i've never loved this framing, not because i think it's wrong to call white people krakkker and mayo (never gonna stop doing this ) but because it feels like a semantic squabble with limited utility.
like, white liberals have a common understanding of the word racism which is pretty... shallow: essentially just being mean to someone based on race or racial characteristics. this simplistic definition of the word reveals a lack of understanding of what racism-- institutionally and culturally enforced otherization-- actually entails for those deemed other. but i hate arguing definitions and semantics, like asserting that a word can't map to multiple concepts simply isn't how words and language work. i'm more inclined to tell someone that their experience of racism is remarkably shallow and acute than deny that the word racism can map onto such shallow and acute experiences.
As I type this I suppose "limited utility" isn't actually accurate, this kind of rhetoric can serve a few purposes: force people who still identify with their whiteness, exude white fragility, to either deconstruct their identity or out themselves and leave the group. maybe it's just the way people focus on semantics that bothers me.
it's more than that, actually. this thread gives me a vibe that I feel fairly frequently within online leftist spaces, not really unique to this topic. it's the misconception that because we're right (we are) we don't need to be tactful or strategic about how we do things, suggesting an underlying assumption that the universe trends towards rightness or justice or whatever. which i don't think it does. like, just because something's right or justified doesn't make it the most effective tactic to achieve our goals. i'm always "justified" in being the most aggressive leftist i want to be, but more often than not (at least irl) it's more effective to hide my power level and blend in, slowly advancing ideas without raising peoples' defenses.
so take this topic as an example (which I could go either way on, this is just an example). the function of this thread seems to be to re-enforce a sort of "party line" about how we define the word, which is fine I suppose. but that seems to preclude any talk of tactics, because any question of whether this rhetoric is effective is conflated with questioning whether this rhetoric is right/justified. another example, the idea that any bullying of soon-to-be/current/former soldiers is justified. It is, they're imperialist war criminals, but there still may be utility in trying to get through to them on some level.
it makes me think of mass line, specifically "unite the advanced, win over the intermediate, and isolate the worst of the backward." Most people are intermediate, and most of the intermediate have backwards traits and beliefs (especially white people in the US), but there has to be a balance between isolating people with one or two "backwards" views, at the expense of the movement, and allowing reactionary views to fester and grow within the movement, also undermining it. looking at it in a more granular way, in some contexts it may be more useful to move people from "backwards intermediate" to "advanced intermediate" or whatever, than some sort of "radicalize or bust". no historical movement has been made up of ideologically pure, advanced masses, they've been mixed bags that are able to unite a critical mass of overlapping/intersecting interests.
this thread gives me a vibe that I feel fairly frequently within online leftist spaces, not really unique to this topic. it's the misconception that because we're right (we are) we don't need to be tactful or strategic about how we do things, suggesting an underlying assumption that the universe trends towards rightness or justice or whatever. which i don't think it does.
i get where you're coming from, but in this specific instance, a non-white user was reacting to some absolutely vile casual white supremacist posts. tactics, messaging, optics, whatever, not really the issue here. if some dummy white person saw that and got their feelings hurt because they're not a hitler lover, then i think some mockery is a perfectly reasonable way to help them either get over themselves or leave. they can get their degree in antiracism and basic social awareness on some other web forum.
yeah I have a habit of using a specific post/thread to go on a spiel about a tangentially-related thing that's been on my mind. or directed at the general vibe i get in a thread versus the post itself
i generally agree with the reported comment and think someone like the reporter is likely not worth any effort or consideration whatsoever
that's a good point, although if we're talking about tactics internal consistency isn't 100% necessary. more important that the rhetoric we choose resonates in the way we intend with the audience we're engaging with
"whiteness is the absence of race" is an interesting way of framing it that the average person probably hasn't thought about before. could then segue into the arbitrary nature of white/nonwhite and how it ties into power structures and class relations. ideally sidesteps defenses and encourages novel/critical thought
also could avoid internal consistency issues simply by wording it like "the way I like to look at it is..." rather than a strong assertion.
The part you're quoting isn't so much about coalition building as it is agitation to try and break through the cultural wall most people are programmed with.
To me coalition building entails finding common ground between already-existing organizations and movements.
