6 ms·

please elaborate where op drew false equivalencies to attack political opponents

zo1 3y ago
I read it that way too, even if he didn't explicitly say it. Probably because Takei is known to be very vocally anti-Republican or anti-right or pro-left or pro-liberal, not sure of the exact dynamic there. But the comment also said Takei is "liberal" and knows what it's like if "that kind of people" regain power. To me, it's clearly an anti-Republic or anti-conservative jab, implying that "those people" shouldn't be allowed to regain power, else some poor minority will get put into camps. Using the argument that if Takei says so, it's because he's lived through it, so we should listen to him. Ofc, not to detract from what he went through, it's horrible.
- junon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zo1 3y ago
    I didn't say people who want to put other people into camps should be in power.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    > It has very little to do with political parties directly, unfortunately those sorts of people tend to fall pretty cleanly into one in particular, at least in the US FDR was a democrat. Jim Crow laws were put in place by democrats. Democrats filibustered against the civil rights act. Clinton was responsible for mass incarceration which primarily affected minorities. We’re currently witnessing the systemic destruction of minority communities in democrat run cities. It’s odd that Takei thinks that the liberals will do anything but exploit minority groups when in positions of power.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      > President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. The evening after signing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson told aide Bill Moyers, "I think we may have lost the south for your lifetime – and mine", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern Whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[5] Southern Democrats of 1850s through 1960s were the racist southerners, historically aligned with the Confederacy. After the Democrats signed the Civil Rights act of 1964, the racists got out of the Democrat's party, and started to align themselves to Republicans. By the 1990s, it has become obvious that Republicans were actively courting this large group and drawing upon them for political power. In the most recent election, assholes were targeting Chinese, Korean, and Japanese shops in my area with Graffiti, breaking windows, and effectively blaming the Asian community for COVID19. These racists absolutely exist and continue to function today. And its somewhat horrifying to me to see the Republicans actively courting them to pad out their votes and increase their political power. Furthermore, the mainstream Republicans turn a blind eye to it and try to pretend that this crap isn't happening. That being said, I recognize that anti-Asian hate, while it exists, is kinda minor compared to other ethnic groups. But even in my day to day life today, I'm seeing the racists (and literally those racists shake their anti-Asian signposts at me. Because I'm Asian) ----------- > It’s odd that Takei thinks that the liberals will do anything but exploit minority groups when in positions of power. Did you even see the anti-Chinese hateboner of 2020? It wasn't the Democrats. I'm not even Chinese. But you know, people can't tell that so I kinda-sorta get wrapped up in it. I'm glad that it seems to have died down a bit (at least, in my area of the country), but I'm still surprised at how quickly anti-Chinese hate turned into anti-Asian hate and a problem for everybody.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > After the Democrats signed the Civil Rights act of 1964, the racists got out of the Democrat's party, and started to align themselves to Republicans. Note that this was the last of several splits between the White supremacists and the Democratic establishment; why this one stuck but others didn’t is that, unlike with, say, the Dixiecrat split in the 1940s, the Republicans actively courted and shaped their message to appeal to the disaffected racists after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In previous splits, the racists who wanted any influence had always coming slinking back to the Democrats because of structural duopoly and the fact that the Republicans were not welcoming to them. In the 1960s, that changed.
