As a result of the recent neo-Nazi protect in Virginia, there have been people saying that perhaps Nazis need to be reasoned with, talked to...given a platform to present their views so that they can be debated and refuted. Treated with respect!
Just one...no, two...problems with that - we already know what Nazi views are and they've already been refuted. Need proof? Look up World War II and Nazi Germany; for anyone who wants to hear Nazis "give their side of the story", those two subjects will provide all the information needed.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Sunday, 13 August 2017
Wednesday, 12 July 2017
It still isn't a form of racism
A few weeks ago, I wrote that trolls have been twisting the narrative to somehow argue that challenging racism is a form of racism in itself:
Recently, I saw on Facebook somebody claim that bigotry and calling out bigotry are both "two cheeks of the same arse" (a cruder version of "opposite sides of the same coin"). This person was talking nonsense, for opposing bigotry is not at all the same as being a bigot. I don't know how this "you're intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" hogwash is spreading - it is not a form of discrimination to oppose those whose aim is to discriminate against others. No one can choose their ethnic group, sex, sexual orientation, etc.; people can, however, choose whether to be or whether not to be jerks towards others.
Recently, I saw on Facebook somebody claim that bigotry and calling out bigotry are both "two cheeks of the same arse" (a cruder version of "opposite sides of the same coin"). This person was talking nonsense, for opposing bigotry is not at all the same as being a bigot. I don't know how this "you're intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" hogwash is spreading - it is not a form of discrimination to oppose those whose aim is to discriminate against others. No one can choose their ethnic group, sex, sexual orientation, etc.; people can, however, choose whether to be or whether not to be jerks towards others.
Sunday, 21 May 2017
No, it isn't a form of racism
Imagine this exchange:
Somehow, the trolls have secured the narrative that if you accuse a person of being racist, you're the racist, not them, the argument being that calling out racism is a form of racism in itself. This is how racists are justifying their racism - that it doesn't matter what they say...anyone who calls them out is the problem. It's a deflection and a derailment tactic both in one package.
Person A: *says something racist*
Person B: "What you've just said is racist because xyz. Please withdraw your comment and apologise."
Person A: "I said nothing racist...you're the racist for calling me racist!"
Somehow, the trolls have secured the narrative that if you accuse a person of being racist, you're the racist, not them, the argument being that calling out racism is a form of racism in itself. This is how racists are justifying their racism - that it doesn't matter what they say...anyone who calls them out is the problem. It's a deflection and a derailment tactic both in one package.
Monday, 8 May 2017
Re-committing to a failed pledge
In the 2010 general election, the Conservative Party (Tories) promised to reduce immigration to the United Kingdom to the "tens of thousands". In 2015, they again promised to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands". Staggeringly, for the third election running, the Tories are promising immigration reductions to the "tens of thousands":
Anybody who votes for the Tories based on this promise is an idiot. If the party has to state this a third time after failing to carry the policy out despite being in power for nearly seven years now, why would anyone think it would be any different on this occasion? It's a fake promise to keep the bigots voting for the Tories.
The general election here is a month from now.
Anybody who votes for the Tories based on this promise is an idiot. If the party has to state this a third time after failing to carry the policy out despite being in power for nearly seven years now, why would anyone think it would be any different on this occasion? It's a fake promise to keep the bigots voting for the Tories.
The general election here is a month from now.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
Smiling at a thug
A few days ago, there was a demonstration in Birmingham, which is the United Kingdom's second-largest city. The demonstration was held by the English Defence League (EDL), who are opposed to immigration and want to deport everyone of immigrant origin.
A counter-protest was held and defeated the EDL goons who were present. However, the most striking images from the day came from when Saffiyah Khan - a Birmingham local - smiled at an EDL thug:
It is remarkable that this young woman obliterated an EDL thug - and his whole organisation - merely with her smile. Beforehand, Khan was intervening on behalf of a woman the EDL were encircling, so this was a volatile situation for her to be in. The EDL are notorious Internet Tough Guys - usually throwing out the usual alt-right buzzwords as well as issuing threats - but when it comes to dealing with people face-to-face, they're a bunch of violent cowards.