As a parallel, the Marxism 101 that we agitate with is reductive to the point of inaccuracy, but it's meant to be an approachable starting point. Similar pedagogical methods for physics and other things, although less ideologically loaded.
i've never loved this framing, not because i think it's wrong to call white people krakkker and mayo (never gonna stop doing this
) but because it feels like a semantic squabble with limited utility.
like, white liberals have a common understanding of the word racism which is pretty... shallow: essentially just being mean to someone based on race or racial characteristics. this simplistic definition of the word reveals a lack of understanding of what racism-- institutionally and culturally enforced otherization-- actually entails for those deemed other. but i hate arguing definitions and semantics, like asserting that a word can't map to multiple concepts simply isn't how words and language work. i'm more inclined to tell someone that their experience of racism is remarkably shallow and acute than deny that the word racism can map onto such shallow and acute experiences.
As I type this I suppose "limited utility" isn't actually accurate, this kind of rhetoric can serve a few purposes: force people who still identify with their whiteness, exude white fragility, to either deconstruct their identity or out themselves and leave the group. maybe it's just the way people focus on semantics that bothers me.
it's more than that, actually. this thread gives me a vibe that I feel fairly frequently within online leftist spaces, not really unique to this topic. it's the misconception that because we're right (we are) we don't need to be tactful or strategic about how we do things, suggesting an underlying assumption that the universe trends towards rightness or justice or whatever. which i don't think it does. like, just because something's right or justified doesn't make it the most effective tactic to achieve our goals. i'm always "justified" in being the most aggressive leftist i want to be, but more often than not (at least irl) it's more effective to hide my power level and blend in, slowly advancing ideas without raising peoples' defenses.
so take this topic as an example (which I could go either way on, this is just an example). the function of this thread seems to be to re-enforce a sort of "party line" about how we define the word, which is fine I suppose. but that seems to preclude any talk of tactics, because any question of whether this rhetoric is effective is conflated with questioning whether this rhetoric is right/justified. another example, the idea that any bullying of soon-to-be/current/former soldiers is justified. It is, they're imperialist war criminals, but there still may be utility in trying to get through to them on some level.
it makes me think of mass line, specifically "unite the advanced, win over the intermediate, and isolate the worst of the backward." Most people are intermediate, and most of the intermediate have backwards traits and beliefs (especially white people in the US), but there has to be a balance between isolating people with one or two "backwards" views, at the expense of the movement, and allowing reactionary views to fester and grow within the movement, also undermining it. looking at it in a more granular way, in some contexts it may be more useful to move people from "backwards intermediate" to "advanced intermediate" or whatever, than some sort of "radicalize or bust". no historical movement has been made up of ideologically pure, advanced masses, they've been mixed bags that are able to unite a critical mass of overlapping/intersecting interests.
Excellent, excellent point.
i get where you're coming from, but in this specific instance, a non-white user was reacting to some absolutely vile casual white supremacist posts. tactics, messaging, optics, whatever, not really the issue here. if some dummy white person saw that and got their feelings hurt because they're not a hitler lover, then i think some mockery is a perfectly reasonable way to help them either get over themselves or leave. they can get their degree in antiracism and basic social awareness on some other web forum.
yeah I have a habit of using a specific post/thread to go on a spiel about a tangentially-related thing that's been on my mind. or directed at the general vibe i get in a thread versus the post itself
i generally agree with the reported comment and think someone like the reporter is likely not worth any effort or consideration whatsoever
deleted by creator
If you’re already ceding a descriptivist account of language, arguing that white isn’t a race is probably foreclosed.
that's a good point, although if we're talking about tactics internal consistency isn't 100% necessary. more important that the rhetoric we choose resonates in the way we intend with the audience we're engaging with
"whiteness is the absence of race" is an interesting way of framing it that the average person probably hasn't thought about before. could then segue into the arbitrary nature of white/nonwhite and how it ties into power structures and class relations. ideally sidesteps defenses and encourages novel/critical thought
also could avoid internal consistency issues simply by wording it like "the way I like to look at it is..." rather than a strong assertion.
Removed by mod
The part you're quoting isn't so much about coalition building as it is agitation to try and break through the cultural wall most people are programmed with.
To me coalition building entails finding common ground between already-existing organizations and movements.
As a parallel, the Marxism 101 that we agitate with is reductive to the point of inaccuracy, but it's meant to be an approachable starting point. Similar pedagogical methods for physics and other things, although less ideologically loaded.
You hit the correct way to go about this on the head.