That’s just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.
I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn’t, and I’m tired of this “both sides” bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.
They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.
Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.
Curious what you think “tough on crime” means and how it’s separate from “white supremacy” and the police killing black people. How is “tough on crime” passive? Do you think the effects of “tough on crime” on the lives of racial minorities were not intentional?
Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.
Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.
See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.
Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?
Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats may say they oppose these things, but functionally they do absolutely nothing to actually oppose the Republicans. What has the Democratic party done to oppose the Republicans beside be pathetic and bend the knee to their every whim? People still get deported under both parties, as stated in the above post, so functionally racism is still government policy regardless. When people make the point the parties are the same, the point we’re trying to make is that electoralism under the American system will accomplish nothing. Only be standing against the party duopoly(which mind you, is effectively a one-party state) and pushing for regime change can racism be stamped out.
Also, both parties still bomb West-Asians just as much. So they’re also equally racist in that regard.
This is just the epitome of the white liberal misunderstanding of racism and how it functions. Yes these things are the same. This is why people refer to “active racism” as you call it, as “going mask off”.
The polite veneer that Democrats place over their support of racist policies is the reason MLK and Malcolm x cautioned against the “moderate whites”.
This analysis only makes even a slight amount of sense if you actually don’t know what “context” or “a system” are. These two forces are not in opposition, they’re on the same side. It’s the same racist system being sustained in two slightly different ways and a critical aspect of that is the (fake) appearance of opposition which you have completely bought into. You’re also pretending a lot of democrats aren’t literally impossible to tell apart from republicans even within your framing, which isn’t the case. For example, Joe Biden.
That’s just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.
I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn’t, and I’m tired of this “both sides” bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.
Curious what you think “tough on crime” means and how it’s separate from “white supremacy” and the police killing black people. How is “tough on crime” passive? Do you think the effects of “tough on crime” on the lives of racial minorities were not intentional?
Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.
Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.
See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.
Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?
Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats may say they oppose these things, but functionally they do absolutely nothing to actually oppose the Republicans. What has the Democratic party done to oppose the Republicans beside be pathetic and bend the knee to their every whim? People still get deported under both parties, as stated in the above post, so functionally racism is still government policy regardless. When people make the point the parties are the same, the point we’re trying to make is that electoralism under the American system will accomplish nothing. Only be standing against the party duopoly(which mind you, is effectively a one-party state) and pushing for regime change can racism be stamped out.
Also, both parties still bomb West-Asians just as much. So they’re also equally racist in that regard.
This is just the epitome of the white liberal misunderstanding of racism and how it functions. Yes these things are the same. This is why people refer to “active racism” as you call it, as “going mask off”.
The polite veneer that Democrats place over their support of racist policies is the reason MLK and Malcolm x cautioned against the “moderate whites”.
This analysis only makes even a slight amount of sense if you actually don’t know what “context” or “a system” are. These two forces are not in opposition, they’re on the same side. It’s the same racist system being sustained in two slightly different ways and a critical aspect of that is the (fake) appearance of opposition which you have completely bought into. You’re also pretending a lot of democrats aren’t literally impossible to tell apart from republicans even within your framing, which isn’t the case. For example, Joe Biden.