A counter-protest was held and defeated the EDL goons who were present. However, the most striking images from the day came from when Saffiyah Khan - a Birmingham local - smiled at an EDL thug:
It is remarkable that this young woman obliterated an EDL thug - and his whole organisation - merely with her smile. Beforehand, Khan was intervening on behalf of a woman the EDL were encircling, so this was a volatile situation for her to be in. The EDL are notorious Internet Tough Guys - usually throwing out the usual alt-right buzzwords as well as issuing threats - but when it comes to dealing with people face-to-face, they're a bunch of violent cowards.
Wednesday, 28 December 2016
No, this isn't acceptable redux
Less than a week ago, I wrote about how Carl Paladino, the co-chair of the New York operation of Hillary Clinton's election opponent, made racist, sexist and transphobic comments about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
So! In the days since that post, Paladino has addressed the criticisms that he has received in the wake of his vile comments. As he is, at heart, a decent human being and not at all a hateful individual, Paladino apologized, phoned the President and First Lady directly and vowed that he would work to combat such hateful rhetoric in the future. Now see the following article to confirm this:
Ignore most of the previous paragraph. While Paladino addressed the comments, he said he "meant to email his remarks to friends."; there was nothing to indicate that he believed his comments were wrong - just an "admission" that they had been emailed to the wrong recipient and that he would not fulfil any demands that he resign from his local school board.
Again, atrocious behavior like Paladino's must not be normalized. Bigots should be challenged at every turn, not allowed to function in society as though they are normal, non-bigoted human beings.
So! In the days since that post, Paladino has addressed the criticisms that he has received in the wake of his vile comments. As he is, at heart, a decent human being and not at all a hateful individual, Paladino apologized, phoned the President and First Lady directly and vowed that he would work to combat such hateful rhetoric in the future. Now see the following article to confirm this:
Ignore most of the previous paragraph. While Paladino addressed the comments, he said he "meant to email his remarks to friends."; there was nothing to indicate that he believed his comments were wrong - just an "admission" that they had been emailed to the wrong recipient and that he would not fulfil any demands that he resign from his local school board.
Again, atrocious behavior like Paladino's must not be normalized. Bigots should be challenged at every turn, not allowed to function in society as though they are normal, non-bigoted human beings.
Friday, 23 December 2016
No, this isn't acceptable
The individual who co-chaired the New York campaign of Hillary Clinton's main election opponent is receiving heavy criticism for horrendous remarks he made about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama:
No, this isn't acceptable. Again, thanks to the victory in the election by Clinton's opponent, bigots like this Carl Paladino loser (and he is a loser - he was obliterated in the 2010 New York gubernational election) now feel empowered to make all sorts of hateful comments. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to whom Paladino lost, condemned the comments as "racist" and "ugly" but Paladino has so far dismissed any criticism, stating "tough luck" to anyone who objects.
The comments from Paladino were racist, sexist and transphobic. This sort of behavior needs to be condemned swiftly whenever it occurs - it must not be normalized. Granted, the First Amendment protects individuals from being arrested when spouting such language but private citizens do not have to tolerate bigotry one iota - it is not censorship to shut down hatred.
No, this isn't acceptable. Again, thanks to the victory in the election by Clinton's opponent, bigots like this Carl Paladino loser (and he is a loser - he was obliterated in the 2010 New York gubernational election) now feel empowered to make all sorts of hateful comments. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to whom Paladino lost, condemned the comments as "racist" and "ugly" but Paladino has so far dismissed any criticism, stating "tough luck" to anyone who objects.
The comments from Paladino were racist, sexist and transphobic. This sort of behavior needs to be condemned swiftly whenever it occurs - it must not be normalized. Granted, the First Amendment protects individuals from being arrested when spouting such language but private citizens do not have to tolerate bigotry one iota - it is not censorship to shut down hatred.
Friday, 18 November 2016
Banning some trolls (2)
Channel 4 News reporter Cathy Newman gave a bruising interview to alt-right (white supremacist) champion Milo Yiannopoulos. Rather than normalising the alt-right, Newman instead challenged Yiannopoulos on his and the movement's anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, name calling, white supremacy and other bigoted viewpoints. In the interview, Yiannopoulos tried and failed abysmally to both distance himself from the alt-right and to pin the name calling and bigotry on political opponents.
