If you're Jewish and you vote for Biden you hate your religion and hate Israel

[CJD]

(03-20-2024, 01:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing.  I totally agree with you, and it would have been a much simpler task to approach this properly and it would have been much more successful at achieving its stated goals.  I think most White people are ok with acknowledging the wrongs of the past and the need to correct them.  How to fix them would be a matter of debate, but the need really wouldn't.  There are some, and always will be, who will refuse to acknowledge the problem, but I don't think their numbers are significant.  This begs the question, why wasn't it done that way?



Here's where I get into the why, as I see it.  I think this was done with complete intent.  For many in the "progressive" movement reconciliation and a move towards equal treatment was not the end goal, and we can see that by the fruits borne by the movement.  The goal was "it's our turn now".  I've told this story before, so apologies if you've read it.  I have a friend in San Diego who is mixed race, mother white and father black.  We were discussing at another friend's bachelor party weekend about the progressive movement.  This was pre-George Floyd and took place literally a month before the pandemic shutdown.  Our discussion centered around how successful it could be.  I noted that it could be very successful if it avoided going down the "it's our turn now" route.  My example of this is a college called The Citadel.  Hazing freshman is a tradition there, and can get rather out of hand.  The group that conducts the vast majority of the hazing is the sophomore class, who just got done being hazed for a year.  So the people you'd think would have the most empathy for the freshman's situation actually treat them the worst.  Why, because "it's out turn now."

You see the progressive movement as having good intent and going astray.  I see it as a movement with a stated noble intent that was deliberately steered into the current area by people with ill intent.  Look at the people the movement has chosen to elevate, using Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates as examples.  While Kendi is the worst offender of the two both are very much in the "it's out turn" camp and it is clear that actual reconciliation and equal treatment is not on their menu and never was.  The founders of BLM were openly misandrist Marxists whose stated goal was the destruction of the nuclear family.  All the flashing red lights were ignored by most due to fear of being labeled racist, which you correctly point out used to be a very weighty accusation.  So, while I have zero doubt of your good intent and perceptions, I don't think the movement as a whole ever really had a noble end goal in mind.  The proof is in the results.

You may be right. I hope you aren't, because that would be disheartening, but I do not look into the individuals who lead certain groups like BLM, I only note the sentiment/overarching belief. The sentiment is good. It may be the case that the intention of a minority of the loudest voices and influences is the problem.

Quote:Of course, this is a natural reaction to being attacked.  Also, these culture war issues are a distraction, the question being from what?  I've heard arguments that this is a deliberate distraction after the Occupy Wall Street movement, because it's far better for the ruling class to have the masses arguing about race than arguing about class/wealth.  Maybe there's some truth to that.  But I can state, again from my position and observation, that the progressive movement produced exactly what it set out to produce, and the results have been terrible.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about groups of people trying to distract the public from some other issue, I do think the idea is that if you keep talking about social/cultural issues, people won't have time to discuss the financial issues, which are what the wealthiest people in this country want, because they know they have the best deal despite having the most money.