Yes, you take a complicated and nuanced argument and slap a clickbait headline on it and pretend that represents a sizable opinion.

It seems two realities are possible here: Either multiple outlets with a track record of YEARS of such postings are floating fringe opinions not shared by their readership, or you-- in partisan fashion-- are refusing to accept criticism of an ideology which you support.

According to Alexa, most of the sources I've cited are within the top 1000 most popular websites in the US. Buzzfeed ranks 50th. The Washington Post ranks 40th.

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that these outlets profit from writing things their readership supports and agrees with or that they publish unpopular, fringe opinions few agree with yet still somehow remain both popular and profitable? If you look at this soberly, you will be forced to acknowledge that the "ignore it, it's just clickbait" excuse for article after article, website after webiste is rather silly.

Or take some other idiot who has already done this (whether they believe it or are straw-man attacking it), and hold them up as if they represent a sizable group of people.

#NotAll you mean?

Everything you've posted here just screams "I don't care to understand any kind of complex and rational argument, I just want to simplify your position until it sounds dumb"

Another possibility: I do understand the arguments and reject their core premises in favor of a far more inclusive and foundational world view (and have nothing but scorn for the pretzel logic of justifications on the Left and Right which excuses not treating ALL people equally, regardless of race/creed/color/faith/etc)

When you do this, when you simplify a nuanced argument to the point of it become extremist nonsense and then laugh at it, you are being dismissive of the original argument. You are dismissing well thought out logical reasoning without ever having trying to understand it. That is an incredibly offensive thing to do to someone.

The dustbin of history is filled with elaborately reasoned, nuanced ideologies which did not stand the test of time (despite their proponents being convinced they were on 'the right side of history.') I'm sure Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx would be incredibly offended by the criticism and ridicule heaped on communism, for instance.

We should be more interested in what is true and what reflects the way we wish to live than who is offended when a social theory is criticized.

And seeing that you're not aware what it is that you're dismissing, you don't even know how completely stupid you sound to some people, or even who you're insulting.

You assume that I am not aware, that I care about whether or not ideologues regard me as intelligent and that I give one whit about their feelings. This is not the case. I am interested in core principles which foster equality. The philosophy you are defending ostensibly claims to do this yet suffers from an ideological and moral rot which its proponents refuse to confront.

It is the height of hubris to engage in such sweeping arrogant review of people's honest attempt at improving the state of the world.

Fascinating how this mirrors the "high and mighty liberal elites" argument the Right deflects criticism with. I'm sure that they want to honestly improve the state of the world as well. Both will fail because both are tribal, both invite abuse and neither inspire the vast majority of us to the angels of our better nature.

If you were really a moderate centrist you'd use some good faith and assume that there are rational, deep, nuanced arguments beneath all those bullshit simplifications and try to understand the actual, sane arguments that academics on both sides are putting forth...

You cannot create a fairminded, egalitarian society which upholds equality of opportunity among its highest values by promoting bigotry of any kind. You cannot create good by doing evil. It just doesn't work. You inspire backlash, you polarize and mire the society and you abandon any core principles in the never ending pursuit of transitory political victory. The US is already experiencing this and the result is ideological silos, divergent realities and ever deepening conflict and rising approval of political violence.

There is no more greater moral clarion call to equality which inspires human beings than one which applies universally. The return of elaborately reasoned segregation, tacit approval of discrimination in employment based on race and gender and groupthink which silences dissent by forever claiming to be offended are all the rising result of these so-called 'sane' arguments. Thanks but no thanks!

I interpreted the post as saying "avoid the subset of obviously bullshit bullshit present within the Left and Right". Which to me is a perfectly sensible strategy.

From your reaction, I believe you must have interpreted the post as "let's dismiss the ENTIRE Left and Right as bullshit just because some of it is." which is not what I sensed from the post at all.

Yep. As I said in my original post: "The Right is sometimes right. The Left is sometimes right. But when both abandon principles in favor of tribalism and preach "my side right no matter what" they are both wrong."

I think Hodg's reaction (which is also my own) is that Wav has drastically oversimplified things to the point that what Wav said isn't actually a meaningful representation of any position.

'Isn't actually a meaningful representation of any position' seems to me to be a fig leaf when academic opinion is being translated to justifications for bigotry.

The actual position is more along the lines of, "for historical reasons, one particular demographic currently has more advantages and power in the aggregate than the others.
It is bizarre that the next line of reasoning isn't, "so in keeping with our principles, we should demand equality of opportunity for all regardless of ethnicity/creed/gender/etc."
..and if you happen to be in that demographic, be mindful of how you use your privilege and how your actions come across to those with less privilege than you,

I do not see how this translates to anything other than pointless navel gazing among true believers and hardened resistance among the unrepentant. Neither moves the needle toward equality of opportunity and the philosophy seems to mire us in tribalist infighting.