- justin66 3y ago
  Takei is so silly for not knowing which political party was in power during WWII. Thank God the internet exists to hold him to account for those crazy positions of his, which he so clearly holds that he doesn't even need to say them.
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  What’s the difference of left and “liberal”?
- dragontamer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > These bigots never disappeared. They just are being courted by the Right / Republicans today. Normally, I’d respond to this with something addressing the chain of events starting with the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent electoral strategy, but just to mix things up I'll go simple: This is the reason that when you see rallies of overt racists, or people storming a government building waving confederate flags, or people arguing about, how, akshully, slavery in America was good for the slaves and their descendants should be thankful rather than resentful of it, in the 21st century, they aren’t backers of the Democratic Party.
- mindslight 3y ago
  It's not a jab, rather the plain reality of the contemporary political landscape. Speaking as a non-partisan libertarian - it is a fact that the contemporary Republican party has openly embraced white nationalism. Racism is a type of collectivism, which is attractive precisely because it's a lazy un-nuanced explanation for one's woes. The Republican platform used to have mainstream politicians that kept those urges in check, and while perhaps pundits courted those urges with dog whistles and the like on talk radio, they could still be said to have distance from the mainstream party. But part of Trump's "edginess" was openly saying what "couldn't be said", and so the dam holding it back has burst. This certainly does not mean that all Republicans are white nationalists, nor does it imply that Republicans with power will automatically enact white nationalist policies. But open white nationalism does now form a significant part of the mainstream Republican party. Now since I must include an analogous analysis of the other political sports team, lest some partisan respond with "no that's not true and even if it is the other party is the same or worse" - It is certainly true that there is a large contingent of the democratic party that has openly embraced minority-favoring racism, and that is a terrible thing as well! But for the most part that discourse revolves around inclusionary racism (disadvantaged group #643 needs help) rather than exclusionary racism. We've seen the catastrophic results of exclusionary racism enough times to know where it leads, but it's much harder to know where inclusionary racism leads (apart from stoking more racism in general, these political teams are in ying-yang). Presently, the concrete results seem to be bureaucracy, language policing, and a new proto-religion to repeated if one occupies a politically sensitive position (and it's not clear how this could continue to snowball into society-wide exclusionary racism). These things are certainly not great dynamics, but they're a far cry from bottom-up lynchings and top-down concentration camps.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  > To me, it's clearly an anti-Republic or anti-conservative jab, Only because the GOP allowed their party to be turned into a Nazi bar: https://old.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kicking_a_nazi_out_as_soon_as_they_walk_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw... If the folks on that side of the political spectrum don't like it, maybe they should be kicking out the Nazis instead of courting them for votes.