Newman's interview with the alt-right champion can be found here. These alt-right types must always been challenged and called out for their nonsense.
Newman's interview with the alt-right champion can be found here. These alt-right types must always been challenged and called out for their nonsense.
Thursday, 17 November 2016
Banning some trolls
Twitter has banned a bunch of alt-right (white supremacist) trolls:
According to the article, Twitter has not offered an explanation for the move but it wouldn't surprise me if the company enacted the bans as part of a crackdown on hate speech; since the election last week, hate speech and hate crimes are experiencing a massive increase as bigots feel emboldened by the result. The individuals who have been banned join Breitbart News goon Milo Yiannopolous as those struck with the banhammer on Twitter.
The alt-right are fast to whine about free speech whenever they are blocked but it should be noted that a private company like Twitter has no obligation to host bigoted views. No 1st Amendment rights are violated, as no one is being arrested. Also, alt-right types have no tolerance for criticism of them, anyway, opting to call anyone who does so a "cuck" or that they "need a safe space".
As the Southern Poverty Law Center said, "Good riddance."
According to the article, Twitter has not offered an explanation for the move but it wouldn't surprise me if the company enacted the bans as part of a crackdown on hate speech; since the election last week, hate speech and hate crimes are experiencing a massive increase as bigots feel emboldened by the result. The individuals who have been banned join Breitbart News goon Milo Yiannopolous as those struck with the banhammer on Twitter.
The alt-right are fast to whine about free speech whenever they are blocked but it should be noted that a private company like Twitter has no obligation to host bigoted views. No 1st Amendment rights are violated, as no one is being arrested. Also, alt-right types have no tolerance for criticism of them, anyway, opting to call anyone who does so a "cuck" or that they "need a safe space".
As the Southern Poverty Law Center said, "Good riddance."
Friday, 11 November 2016
The Klan
Look who has made a re-appearance after all these decades:
No, you didn't read that incorrectly: That's the Ku Klux Klan, a organization of white supremacist thugs we thought we long in the past. Turns out, they've been waiting all this time and found their savior in the 2016 presidential election opponent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thanks to his apparent election victory, these thugs have been re-energized, being initially spurred on by his hateful rhetoric.
How is this a positive development? The Klan should be long dead, not making any sort of comeback.
No, you didn't read that incorrectly: That's the Ku Klux Klan, a organization of white supremacist thugs we thought we long in the past. Turns out, they've been waiting all this time and found their savior in the 2016 presidential election opponent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thanks to his apparent election victory, these thugs have been re-energized, being initially spurred on by his hateful rhetoric.
How is this a positive development? The Klan should be long dead, not making any sort of comeback.
Friday, 26 August 2016
The rise of the Alt-Right
(Note: I started writing this piece before Hillary Clinton's speech on 25th August 2016, in which she addressed the Alt-Right; I amended my writing accordingly.)
---------------------------
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly aware of the presence of the Alternative Right (Alt-Right) - a sector of right-wing ideology that has an expanding voice, especially thanks to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, whom the Alt-Right has embraced as its figurehead. The Alt-Right has gained so much attention that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently addressed it in a speech on her campaign trail, in which she tied Trump to the advancement of bigoted fringe views and white supremacy into the mainstream. Rather than being a fresh new perspective, the Alt-Right is dangerous because not only is it yet another re-run of racism, misogyny, white supremacy and other forms of hatred, this time under the guise of being "anti-establishment" and against political correctness (PC), it has become a uniting voice for said hatred and is rapidly becoming its umbrella ideology. While not every racist or sexist is de facto Alt-Right or even identifies with it (bigotry did not spring into existence when the term "Alt-Right" was coined a few years ago), for much of its current support is "young, white, and male", the movement appears to be absorbing much of those people into itself.
In addition, while from past blog posts it is clear that I am not a conservative, I have friends and relatives who are yet despite this, there are subjects on which we find common ground and even when we do disagree, I know they are good people; my problem is not a difference in politics but how hateful someone is. As such, with all its bigotry the Alt-Right is something I find myself becoming more and more alarmed by and I regard it as a threat, both to society and to other forms of conservatism; it must not be allowed to become the dominant force in right-wing ideology and have access to all that political machinery.
