That's awesome. Using the power of internet trolling for good!
That page is confusing I don't understand who is talking to who is good and who is bad
The greatest moment is when because of different changes the banner is a picture of General Sherman and the group title is "Islam Is The Light".
2: By and large, you can tell the sides by grammar and spelling.
You can either be proud of your race or your grammar, not both.
Being Aryan means never having to say you're sorry for your grammar.
Someone unleashed Chang on the banner.
The one Confederate's avatar is the three-wolf moon meme with the moon as a Confederate flag. You can't make that up.
Being Aryan means never having to say your sorry for you're grammar.
Someone should do this to an Aryan Pride group, making it about Iranian & Northern Indian archaeology, linguistics, and culture.
That sounds suspiciously like work.
It's like Sherman's March all over again.
If I'm not mistaken, pat_tymo is the handle of a notorious troll over at Drum's place, it would be great if this is the same person.
That was completely wonderful. Between the Trump campaign and that link, (and resolutely not watching any police shooting videos) this has been a good couple weeks for spectating.
||
Seth Ackerman explodes the Internets. Class vs Race cagematch, with gender waiting outside the ring to tag.
"racial inequality is merely a symptom of economic inequality"
Jacobin Facebook Page for comments ...good conversation. You may need to scroll down and expand threads. I got lots and lots of good cites that I will check because I try not to read about America in my books.
|>
17.1: Seems to be playing an uninteresting definitional game that obscures more than it illuminates.
17.1 is very good as an example of how white liberals can be incredibly stupid about racism, and why African Americans are rightly suspicious of us. Ackerman does something that's very common on the right and the far left: He retreats into theory when there's an entire world of experience that could inform his thinking.
Ackerman goes off the rails here:
Here's my question to the angry commenters: if racial inequality isn't merely a symptom of economic inequality, what is it a symptom of?
Ackerman has already decided that racism is a symptom of economic inequality, so he's just begging the question here. Why does racial inequality have to be a symptom of something? Why can't it be a thing in itself - as, presumably, economic inequality is.
Then in the next sentence he follows - again as is common on the right and far left - by putting the wrong answer in his opponents' mouths:
I already feel like I can hear the answer: it's a symptom of hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban apartheid.
And thus, he gets it exactly wrong. Even if we accept his false dichotomy of symptoms and causes, surely racial inequality is the more the cause of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban apartheid than it is a symptom of those things.
Again here:
What Hillary Clinton is really hinting at when she says that racism can't be reduced to "economic inequality" is racial animosity. I can't think of what else she could mean.
I can. In fact, white people can promote white supremacy without having any racial animosity at all. Ackerman in the very next sentence, basically says that of course he knows this, but that he's going to ignore it:
The new generation of radicals on Twitter like to talk about "structural" racism or "institutional" racism -- but behind the verbal bravado, what they, too, are really referring to is racial animosity.
Well no, they're not.
It's true, of course, that racial inequality is due to hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban apartheid -- to white supremacy. But to say so is merely to recount how one particular form of economic inequality came about.
Ackerman reminds me of Douglas Feith, who wanted to place all the bad violent stuff under his preferred umbrella of "global terrorism." He was so detached from reality that he literally suggested responding to the 9/11 attacks by suggesting military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as "a surprise to the terrorists".
Is Ackerman going to really say that reduction of economic inequality automatically reduces racism? I think he is saying that, and I think that's nuts.