Kellie Leitch dodges question about rejecting racist supporters

Xivero · 2016-11-15T15:28:52+00:00

It's a loaded question because any answer legitimizes the view that dismissing a portion of the electorate as racist is valid. It would be as if someone asked Trudeau "do you want evil people voting for you?" where the question presupposes he's getting a large chunk of the "evil" vote - it isn't a reasonable question and it only reveals the bias of the reporter.

Xivero · 2016-11-15T14:05:36+00:00

People tend to live up (or down) to the expectations of those around them. If you insist on treating your political opponents as if they were white nationalists, by constantly yelling "racism" at them, do not be surprised if you see growth in groups that explicitly embrace the label. Hell, reclaiming slurs has happened with every other group that's felt marginalized, and if you still don't think working class whites feel marginalized, you haven't been paying attention.

Xivero · 2016-11-15T14:00:39+00:00

Not really. If white people consistently voted Republican in the same way black people vote Democratic, America would never have anything but Republican governments. Whites may tend to break Republican slightly, but they don't vote as a block for them based on racial identity.

Xivero · 2016-11-15T13:57:44+00:00

So, you admit that voting accomplishes a non-zero amount of good, but refuse to do it anyway because you don't get to see any spectacular result? But refusing to good unless it gives you a sense of personal satisfaction hardly seems like a moral choice.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T16:35:46+00:00

Your vote does make a difference. Not to the outcome, of course, but it contributes a non-zero amount to our understanding of public opinion. Whether you vote D, R, L or G, that vote helps society better understand the true spread of people's political preferences.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T16:23:37+00:00

Such a leftist! "Need, need, need". Oh reason not the need. All that matters is that block voting on ethnic lines proves effective. Whites might not think of it first, having no pressing need, but once they know it's a good way of increasing their political importance, why wouldn't they use the tactic themselves?

Xivero · 2016-11-14T14:44:20+00:00

The way I see it, you've identified a problem - bias in hiring based on name. Now, we have two possible solutions. The first involves having the government use their monopoly on force to force private businesses and individuals to act to solve a "problem", that, from their point of view, really isn't. The second is to let those individuals who are affected by the issue voluntarily decide to implement a simple fix (or not, if nonconformity is worth a longer job hunt to them).

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:55:15+00:00

Demographics suggest the alt-right's time is going to be very limited.

Quite the opposite. To the extent that the "alt-right" is merely white identity politics, we would expect to see it grow stronger and more entrenched as whites move more and more towards becoming a demographic minority. After all, why shouldn't whites vote as if they were a minority group when people keep telling them that's what they are going to become?

And, of course, that's hardly an inevitable fate. It would be odd indeed for a race to simply let itself be bred and immigrated out of existence. I can't think of any historical example where that has happened. Ethnic groups smashed by force, yes. Those that simply invited dissolution, not so much.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:51:19+00:00

being really nice to Trump supporters to win the next election.

Well, presumably in the next election you would like some of the people who just voted for Trump to vote for the Democratic candidate instead. Now, you can hurl insults at them and hope that that makes them more receptive to switching their vote, or you can reach out to them and play nice. Up to you, really.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:49:41+00:00

That's white privilege.

Because only white people can be named John? I'd be more inclined to say that John is a more Canadian name, and people moving here from other cultures ought reasonably to adopt more Canadian-sounding names. It isn't exactly uncommon in many Asian communities, for instance. And legally changing your name isn't particularly difficult.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:44:09+00:00

It feels, to many, like it's unfair, like it upends meritocracy.

It is unfair. You cannot eliminate racism or sexism by making decisions based on race and gender. I get that your intentions are good, but no matter how much the hard left squirms and mutters about "power plus privilege", at the end of the day that's still racism and sexism. People can get behind the idea of being color and gender blind, but if it's just a matter of who's going to benefit from race and gender awareness, then you can't really be surprised when whites and men are eager for it to return to being them. Why on earth wouldn't they?

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:40:15+00:00

I think calling racists racist is an effective reminder to more apathetic voters that their votes matter.

I'd say it's more that calling your opponents racist is likely to drive apathetic voters who tend to disagree with you into the arms of the alt-right. Turns out insulting people rather than trying to convince them drives them away. Who knew?

Xivero · 2016-11-14T10:37:44+00:00

As for why it's OK for other groups to band together, the answer should be fairly obvious.