Whereas the majority of ordinary conservatives and libertarians acknowledge that racism remains a problem and that it should be addressed, those who subscribe to the Alt-Right ideology appear to reject the existence of any sort of racism - unless it is something they perceive to be directed at white people, in particular at white men. Indeed, a conservative critic of the Alt-Right, columnist and former editor-at-large for Breitbart.com Ben Shapiro, refers to it as "an agglomeration of self-appointed radical culture warriors, disenchanted paleoconservatives, and open anti-Semites and white supremacists." who regard "any resistance to actual racism and anti-Semitism to be 'cuck' cowardice and social justice warrior whining.", whereas the Wikipedia article about the Alt-Right notes (with sources) the movement's links to white supremacy/nationalism and anti-Semitism. The Alt-Right condescendingly refers to people who oppose prejudice and support acceptance and equal rights by the pejorative "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW) - thereby treating the notion of speaking up for others as inherently negative. Demonising civil rights campaigners in such a manner is behaviour consistent with anyone associated with hate organisations.
Regardless of links to hate groups, the Alt-Right does not appear to be attached to any political party; rather, they appear to back anyone who they perceive will advance their agenda, even if said person rejects their support. For example, US Senator Bernie Sanders was criticised for misogyny amongst the supporters of his campaign, which he addressed by strongly condemning said supporters; however, these people weren't supporting Sanders because they agreed with his policies (after all, Sanders has a lifetime commitment to anti-discrimination). Instead, they were more than likely followers of the Alt-Right who attached themselves to Sanders because their opposition to Hillary Clinton stemmed from her being female, not because they opposed her on ideological grounds. This can be evidenced by the fact that these people, who made up only a small portion of Sanders' base, have since shifted their support to Trump while the majority of Sanders' followers will vote for Clinton. While Trump did not create Alt-Right and while many of his supporters also aren't Alt-Right, he hasn't made the same condemnations that Sanders did, appears to have an alignment with it and the movement clearly backs him.
Trump's hateful rhetoric in conjunction with his massive prominence as currently obtained through the 2016 presidential election in the United States has given the Alt-Right a perceived anti-establishment leader in him, at least for now. From Trump's extreme comments about immigration to his slurs against Senator Elizabeth Warren, to his promotion of violence against Clinton and against protesters, he has emboldened the likes of the Ku Klux Klan to openly rear their heads and embrace his campaign, while his alliance with Breitbart.com (see the linked article) cements him as the figurehead of the Alt-Right movement. This alliance with Breitbart Media can be evidenced by Trump making Stephen Bannon - the former executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC - as the CEO of his campaign. This alliance is significant because Bannon himself has declared that the network is the Alt-Right's media platform and Southern Poverty Law Center noted in April 2016 that Breitbart Media has, over the past year, shifted towards that position, as suggested by its increase in fringe viewpoints and overt racism in its reporting. This amount of power and prominence is sure to advance white nationalism/supremacy towards the mainstream once again.
While racism and white nationalism/supremacy are core components of the Alt-Right, misogyny is also rampant among its ranks, as evidenced by its assimilation of Men's Rights Activism. Much of its opposition to Clinton's presidential campaign is because she is a woman; however, Clinton is not the sole target of this rage. Comedienne and Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones fell victim to a misogynistic - as well as racist - harassment campaign on Twitter followed by a hack against her website, which replaced it with nude imagery, personal information and racism. This was carried out because Jones is a woman and black, as well as middle-aged. A successful black woman who is nearly 50 and works in comedy challenges both the Alt-Right ideology that only white men should be successful as well as the notion that men should dominate comedy. The harassment campaign on Twitter was incited by Breitbart.com tech editor Milo Yiannopolous, champion of the Alt-Right movement and and a Trump supporter, who was subsequently banned from Twitter. Rather than take responsibility, as the Alt-Right is often fond of expecting others to do, he blamed the "totalitarian regressive left" and claimed that his free speech was violated. That Trump has not only not condemned any of this but appears to be aligning himself with it, even if not openly, should be of deep concern; this sort of behaviour cannot be allowed to be anywhere near the American presidency. While the Alt-Right is reported in some of the aforementioned links as mostly being contained to the Internet, the issues surrounding Yiannopolous and Breitbart.com suggest otherwise.
