Just say that your free exchange of ideas with white supremacists is more important than the people who’d be materially harmed by Sa’id speech and go, Claire.
White supremacists like Spencer and others have long acknowledged that the “free speech” push was a gimmick to normalize the public sharing of their ideas; why do their work for them?
Idk is the pathological defense of a white supremacist-inclusive “free marketplace of ideas” a secret fear that anything should go in case they say something racist? Is it a conditioned impulse to defend their fellow whites? A political laziness to remain “open” and “objective”?
People keep complaining about the plight of white farmers in my mentions and, um, I truly actually don’t care about them pin tweet
We were driving around Windhoek today and my uncle was describing how in the 1950s, natives (mostly Herero, Damara, and Nam) were literally relocated to the Katutura townships (created in 1961) so the whites could have their land.
In Otjiherero, “Katutura” literally means “The place where people do not want to live.” People were angry and boycotted municipal services; on December 10, 1959, apartheid security forces opened fire on protestors killing 11 and wounding 44 other people.
Hold the phone everyone, the minority whisperer has logged on to share his opinion on what’s best for our communities
So let’s start with the disingenuous premise: that young people parroting democratic socialism are the sole articulators of the project. That often misguided DSA & Bernie holdouts hold a monopoly on socialist futurity is a fundamentally BAD FAITH argument.
His argument seems to boil down to a resistance to the idea of popular control over structure and industry, and some notion that it precludes the exercise of agency. And that, actually, CAPITALISM is what allows us to best exercise agency and choice. Which...what?
“Glaxo has invested $300 million in 23andMe and the companies have a four-year deal that gives Glaxo exclusive rights to collaborate with the DNA testing company to develop drugs.” Basically, you as a 23andMe consumer are paying to participate in pharmaceutical R&D.
Theoretically, this is also an issue of ownership over your own biomatter: you cede ownership of your DNA sample and anything extrapolated from it. This is the fine print:
Despite consumers being able to opt out of research, there are also privacy concerns, there’s potential for discrimination (inc. with health insurance) based on findings, the use of genetic information by law enforcement (information can be subpoenaed).
This is disconcerting: a federal court in Louisiana ruled that Jewish people are a protected *race*. Not protected religious minority, not people who can/could argue identity-based discrimination, but a *race*
Allowing someone to pursue a totally valid discrimination claim is very different from using racially essentialist language around identity legitimate their claim. A federal judge used DNA science to claim the existence of a molecular Jewish identity, and that is not good.
Aaaaand this is where the conflation between marginalized ethno-religious identity and *racial* identity happens.
And this is why the Dems stay losing and we’re slip sliding into authoritarianism. People could say nothing in Sanders’ defense, but instead continue to offer space for *civil* engagement with fascists. Y’all love white womanhood so much you’d let us die for it.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @thehill view original on Twitter
The thing about anti-fascism is that civility and moral righteousness often do not look the same at all.
Civility compels we engage whiteness on ITS terms: it demands we self-censor and self-police so as not to disrupt the present/dominant order, a white supremacist order, which is what anti-fascism demands we must do.