...and if you don't do that, you're perpetuating the fallout of the bad shit that happened back in the day and making life harder for everyone else."

So doesn't this mean that if you refuse to accept the tenets of this ideology, you are responsible for some of the worst crimes in human history? What room for debate does this existential reasoning allow? And what is to be done with those who disagree?

Of course, it IS true that most of the objectionable shit the "Left" (in North America at least) is talking about ultimately happened because of European colonialism and there's a lot of resentment there, but one just can't simplify that to "WHITE MEN BAD," and the people who are doing that are either letting their resentment and anger get the better of them or seeking to caricature the real position.

The resentment is the spiritual shadow that's not being confronted here. It needs to be confronted a different way. I would prefer us to say that we should not forget the past so that we never repeat it, but that we hold ideals of a far greater, far more inclusive future.

According to Alexa, most of the sources I've cited are within the top 1000 most popular websites in the US. Buzzfeed ranks 50th. The Washington Post ranks 40th.

Just because they're "popular", doesn't mean they always report things properly.

Sure, but this certainly seems to demolish the idea that this is some fringe ideology that enjoys no support on the Left.

Some nuance is often lost. There's incentive to report on the most sensational thing in a sensational way.

Granted and maybe news outlets should receive greater condemnation for failure to get to the core elements in the same way they deserve criticism for distortions in scientific reporting.

For example, the Lara Witt article is just pointing out that somebody said something that sounds sensational; it doesn't even try to explain why she might have said any of the things she said, it purely focuses on the optics of what she said and then editorializes thereon.

I would apply the same rules for everybody here. Don't excuse, don't justify.

In fact, on the note of popularity, who the hell is "PJMedia"?

As I said, "almost all" sources rank top 1000.

The "end of white america" refers to the end of America being defined by "whiteness," not the end of white people existing in America. The article actually says this in its

Note the Lander quote I cited, that was the point of including that article-- to counter Hodgman's flippant assertion of "oh this is just a fringe opinion nobody has." It is a growing, pervasive opinion (one which I'm convinced has given us a backlash resulting in the unmitigated disaster that is the Donald Trump presidency).

The high school teacher who said that "white people are all racist" was clearly talking about institutional/cultural racism, not individual bigotry - an idea the article actually refers to. The only reason this is news is some offended students who didn't understand what he was actually talking about.

"White people are all institutionally racist even if they're not personally bigoted" doesn't fare much better, I'm afraid.

Now that I actually get to it, I'm not confident that you actually read your own links and thought critically about them, and I suspect you just picked them based on their headlines (and only looked at the headlines).

LOL! Your assiduous omission of the Salon articles is telling. What do you think? Should we demolish Mount Rushmore? Is Fortgang a white racist?

So doesn't this mean that if you refuse to accept the tenets of this ideology, you are responsible for some of the worst crimes in human history? What room for debate does this existential reasoning allow? And what is to be done with those who disagree?

The hell? No, that's not what that means. None of us are responsible for the actions of our predecessors, but we are responsible for how we respond to the society they created - whether we perpetuate the systems they left us with or change them to be more inclusive. One should not ignore history when making decisions of how to treat people. It would be nice if that were possible, and we should work towards a future where it is, but the wounds are still too fresh.

You are still not acknowledging how we should treat those who disagree.

The resentment is the spiritual shadow that's not being confronted here. It needs to be confronted a different way. I would prefer us to say that we should not forget the past so that we never repeat it, but that we hold ideals of a far greater, far more inclusive future.

It isn't merely a shadow, there are still echoes of the bad shit in today's society. THAT is what all this talk about institutionalized racism is about. So, what do you suggest as a "centrist solution" to address the problem of intergenerational trauma? An example of that on the Canadian side of the border would be the residential schools and the fallout therefrom.

Truth and reconciliation is a powerful strategy for grappling with the evils of the past. It addresses the psychological component. But it is meaningless without specific, measurable results-- none of which this nebulous delving into "checking privilege" addresses.

Metrics mean we count and drive reforms not based on identity but on our foundational principals. If a person can't afford school, we should care little for whether they are born in Appalachia or Atlanta. If police are using the courts to soak a population, we need the numbers to make comparative judgements and demand reform. If one population is dying at a greater rate than another, our arguments in Congress should be blind to their demographics and assail the idea that we are failing to treat our citizens equally.


Tribalism is a powerful drug and I'm under no illusion that shifting our mentality will be easy, but I'm quite certain that getting us to fight each other will end in disaster.