[twofornone]

>The anti-progress faction is still very very powerful. Plenty of unequivocal sexists and racists face no punishment.

If I dared to push back on diversity and inclusion mandates in my workplace I'd lose my job. That includes explicitly racist talk about not hiring any more white guys. These "anti-progress" sentiments may exist but effectively in a parallel society, relegated mostly to blue collar work. It's dishonest to pretend that this ideology hasn't effectively taken over nearly all of our major institutions, and this slimy sort of denial is partly how it happened.

And these topics are not nearly as black and white as culture warriors make them out to be, but God forbid if you express the wrong opinion or even ask the wrong question. Progress is great but sometimes you need to stop and listen to the people warning you that you're about to progress right off a cliff.

[tootie]

For one that's a sample bias of HN being primarily affluent coastal elites. Half the country voted for the anti-progress candidate. Second, I do not at all believe that you'd be fired for a reasonable objection to diversity policy. Saying "I don't want diversity at all" might.

[rendall]

> I do not at all believe that you'd be fired for a reasonable objection to diversity policy.

That's not an argument. Not even really a reasonable belief. It happens to people on the regular.

Let me introduce you to Jodie Shaw. https://dangerousintersection.org/2021/02/20/jodi-shaw-resig...

[tootie]

She quit, she wasn't fired. And it was at least partly over incidents she wasn't even party too. Apparently she was upset that a supervisor suggested she not rap.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jodi-shaw-...

[rendall]

The Rolling Stone article is inaccurate. NYT article is better. Clean your mind of Rolling Stone.

Shaw quit because of a hostile work environment prompted specifically by her protest, which your linked article elides. Regarding the rap, she was told specifically she could not do it because she is white, and not because of any other reason.

Here's a compare-and-contrast between the 2 articles (NYT vs RS) https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/25/smith-meltdown-nyt...

[rayiner]

The anti-progress candidate—as defined by “affluent coastal elites”: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/opinion/biden-latino-vote...

E.g. they called Trump a racist for saying things that most minorities themselves agreed with.

> We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”

> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos.

[tptacek]

And? Minorities are racist just like everybody else. Why do we have to triangulate this stuff? Trump was obviously a pretty racist guy.

The sneaky lawyer trick in what you wrote is "they called Trump racist for saying things minorities agreed with". That's true, they did. But they also called him racist for a bunch of other reasons!

[rayiner]

> And? Minorities are racist just like everybody else.

There is a difference between minorities being racist, which of course they can be, and minorities not finding allegedly racist things to be racist. My point is that it makes no sense to define "racism" to encompass supposed "dog whistle" messages directed at minorities that those minorities themselves agree with.

It not only gets used to shut down debate, as PG observes, but it's exploitive. It gets used to argue on behalf of minorities against policies that minorities themselves support. Associations of law-and-order with racism got weaponized in the last couple of years to advance approaches to policing and criminal justice that minorities themselves rejected.

> Why do we have to triangulate this stuff?

Because white people shouldn't get to police other white people on minorities' behalf over statements that those minorities don't find offensive.

> Trump was obviously a pretty racist guy.

In the sense that pretty much every 70-year old man is racist? Sure. In the sense that any of his policies were racist? No. Strong borders, careful scrutiny of refugees from parts of the world rife with fundamentalism, quelling riots, etc., are not racist.

[tptacek]

You did it again: you framed something like "Is Trump racist? No, this set of policies everyone says is racist isn't really racist." I don't even have to disagree with your premises to continue to find Trump's policies racist, because he did more than carefully scrutinize refugees and attempt to quell riots. (I do disagree with your premises, though).

I'm not out to get you with these observations. I don't think you're racist, or running cover for racists. I like that there are vocal conservative-leaning people around here. It's weird that you'd deploy high school debate tricks to respond to me, isn't it? If it's "sneaky lawyer trick" upthread, I apologize; I was just having fun, not trying to cast aspersions.

[rayiner]

When people say that "Trump is racist," I take that to mean "Trump is personally prejudiced and that is reflected in his messaging and policies." I think whether he's racist irrespective of his messaging and policies isn't an interesting question.