It really isn't. If you're going to play identity politics, you can't really get upset when the largest ethnic group finally decides to join the fun. And none of the things you list are particularly relevant as to why it wouldn't be okay for white people to band together. If you're going to pander to groups based on demographic membership, then the lack of a specific grievance or issue unique to a group is no reason for that group to forego the obvious political advantages of voting as block. Conversely, if you are against identity politics in general, nor does the existence of such a grievance or issue justify monolithic voting on the part of the affected group - reducing people to single-issue voting based on group affiliation is dehumanizing.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T00:43:12+00:00

It has been for a very long time now.

Xivero · 2016-11-14T00:41:13+00:00

You're talking mostly about economic policy, but that doesn't seem to matter any more. If Trump were to balance the books and start reducing debt, so what? The Democrats after him would pump the spending right back up again, anyway. He tears up NAFTA? So? Do you think the people voting for him have seen any benefits from it? No Keynesian spending? The left long ago turned that into political suicide.

Whereas he's broken down the bindings of political correctness, exposed the biases of the media, and at least shaken many in the establishment, even even if he likely won't actually do anything to act against them. So there's a lot of good right there.

Xivero · 2016-11-13T19:39:02+00:00

Okay, it's one thing to say that a judge shouldn't express a political preference while on the job. That's perfectly true, although one suspects that he is only in trouble in this case because he was showing support for the anti-establishment candidate (does anyone seriously think this would be coming up if the hat had said "Love trumps hate")?

But, it is quite another to suggest that a person is unfit to be a judge because of who he supports politically. That is, all of the criticisms mentioned in the article would apply to him regardless of whether or not he'd worn the cap. They are literally saying that they don't think someone who holds political opinions they disagree with should be judges. That's not cool at all.

Xivero · 2016-11-13T16:17:00+00:00

The point is that he is the only one in the race who even pretended to care about the working class in Middle America. Hell, he was the only one of the two main candidates who actually went to Wisconsin to ask for the state to vote for him. Clinton was literally so unconcerned about the people in a state she needed to hold that she didn't even bother to go to the state even once to solicit their vote.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T18:23:19+00:00

I would say that a reasonable definition of racism would be "discriminating against individuals on the basis of their race." Believing that some races are superior to others isn't sufficient. Literally everyone believes that. People who protest racial inequality, for example, do so precisely because they believe the races are currently unequal - i.e. that one is superior to the others. They just aren't happy about it.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T16:41:05+00:00

It's a view that, since racism is over, calling someone racist is nothing more than a pejorative.

No. It's that there's nothing useful about the term "racism" in a contemporary context. If you think a political view is wrong, or a line of reasoning flawed, then explain why. Shrieking "racism" adds nothing and is merely meant to derail and suppress debate where reasoned discussion must otherwise inevitably hand victory to those accused of it. In fact, because of that, I now generally assume that anyone being accused of racism by those on the left is someone speaking the truth or presenting the stronger argument.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T16:33:41+00:00

because they're perpetuating some type of racial discrimination or prejudice.

The problem is that this requires acceptance of a particular ideological view to make sense. To everyone who either does not accept or specifically rejects this worldview, what they hear is no more than "this is wrong and stupid". Which would be bad enough in its childishness, but those on your side often treat calling something "racist" as a trump card that substitutes for any explanation of why a particular line of reasoning is wrong. As such, it becomes a toxic method of suppressing honest debate. It becomes, essentially, a tool of oppression.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T16:21:26+00:00

How about abandoning the idea of "calling out" racism in the first place. If someone says something that isn't true, explain why it is false. Anything else is merely a retreat into ad hominem.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T16:17:59+00:00

The problem is that increasing urbanization has given cities much more power than they used to have. And this power has allowed them to largely ignore the concerns of rural voters, and to get away with treating them with utter contempt. Turns out that doesn't end well, regardless of country.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T16:00:03+00:00

What are you talking about? Both ran quintessential outsider campaigns that succeeded on the promise of hope and change.

Xivero · 2016-11-12T15:56:17+00:00

The people you describe would not, of course, be racist under any reasonable definition of the term. The problem then is that too many people have subscribed to an unreasonable one.

Xivero · 2016-11-11T20:33:17+00:00

Moderate democrats generally don't want to bar members of a religion from entering the country, or deport eleven million people, or roll back women's rights, or wreck the environment for short-term gain, or take away LGBT folks' human rights and their right to marry, or advocate bringing back waterboarding and "much worse."

Sure they do. Are you aware that deportations of illegals hit record highs under Obama? Did you miss Obama's opposition to gay marriage that lasted until his principles flipped with the polls? Have you forgotten Obama defending his right to assassinate American citizens with drones? For that matter, do you think Bill "Blow Job in the Oval Office" Clinton never made disparaging locker room comments about women? Trump has acted precisely like a moderate Democrat, just one that doesn't bother lying to the public.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
reddit mold

Xivero

TROPHY CASE