🐈

IMO while these movements embody moral ideas of justice, extreme moralism can produce its opposite and turn into a new kind of fanaticism, arbitrariness, and hypocrisy.

Moderator: PC was supposed to protect the peace. But now it's gone further, with goals of purging history, creating conflict b/c of their coercive tactics.

Is PC even correct? What is America? Historically Europe has been a Christian world and is the basis of nation building in Europe and America. America was once considered a melting pot but now it's not PC anymore. America is no longer anglo-saxon.

Samual Huntington bemoaned how multiculturalism was eating away at america's soul, obscuring national identity. It would slowly go the way of Rome, disappearing after having lost its distinctive spirit. Trump is just a populist, vulgar version of Huntington.

WG: BT and LQ talk about a common 'baseline', I want to discuss 'situation'. In the George Floyd situation, this isn't a debate with a common baseline. Even the word 'matter' in BLM points to a certain urgency, the attitude of a showdown.

Given Floyd's dying words "I can't breathe" the phase of reasoning with facts has passed, people are ready to fight. Both sides feel they're the victim and "can't breathe". One out of overbearing PC, the other that it's clear that black are valued less.

Even Trevor Noah, who normally serves the role as a social healer, said some controversial stuff. Today, being a centrist who cares about black people but also dislikes PC is awkward. Both sides want to fight instead of understand and insist you pick a side.

That's why it's "black lives matter" and not "all lives matter".

LQ: I think blacks still suffer systemic discrimination. Still, for police brutality, the data tells an unclear picture. Even white people face police brutality, sometimes more. But no one cares as much.

93% of of victims of indiscriminate killings are male, does that mean there's systemic gender bias in police killings? It's hard to make binary sweeping judgements based on this kind of data.

What happened is that the story spread and created the movement before the facts could catch up. So instead of a movement against indiscriminate killings, it's now about race and is exacerbating inter-ethnic tensions.

WG: To follow up on what LQ said about stereotypes, even black people see other black people.

LQ: To clarify, I think that systemic racism is still widespread in the U.S., but its expression is complex. Darker skinned people are more likely to be questioned and searched for example. There's clear statistical evidence for this unlike for indiscriminate killings.

New topic: Identity politics and anti racism movements

Moderator: In the face of a black man being choked to death, different generations will have different interpretations of this 'truth'.

In the 19th century this would've been an affront to human life and dignity. In the 20th it would have been the oppression of the proletarian underclass by the dogs of the bourgeoisie. In the 21st it's about whites bullying blacks. civic politics -> class politics -> identity pol

When the cold war ended and strong ideology faded, class and citizen politics faded away as well. The left wing movement began turning into identity politics that stressed cultural identities. feminism, gay liberation, racial equality, etc...

Michael Hechter says that democratic systems are about minorities vying for the same rights as the orthodox majority. In essence, identity politics are about rights. What do you 3 think about this?

LQ: Well.. Martin Luther King led his movement based on universal rights, not specific identities. If you believed that everyone should be judged by the same standards, 60 yrs ago you'd be radical, 30 yrs ago you'd be liberal, and today you'd be racist (MLK included!)

If the demands of a group are not universal but specific to the group identity, it increases unity within the group but loses outside allies.

Though also, I don't think universalism and particularism are necessarily in conflict if particularism is used to achieve the principle of universality. It'd be weird though. I can't not see the color of ur skin, only pretend to not see it.

Radical identity politics goes further, arguing that the past was so bad that universal rights doesn't make up for it and that outsiders can't comprehend how bad it was. These claims can be politically dangerous b/c they absolutize conflict and make it perpetual.

The left traditionally has been about universal rights, whether the goal was democracy, socialism, communism, w/e... Radical identity politics in the U.S. feels more like a goal in of itself, not a way to achieve a goal.

If a group claims to be too special and can't be understood, rational dialogue breaks down. Only force and violence work. This is self defeating as the groups reason for protesting is that they're the weaker group. They can't win when they position themselves as such.

It's probably why MLK valued the power of reason and non-violence. You could argue that Malcom X's violence was a necessity to contrast King's but it still violates the spirit of King and Mandela.

WG: Identity politics isn't leftist. The first you gotta do is prove how important your identity is that that's a very defensive right wing posture. BLM refuses to acknowledge "All Lives Matter" b/c that's a cliche and the discussion would die out.

Malcolm X said adding cream to coffee was the scary thing. ALM is this cream. No one will disagree w/ it but it'll put a end to the discussion if accepted. This is why BLM must preserve its pure blackness and refuses to be diluted by cream.

Zizek once said "be wary of fake friends as well as enemies". Today's BLM has many fake friends. They stick the ALM band-aid over the wound opened up by Floyd's death. ALM is the opposite of BLM.

Still, b/c the coffee is too black its flavor is too strong. Who knows how many in the silent majority are put off by BLM or refuse to have it pushed down their throats. The angry BLM protestors refuse to see this. There's no room for compromise or moving forward together.

Is society *really* ready to abolish the police?