With regards to the Internet, in my encounters with Alt-Right individuals there, I have found that debating them can be summed up with a quote from The Terminator: "[...] It [Alt-Right followers] can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever [...]". That quote also applies to their actions, as with what has been happening to the aforementioned Jones. During discussions, their tactics to "win" consist of deflections, insults, trivialisation of opponents, multiple verbose irrelevancies and feigned ignorance. For example, If accused of racism and given examples of their racism, they almost always reply by demanding evidence of racism and then calling opponents racist by saying that calling out racism "creates division" or that it's a form of racism in itself. Any sort of discussion about women's rights results in them explaining why women are the real sexists and why men are victims of sexism (they dismiss the gender wage gap by saying that women are lazier and/or less ambitious than men; if a man defends feminism or uses the word |"misogynist|", they throw out hate-filled terms such as "cuck" and "White Knight"). Any sort of criticism of their actions results in them screaming thin-skinned and immature rantings about censorship, oppression and political correctness (mirroring the actions of the aforementioned Yiannopolous) - while they simultaneously savagely mock trigger victims, such as those who have suffered from rape, and sarcastically ask if any critics "require a safe space". Should Trump be defeated this November, neither this behaviour nor the Alt-Right will disappear; Trump will likely be cast aside and the movement will rally behind someone else. This is good news in comparison to the powers the Alt-Right would gain were Trump to prevail in this election.
The Alt-Right appears to be a movement that is anti-Left, anti-civil rights, anti-equality and even anti-Conservative in nature, while simultaneously deceiving its followers that it is merely anti-establishment and anti-PC. It supports the dominance of white men and viciously opposes the rise of anyone not included in that demographic. While the Alt-Right pre-dates the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, he appears to be working with it, as evidenced with his collaboration with Breitbart Media, and the movement has clearly embraced his candidacy, as it has given them greater prominence than any other candidate would have done. However, let's not be fooled: the Alt-Right is not a new phenomenon - it is a re-branding of the hatred of the past, only with some added flavour. As Hillary Clinton herself said, "No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed… Racists now call themselves 'racialists.' White supremacists now call themselves 'white nationalists.' The paranoid fringe now calls itself 'alt-right.' But the hate burns just as bright.". And for all its opposition to political correctness, "Alt-Right" itself is a euphemism for "white [male] supremacy".
Further reading:
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017
2. https://mic.com/articles/152659/what-is-the-alt-right-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-face-of-american-racism#.Bm1grFJTH
3. https://mic.com/articles/152233/the-disturbing-truth-about-trump-and-the-alt-right-why-white-nationalism-is-here-to-stay#.PpTjWrzev
4. http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/you-cant-whitewash-the-alt-rights-bigotry/ (note: This article is criticism of the Alt-Right by a conservative; it also covers the anti-Semitic side of the ideology, which I only touched on)
5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-tries-to-stop-trump-mid-pivot-by-tying-him-to-alt-right-192803698.html
6. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/
7. http://www.wired.com/2016/08/alt-rights-dark-army-racist-trolls-just-great-day/
8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37021991
9. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12653474/leslie-jones-hack-alt-right-culture-war
---------------------------
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly aware of the presence of the Alternative Right (Alt-Right) - a sector of right-wing ideology that has an expanding voice, especially thanks to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, whom the Alt-Right has embraced as its figurehead. The Alt-Right has gained so much attention that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently addressed it in a speech on her campaign trail, in which she tied Trump to the advancement of bigoted fringe views and white supremacy into the mainstream. Rather than being a fresh new perspective, the Alt-Right is dangerous because not only is it yet another re-run of racism, misogyny, white supremacy and other forms of hatred, this time under the guise of being "anti-establishment" and against political correctness (PC), it has become a uniting voice for said hatred and is rapidly becoming its umbrella ideology. While not every racist or sexist is de facto Alt-Right or even identifies with it (bigotry did not spring into existence when the term "Alt-Right" was coined a few years ago), for much of its current support is "young, white, and male", the movement appears to be absorbing much of those people into itself.
