice activists - is evidence that "the left" as a whole approach social justice problems like the Catholic Church approaches sin then I think you are making a spurious and unsupported argument (or alternately that you are drawing parallels that are so overly broad that they could apply to almost any context).

There are leftists whose leftism is motivated by their faith - Christian, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist etc. This does not make leftism as a whole religiously inspired, nor does it imply that leftism as a whole (however you define it) is therefore similar to a religion.

... aaand I never said it was either "religiously inspired" (though social activism does have undeniable religious roots) or that it is, in fact, similar to a "religion". 

On the other hand, if your purpose is to paint "the left" as irrational and dismissable by equating it to a belief system you don't subscribe to then I think you've constructed a fairly successful piece of rhetoric - as evidenced by the interest of Spicy and Beebs both of whom are dismissive of Catholics and "the left". I don't, however, think there's much substance to it.

... which my purpose is not ...

I think from your use of that that's what you were doing, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's some other argument that is advanced or objective served by examining the claimed parallels between "the left" and Catholicism?

I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! 

[Valmy]

Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.

Yeah there are extremists that demand purity, making the perfect the enemy of the good. I did think it was weird how they moved to block the Toronto cops from marching because of stuff American cops were doing.

[Barrister]

For many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well.  As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights.  Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.

What would you say are the equivalent, on the right (if any)?

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I mean there certainly are various right-wing orthodixes that politicians will be punished for if they go against them.  It's unfortunately difficult to be a conservative and in favour of carbon taxes.  But that's not the same phenomenon I think Malthus was talking about.

Maybe religion itself?  Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians").  But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist.  But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.

[Valmy]

America's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.

To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.

To be fair, both of those things existed (in Europe and in the Americas) before Europeans discovered the New World.  Not that that excuses any particular group, but the idea that this is some kind of "original sin" unique to the US is very tunnel-visioned. American exceptionalism isn't always exceptional.

Yep. Most countries in this hemisphere do share all that wonderful colonial stuff with us.

[Oexmelin]

Maybe religion itself?  Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians").  But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist.  But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.

Yeah, I thought of atheism too. Climate change, I am not sure. I have the feeling it's getting increasingly taboo for an increasingly larger part of the right. What about abortion?

[Malthus]

Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.

The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.

Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?

I just think it is funny to see people who clearly don't believe in "sin" in other contexts, accept it in this. Since I don't think the idea of sin is "silly" (though I don't myself subscribe to it - fancy that, disagreeing with something but not trashing it or demonizing those who hold it! Can that be possible?), this isn't a "knock" on the idea, so much as an observation about it.   

I'm trying to account for your vehemence on the warpath here ... I mean, without responding in kind.

[Malthus]

What's wrong with it being outlandish? 

I don't think it's outlandish. I think it's an interesting tool to think with; but perhaps less so to judge with.

Does race, and racism, behave as sin does in Christian doctrine(s) among leftists? I think the answer will have a lot more to do with which leftists one examines.  There are leftists groups organized around churches who are familiar with the concept, and see it as a way to put words on a problem, and there are leftist groups who would see it as judgemental. That the language of political belief borrows heavily from the language of religion is nothing surprising. It has been so for centuries. We still speak of dogma, of purity, of true believers, of sin, of promised lands, of City on the Hill, etc. In that regard, the use of religious language to describe political commitments and ideals can be used to inspire, if one speaks to people who share in the belief, and can be used to disparage, and delegitimize, when one subscribes that political beliefs are arrived at "rationally" while others have blind faith (e.g., I, of course, hold my political belief out of dispassionate, rational, cool examination while my opponents slavishly and stupidly follow their gurus/pastor, etc.). 

Race, and racism, have long been described as the original sin of America. Again, nothing surprising there, as such language was deployed not just by civil rights leaders, but by abolitionists at least since the 18th century. So did the language of atonement.

That people inherit the social conditions in which they live (our previous discussions about systemic racism) independent of their will has a long history, and its modern incarnation is perhaps better linked with the birth of sociology and anthropology in the 19th century, than sin. What makes it closer to the concept of original sin is the issue of individual atonement. I think there is value to be gained by, say, reading some political assemblies as akin to Massachusetts' puritans anxieties - on the left and on the right, whenever issues of purity are involved (I recently attended a conference panel about Reagan. OMG). I think it brings attention to very similar dynamics on matters/dangers of pride and purity, etc, and the necessities to transform the check on one's hubris into collective action. 

I must admit, however, and from our past discussions on the topic, that I read your post more as a way to discredit the practice than a way to foster understanding. I would be happy to be told I am wrong.

I wish I was clever enough to subtly discredit a whole political stance by making an observation about it.

If I had those rhetorical skills, I'd definitely put them to use! 

But no, I was merely observing something that struck me as odd, triggered by Valmy's question of why anyone would care if someone was sincerely racist, if they never said or did anything racist. (Answer: for some at least, racism is like sin, and sin is bad even if it is merely in your heart).

Is this an argument that racism is somehow "not bad" or that such people are crazy? No.

[Oexmelin]

I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.

I didn't realize it was your objection to the term - indeed it doesn't make sense to speak of a genocide for "Indigenous people" precisely because there were hundreds of indigenous nations. (It also renders indigenous people today invisible. Every year, some of my students needed to be reminded that Indigenous peoples still exist!

That being said, there were many genocidal episodes - at the scale of these nations. I tend to think we would still call it a genocide if, say, all of Portugal was killed while the rest of Europe survived.

[Oexmelin]

I wish I was clever enough to subtly discredit a whole political stance by making an observation about it.

Well, you *are* a lawyer. 

As for the rest, noted.

[Jacob]

I just thought it was a neat little observation.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying

I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! 

Yet you already have several subscribers to your newsletter

[Malthus]

Maybe religion itself?  Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians").  But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist.  But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.

Yeah, I thought of atheism too. Climate change, I am not sure. I have the feeling it's getting increasingly taboo for an increasingly larger part of the right. What about abortion?

Atheism's more like a shibboleth - right wing politicians are simply expected to mouth the right platitudes about religion, but no-one appears to care if they "sin in their hearts" by secretly being atheists.

Actually, there is an even stronger irony on the right than the one I've pointed out on the left - that the right, who is always mouthing about religion, has apparently completely forgotten about the notion of sin. If the treatment of racism by the left is like the treatment of "sin" (and that is funny/ironic because many on the left don't otherwise hold with sin), the right is even more funny/ironic, in allegedly upholding religion as a virtue but completely ignoring sin altogether. 

Look at Trump. He's committed pretty well every sin that exists, and if he's forgotten a few, it is only for lack of opportunity - yet many on the right don't appear to give a damn.

[grumbler]

I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! 

It is interesting.  It reminds me of Jonathon Haidt's observation that what sex is for the right, food is for the left. 

[Malthus]

I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! 

It is interesting.  It reminds me of Jonathon Haidt's observation that what sex is for the right, food is for the left.

Damn, I never heard that one before. 

[Valmy]

I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.

I didn't realize it was your objection to the term - indeed it doesn't make sense to speak of a genocide for "Indigenous people" precisely because there were hundreds of indigenous nations. (It also renders indigenous people today invisible. Every year, some of my students needed to be reminded that Indigenous peoples still exist!

That being said, there were many genocidal episodes - at the scale of these nations. I tend to think we would still call it a genocide if, say, all of Portugal was killed while the rest of Europe survived.

True. And it would be appropriate in the context of those specific episodes.