zo1 3y ago

I read it that way too, even if he didn't explicitly say it. Probably because Takei is known to be very vocally anti-Republican or anti-right or pro-left or pro-liberal, not sure of the exact dynamic there. But the comment also said Takei is "liberal" and knows what it's like if "that kind of people" regain power. To me, it's clearly an anti-Republic or anti-conservative jab, implying that "those people" shouldn't be allowed to regain power, else some poor minority will get put into camps. Using the argument that if Takei says so, it's because he's lived through it, so we should listen to him. Ofc, not to detract from what he went through, it's horrible.

junon 3y ago
[flagged]
- zo1 3y ago
  I didn't say people who want to put other people into camps should be in power.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  > It has very little to do with political parties directly, unfortunately those sorts of people tend to fall pretty cleanly into one in particular, at least in the US FDR was a democrat. Jim Crow laws were put in place by democrats. Democrats filibustered against the civil rights act. Clinton was responsible for mass incarceration which primarily affected minorities. We’re currently witnessing the systemic destruction of minority communities in democrat run cities. It’s odd that Takei thinks that the liberals will do anything but exploit minority groups when in positions of power.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. The evening after signing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson told aide Bill Moyers, "I think we may have lost the south for your lifetime – and mine", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern Whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[5] Southern Democrats of 1850s through 1960s were the racist southerners, historically aligned with the Confederacy. After the Democrats signed the Civil Rights act of 1964, the racists got out of the Democrat's party, and started to align themselves to Republicans. By the 1990s, it has become obvious that Republicans were actively courting this large group and drawing upon them for political power. In the most recent election, assholes were targeting Chinese, Korean, and Japanese shops in my area with Graffiti, breaking windows, and effectively blaming the Asian community for COVID19. These racists absolutely exist and continue to function today. And its somewhat horrifying to me to see the Republicans actively courting them to pad out their votes and increase their political power. Furthermore, the mainstream Republicans turn a blind eye to it and try to pretend that this crap isn't happening. That being said, I recognize that anti-Asian hate, while it exists, is kinda minor compared to other ethnic groups. But even in my day to day life today, I'm seeing the racists (and literally those racists shake their anti-Asian signposts at me. Because I'm Asian) ----------- > It’s odd that Takei thinks that the liberals will do anything but exploit minority groups when in positions of power. Did you even see the anti-Chinese hateboner of 2020? It wasn't the Democrats. I'm not even Chinese. But you know, people can't tell that so I kinda-sorta get wrapped up in it. I'm glad that it seems to have died down a bit (at least, in my area of the country), but I'm still surprised at how quickly anti-Chinese hate turned into anti-Asian hate and a problem for everybody.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > After the Democrats signed the Civil Rights act of 1964, the racists got out of the Democrat's party, and started to align themselves to Republicans. Note that this was the last of several splits between the White supremacists and the Democratic establishment; why this one stuck but others didn’t is that, unlike with, say, the Dixiecrat split in the 1940s, the Republicans actively courted and shaped their message to appeal to the disaffected racists after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In previous splits, the racists who wanted any influence had always coming slinking back to the Democrats because of structural duopoly and the fact that the Republicans were not welcoming to them. In the 1960s, that changed.
justin66 3y ago
Takei is so silly for not knowing which political party was in power during WWII. Thank God the internet exists to hold him to account for those crazy positions of his, which he so clearly holds that he doesn't even need to say them.
skinnymuch 3y ago
What’s the difference of left and “liberal”?
dragontamer 3y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > These bigots never disappeared. They just are being courted by the Right / Republicans today. Normally, I’d respond to this with something addressing the chain of events starting with the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent electoral strategy, but just to mix things up I'll go simple: This is the reason that when you see rallies of overt racists, or people storming a government building waving confederate flags, or people arguing about, how, akshully, slavery in America was good for the slaves and their descendants should be thankful rather than resentful of it, in the 21st century, they aren’t backers of the Democratic Party.
mindslight 3y ago
It's not a jab, rather the plain reality of the contemporary political landscape. Speaking as a non-partisan libertarian - it is a fact that the contemporary Republican party has openly embraced white nationalism. Racism is a type of collectivism, which is attractive precisely because it's a lazy un-nuanced explanation for one's woes. The Republican platform used to have mainstream politicians that kept those urges in check, and while perhaps pundits courted those urges with dog whistles and the like on talk radio, they could still be said to have distance from the mainstream party. But part of Trump's "edginess" was openly saying what "couldn't be said", and so the dam holding it back has burst. This certainly does not mean that all Republicans are white nationalists, nor does it imply that Republicans with power will automatically enact white nationalist policies. But open white nationalism does now form a significant part of the mainstream Republican party. Now since I must include an analogous analysis of the other political sports team, lest some partisan respond with "no that's not true and even if it is the other party is the same or worse" - It is certainly true that there is a large contingent of the democratic party that has openly embraced minority-favoring racism, and that is a terrible thing as well! But for the most part that discourse revolves around inclusionary racism (disadvantaged group #643 needs help) rather than exclusionary racism. We've seen the catastrophic results of exclusionary racism enough times to know where it leads, but it's much harder to know where inclusionary racism leads (apart from stoking more racism in general, these political teams are in ying-yang). Presently, the concrete results seem to be bureaucracy, language policing, and a new proto-religion to repeated if one occupies a politically sensitive position (and it's not clear how this could continue to snowball into society-wide exclusionary racism). These things are certainly not great dynamics, but they're a far cry from bottom-up lynchings and top-down concentration camps.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> To me, it's clearly an anti-Republic or anti-conservative jab, Only because the GOP allowed their party to be turned into a Nazi bar: https://old.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kicking_a_nazi_out_as_soon_as_they_walk_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw... If the folks on that side of the political spectrum don't like it, maybe they should be kicking out the Nazis instead of courting them for votes.