In addition, while from past blog posts it is clear that I am not a conservative, I have friends and relatives who are yet despite this, there are subjects on which we find common ground and even when we do disagree, I know they are good people; my problem is not a difference in politics but how hateful someone is. As such, with all its bigotry the Alt-Right is something I find myself becoming more and more alarmed by and I regard it as a threat, both to society and to other forms of conservatism; it must not be allowed to become the dominant force in right-wing ideology and have access to all that political machinery.
- Beth Reinhard with contributions from Janet Hook; Wall Street Journal
Whereas the majority of ordinary conservatives and libertarians acknowledge that racism remains a problem and that it should be addressed, those who subscribe to the Alt-Right ideology appear to reject the existence of any sort of racism - unless it is something they perceive to be directed at white people, in particular at white men. Indeed, a conservative critic of the Alt-Right, columnist and former editor-at-large for Breitbart.com Ben Shapiro, refers to it as "an agglomeration of self-appointed radical culture warriors, disenchanted paleoconservatives, and open anti-Semites and white supremacists." who regard "any resistance to actual racism and anti-Semitism to be 'cuck' cowardice and social justice warrior whining.", whereas the Wikipedia article about the Alt-Right notes (with sources) the movement's links to white supremacy/nationalism and anti-Semitism. The Alt-Right condescendingly refers to people who oppose prejudice and support acceptance and equal rights by the pejorative "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW) - thereby treating the notion of speaking up for others as inherently negative. Demonising civil rights campaigners in such a manner is behaviour consistent with anyone associated with hate organisations.
Regardless of links to hate groups, the Alt-Right does not appear to be attached to any political party; rather, they appear to back anyone who they perceive will advance their agenda, even if said person rejects their support. For example, US Senator Bernie Sanders was criticised for misogyny amongst the supporters of his campaign, which he addressed by strongly condemning said supporters; however, these people weren't supporting Sanders because they agreed with his policies (after all, Sanders has a lifetime commitment to anti-discrimination). Instead, they were more than likely followers of the Alt-Right who attached themselves to Sanders because their opposition to Hillary Clinton stemmed from her being female, not because they opposed her on ideological grounds. This can be evidenced by the fact that these people, who made up only a small portion of Sanders' base, have since shifted their support to Trump while the majority of Sanders' followers will vote for Clinton. While Trump did not create Alt-Right and while many of his supporters also aren't Alt-Right, he hasn't made the same condemnations that Sanders did, appears to have an alignment with it and the movement clearly backs him.
Trump's hateful rhetoric in conjunction with his massive prominence as currently obtained through the 2016 presidential election in the United States has given the Alt-Right a perceived anti-establishment leader in him, at least for now. From Trump's extreme comments about immigration to his slurs against Senator Elizabeth Warren, to his promotion of violence against Clinton and against protesters, he has emboldened the likes of the Ku Klux Klan to openly rear their heads and embrace his campaign, while his alliance with Breitbart.com (see the linked article) cements him as the figurehead of the Alt-Right movement. This alliance with Breitbart Media can be evidenced by Trump making Stephen Bannon - the former executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC - as the CEO of his campaign. This alliance is significant because Bannon himself has declared that the network is the Alt-Right's media platform and Southern Poverty Law Center noted in April 2016 that Breitbart Media has, over the past year, shifted towards that position, as suggested by its increase in fringe viewpoints and overt racism in its reporting. This amount of power and prominence is sure to advance white nationalism/supremacy towards the mainstream once again.
While racism and white nationalism/supremacy are core components of the Alt-Right, misogyny is also rampant among its ranks, as evidenced by its assimilation of Men's Rights Activism. Much of its opposition to Clinton's presidential campaign is because she is a woman; however, Clinton is not the sole target of this rage. Comedienne and Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones fell victim to a misogynistic - as well as racist - harassment campaign on Twitter followed by a hack against her website, which replaced it with nude imagery, personal information and racism. This was carried out because Jones is a woman and black, as well as middle-aged. A successful black woman who is nearly 50 and works in comedy challenges both the Alt-Right ideology that only white men should be successful as well as the notion that men should dominate comedy. The harassment campaign on Twitter was incited by Breitbart.com tech editor Milo Yiannopolous, champion of the Alt-Right movement and and a Trump supporter, who was subsequently banned from Twitter. Rather than take responsibility, as the Alt-Right is often fond of expecting others to do, he blamed the "totalitarian regressive left" and claimed that his free speech was violated. That Trump has not only not condemned any of this but appears to be aligning himself with it, even if not openly, should be of deep concern; this sort of behaviour cannot be allowed to be anywhere near the American presidency. While the Alt-Right is reported in some of the aforementioned links as mostly being contained to the Internet, the issues surrounding Yiannopolous and Breitbart.com suggest otherwise.
