- 6,889
- 16,829
With dirty, it seemed to be a case of someone fully understanding the language of anti racism while never embracing its substance.
I can’t trust anyone who uses the language of social justice and is still a Republican, even a self described moderate Republican.
It means that you want social justice for your identity (or just the marginalized part of your identity as can be the case for cis-het men of color and cishet white women) but for most people, you still want the brutal logic of supposed meritocracy and the violence and deprivation that it entails.
For dirty it ended being a case where he wanted social justice just for upwardly mobile Asian Americans but poor people and black people deserved to suffer because they failed in what is a mostly meritocratic society. An example of that thinking was his unabashed support for the war on drugs, despite its architect clearly stating that its purpose was to target black people.
As for me, crc and blco, it was interesting that we were all in about the same place a dozen years ago. We broadly saw our society as meritocratic and yet we could see large and ever growing disperate outcomes. We each needed to solve this contradiction. For a while I believed that our meritocratic society had unfair outcomes because we didn’t adher closely enough to libertarian ideology. Crc came to believe that groups that were failing simply didn’t serve capital properly; capitalism could never fail it could only be failed. The logical conclusion from that sort of framing is that black people, who are poorer than whites, must really have a knack for failing an otherwise good and just system. That’s where blco ended up and only question remaining for him was if the defects were cultural or biological.
Blco is banned, crc probably posts at r/neoliberal and I am now the specter haunting NT.
Who knows what the 12 years might bring.
I can’t trust anyone who uses the language of social justice and is still a Republican, even a self described moderate Republican.
It means that you want social justice for your identity (or just the marginalized part of your identity as can be the case for cis-het men of color and cishet white women) but for most people, you still want the brutal logic of supposed meritocracy and the violence and deprivation that it entails.
For dirty it ended being a case where he wanted social justice just for upwardly mobile Asian Americans but poor people and black people deserved to suffer because they failed in what is a mostly meritocratic society. An example of that thinking was his unabashed support for the war on drugs, despite its architect clearly stating that its purpose was to target black people.
As for me, crc and blco, it was interesting that we were all in about the same place a dozen years ago. We broadly saw our society as meritocratic and yet we could see large and ever growing disperate outcomes. We each needed to solve this contradiction. For a while I believed that our meritocratic society had unfair outcomes because we didn’t adher closely enough to libertarian ideology. Crc came to believe that groups that were failing simply didn’t serve capital properly; capitalism could never fail it could only be failed. The logical conclusion from that sort of framing is that black people, who are poorer than whites, must really have a knack for failing an otherwise good and just system. That’s where blco ended up and only question remaining for him was if the defects were cultural or biological.
Blco is banned, crc probably posts at r/neoliberal and I am now the specter haunting NT.
Who knows what the 12 years might bring.
