We are all equal again, right?

[Dill]

(07-07-2023, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Back then it was no different than now--there were plenty of people who attacked the character and motives of civil rights protestors rather than the injustice they protested. 

The modern left has really set up a fascinating mental structure of heads I win, tails, you lose.  If a minority has a position contrary to the perceived "white majority" then they are fighting for their rights against an oppressive majority.  If a minority agrees with the perceived "white majority" then they're a sell out, participating in "white supremacy", or labeled as worse.  These mental gymnastics are honestly impressive, as you've built a cage that inures you to even having to consider people as more than being part of an aggregate whole, a whole with rules that must be obeyed.

You see this most markedly when a minority of prominence expresses views that are contrary to the modern left's acceptable opinions.  They are attacked mercilessly and labeled with slurs that would get a right leaning person labeled a despicable racist if uttered by them.  Your comparison of Asians who want to be treated fairly with "black segregationists" is a perfect, albeit more clever, example of this.  The comparison is unflattering by design and seeks to equate a desire to be treated fairly with being in favor of racial oppression.

Honestly, It'd actually be impressive if it weren't so odious and malignant.

Well, typically, yes. Minorities have had to fight for their rights in the U.S.. Yesterday you were a big booster of "agency." 

And in all those struggles, at every stage, there were minorities who sided with "whites," even against their own civil rights.

Is the bolded statement false? A lie?  More importantly--

Why should this historical recognition trigger a defense of those who sided with the dominating ethnicity?  

I can't help but notice that when you speak of "minority agreement" with the dominant ethnicity, you stay very clear of examples. In any case,
I doubt a single Black segregationist would say he didn't want to be treated fairly.  Even Booker T. Washington thought equality should eventually prevail. They just didn't think Black people should be actively protesting and marching to get equality--"contrary to the modern left's acceptable opinions."

The real "mental gymnastics" occur in trying to deny the historical record to confirm to your pre-existing beliefs about your Fox-inflected "modern left."  E.g., In this forum, it is not "the modern left" which "attacks" fellow posters with "slurs" and accuses people of "racism." 

Rather than simply pre-judging the motives of the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions, and their opponents, to conform with what you "already know" about "the left," why not delve into the legal arguments, the precedents, and the history of AA in higher ed, to better understand the context of the decision? 

Find out what is the case, THEN judge.

No one can explain the evolution/devolution of civil rights, or any other historical tendency, by simply imputing good or evil motives to historical actors--motives you can't really know and would not be adequate to historical explanation even if you could. And no one can get very far in this regard by discounting comparisons of present and past cases as too "odious and malignant" for examination. Such dismissal is also a form of pre-judgement, deployed to protect cherished beliefs long separated from actual historical record. Constantly urning from law and history to ad hominem can only protect belief in the short term, if even then.