With regards to the Internet, in my encounters with Alt-Right individuals there, I have found that debating them can be summed up with a quote from The Terminator: "[...] It [Alt-Right followers] can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever [...]". That quote also applies to their actions, as with what has been happening to the aforementioned Jones. During discussions, their tactics to "win" consist of deflections, insults, trivialisation of opponents, multiple verbose irrelevancies and feigned ignorance. For example, If accused of racism and given examples of their racism, they almost always reply by demanding evidence of racism and then calling opponents racist by saying that calling out racism "creates division" or that it's a form of racism in itself. Any sort of discussion about women's rights results in them explaining why women are the real sexists and why men are victims of sexism (they dismiss the gender wage gap by saying that women are lazier and/or less ambitious than men; if a man defends feminism or uses the word |"misogynist|", they throw out hate-filled terms such as "cuck" and "White Knight"). Any sort of criticism of their actions results in them screaming thin-skinned and immature rantings about censorship, oppression and political correctness (mirroring the actions of the aforementioned Yiannopolous) - while they simultaneously savagely mock trigger victims, such as those who have suffered from rape, and sarcastically ask if any critics "require a safe space". Should Trump be defeated this November, neither this behaviour nor the Alt-Right will disappear; Trump will likely be cast aside and the movement will rally behind someone else. This is good news in comparison to the powers the Alt-Right would gain were Trump to prevail in this election.
The Alt-Right appears to be a movement that is anti-Left, anti-civil rights, anti-equality and even anti-Conservative in nature, while simultaneously deceiving its followers that it is merely anti-establishment and anti-PC. It supports the dominance of white men and viciously opposes the rise of anyone not included in that demographic. While the Alt-Right pre-dates the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, he appears to be working with it, as evidenced with his collaboration with Breitbart Media, and the movement has clearly embraced his candidacy, as it has given them greater prominence than any other candidate would have done. However, let's not be fooled: the Alt-Right is not a new phenomenon - it is a re-branding of the hatred of the past, only with some added flavour. As Hillary Clinton herself said, "No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed… Racists now call themselves 'racialists.' White supremacists now call themselves 'white nationalists.' The paranoid fringe now calls itself 'alt-right.' But the hate burns just as bright.". And for all its opposition to political correctness, "Alt-Right" itself is a euphemism for "white [male] supremacy".
Further reading:
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017
2. https://mic.com/articles/152659/what-is-the-alt-right-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-face-of-american-racism#.Bm1grFJTH
3. https://mic.com/articles/152233/the-disturbing-truth-about-trump-and-the-alt-right-why-white-nationalism-is-here-to-stay#.PpTjWrzev
4. http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/you-cant-whitewash-the-alt-rights-bigotry/ (note: This article is criticism of the Alt-Right by a conservative; it also covers the anti-Semitic side of the ideology, which I only touched on)
5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-tries-to-stop-trump-mid-pivot-by-tying-him-to-alt-right-192803698.html
6. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-radical-anti-conservatism-of-stephen-bannon/496796/
7. http://www.wired.com/2016/08/alt-rights-dark-army-racist-trolls-just-great-day/
8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37021991
9. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12653474/leslie-jones-hack-alt-right-culture-war
Sunday, 7 August 2016
The two protests
Two days ago, I read that a small and peaceful anti-racism protest occurred in
Nottingham; the protest consisted of this small group temporarily blocking the tram routes to draw attention to their cause. While they received praise, there was significant public outrage, especially on social media, which referred to the protesters as "jobless losers", "unclean" and an "annoyance for
workers and people going on holiday", as well as referred to them as
"thugs".
Yesterday, the English Defence League, which is known for its extreme racism and history of violence, held a protest in Nottingham. While extra police officers were called in to guarantee peace and attractions in the Market Square were closed because of "the risks [the protest] could pose to children and families", there was no equal outrage on social media. In fact, there was nothing that I observed to condemn the protest, despite the EDL's bigotry and reputation for violence.
I found these double standards saddening. That people would be outraged at a small anti-racism protest - even if it did delay public transport users a little - while ignoring a much larger and potentially dangerous racist protest is highly disappointing.
A news article about the protest can be found here.
Yesterday, the English Defence League, which is known for its extreme racism and history of violence, held a protest in Nottingham. While extra police officers were called in to guarantee peace and attractions in the Market Square were closed because of "the risks [the protest] could pose to children and families", there was no equal outrage on social media. In fact, there was nothing that I observed to condemn the protest, despite the EDL's bigotry and reputation for violence.
I found these double standards saddening. That people would be outraged at a small anti-racism protest - even if it did delay public transport users a little - while ignoring a much larger and potentially dangerous racist protest is highly disappointing.
A news article about the protest can be found here.
Saturday, 23 July 2016
"No, you're the racist/sexist/homophobe!"
Over the past few months, possibly longer, I've observed a particularly noteworthy and troubling deflection tactic when calling someone out for their bigotry. It goes like this:
1. Person A says something bigoted; for an example, they've been racist.
2. Person B argues that Person A has been racist and explains why, then says Person A should take back their comment and apologise.
3. Person A declares that they're not racist and that Person B is the "real racist" because Person B, by speaking up, is assuming that the ethnic group in the discussion cannot defend themselves and that they never asked Person B for help, anyway.
As a result, Person B ends up going on the defensive, so even though Person A makes the racist comment, Person B walks away as the "real racist".
It's a completely nonsense defence and it's abhorrent that it's advanced as much as it has. Speaking up for a particular person or group does not imply you think said person or group cannot speak up for themselves; provided that your motives are genuine and you're defending them because you're a decent human being, you've done nothing wrong and it doesn't demean them. You're just an extra voice and someone who has come to them in a time of need; if anything, we should be encouraging each other to help more rather than let the naysayers and trolls dominate the discussion.
Oh, and "they never asked for your help" is nonsense, too - you can still lend a helping hand even if someone doesn't ask and they can always decline your offer.
1. Person A says something bigoted; for an example, they've been racist.
2. Person B argues that Person A has been racist and explains why, then says Person A should take back their comment and apologise.
3. Person A declares that they're not racist and that Person B is the "real racist" because Person B, by speaking up, is assuming that the ethnic group in the discussion cannot defend themselves and that they never asked Person B for help, anyway.
As a result, Person B ends up going on the defensive, so even though Person A makes the racist comment, Person B walks away as the "real racist".
It's a completely nonsense defence and it's abhorrent that it's advanced as much as it has. Speaking up for a particular person or group does not imply you think said person or group cannot speak up for themselves; provided that your motives are genuine and you're defending them because you're a decent human being, you've done nothing wrong and it doesn't demean them. You're just an extra voice and someone who has come to them in a time of need; if anything, we should be encouraging each other to help more rather than let the naysayers and trolls dominate the discussion.
Oh, and "they never asked for your help" is nonsense, too - you can still lend a helping hand even if someone doesn't ask and they can always decline your offer.
Monday, 27 June 2016
A hateful rise
Since the EU referendum, there has been a significant rise in hate crimes directed at minority communities; David Cameron, who is still the Prime Minister for now, has spoken out again the crimes:
The trouble is, it's hard to have a discussion about the rise in racism because every the conversation occurs, defensive responses about how "not all Brexiters" are racists and that the Remain camp are the "real racists" pour in. It's not a case of every Brexiter being a racist - it's that people who are racist have been emboldened by the outcome of the referendum.
The trouble is, it's hard to have a discussion about the rise in racism because every the conversation occurs, defensive responses about how "not all Brexiters" are racists and that the Remain camp are the "real racists" pour in. It's not a case of every Brexiter being a racist - it's that people who are racist have been emboldened by the outcome of the referendum.
Monday, 5 November 2012
On my support for President Barack Obama
For today's post I am taking a break from writing about my recent visit with family to cover something I haven't gone into a lot of detail about before: some insight into why I support Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States. Tens of millions of people will be voting tomorrow and tens of millions more have participated in early voting: it seems fitting for me to write this today.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)