Is "liberalism is white supremacy" a true statement?

[dead0man]

BLM shuts down ACLU event.  They chanted various things...."ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." and "the oppressed are not impressed," and "shame, shame, shame, shame," (like the Faith Militant does in Game of Thrones), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, the one this thread is about, "liberalism is white supremacy."


They've officially jumped the shark, right?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Maybe the ACLU should add the idiots who shut down the event onto a "do not represent pro bono " list.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     BLM encompasses some genuine extremists, and this is something that has been known for a while. This sort of thing is not productive to the goals of tackling police brutality, as it leads people to associate the movement and the claim that the name of the movement represents with a display of utter derangement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Only in the sense that our conception of liberalism formed largely within the eurosphere and thus can only be held by those willing to accept society's inheritance from said eurosphere.

[Dr. MB]

I'm a big fan of the ACLU. BLM, I support many of its goals but not the group itself. If some of their activists had their way we'd be a PC dictatorship. They don't like the constitution because it was written by white guys, some of which owned slaves. But, if we re-wrote the constitution today wouldn't it be fairly similar?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Motherfu <k just realized this happened at my college. Jesus fu <king christ.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It's only fascists who have to be worried about the radical left!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Only in the sense that our conception of liberalism formed largely within the eurosphere and thus can only be held by those willing to accept society's inheritance from said eurosphere.

^^^

John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc. were white supremacists. Their uh, "business investments" clearly demonstrate that.

[vanguard96]

It's only fascists who have to be worried about the radical left!

Really? They hate anyone who does not tow their line. Near zero tolerance. No more dialogue. No attempts to hear the other side.

I have personally been threatened over the internet by a Northern Irish leftist for advocating for free speech and being against the welfare state & socialized medicine.

Fascists are against free speech - such as disrespecting the flag or police or the troops - and both the German National Socialists and Italian fascists were third way groups with a strong centralized state including a social safety net.

The Boston free speech event the week after Charlottesville was an example of how the radical left hurt a peaceful exchange of ideas by conservatives, libertarians, Bernie Sanders fans, and others interested in free speech. All for a misunderstanding of who was joining. Boston mayor and reporters worsened it by further spreading the story of how it was a gathering of hate groups.

The one group that was affiliated in Charlottesville was disinvited well before the event took place. Still attendees were doxxed for just being on the list and 40,000 people stood outside the Boston Common virtue signaling against fascism - when it was a very tame typical diatribe against Hillary Clinton and typical right wing mainstream talking points - with people with signs about being against Monsanto and the TPP there all the time in the super small rotunda. A woman on the same thread as a the NI guy who said he wanted to shoot me was so proud her daughter went to the event and that only 33 people were arrested. Given what the actual event was it was a major overreaction and a few people had their career and public record smeared because some lefty thought they were 'white supremacists'.

They will smear anyone even if it is not true or a quote out of context to push for their side and go to extremes to slander and doxx free speech advocates, libertarians, pro-lifers, evangelicals, Trump voters, etc at the drop of a hat.

To them Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist, Nazi - even though he is an Orthodox Jewish conservative.

To left libertarians those who don't sign petitions against neo-Nazis are 'part of the problem'.

Now pretty much anyone in history who is of European descent who had slaves or did anything remotely negative against blacks, Hispanics, or native Americans is subject to modern revisionism that will strike down anything from their body of work even if they had a key role in forming our current society. There are blind spots to this with proven racist leftists Che Guavara and Castro and a lot of waving aside for LBJ and FDR who thus far spared heavy criticism due to the followers calls to look at their body of work and not judge them for a flawed view on race or ethnicity for instance. These people will overlook the flawed state of society in the early 19th century for instance.

If you try to use the far left's reasoning then you have already gone half way to letting them win.

[TJ in Oregon]

I have no love for John Locke (heck I generally prefer BLM over the ACLU), but tarring the entire liberal tradition with the label of "white supremacy" is utterly asinine. The fact that it was developed in Europe is about as relevant as claiming all users of synthetic rubber are Nazis because it was invented by the Nazis.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I have no love for John Locke (heck I generally prefer BLM over the ACLU), but tarring the entire liberal tradition with the label of "white supremacy" is utterly asinine. The fact that it was developed in Europe is about as relevant as claiming all users of synthetic rubber are Nazis because it was invented by the Nazis.

I am merely speaking in the parlance of the times. Socialism, too, is obviously white supremacy, as it represents an intellectual tradition that hailed from European states, and the Soviet War in Afghanistan and prior USSR policies very much represent the racial animus with which socialism was spread to Asia. The exceptions would be various proto-socialist societies that existed prior to first contact with the Eurosphere.

On a less sarcastic note, I'm curious as to why you prefer BLM to the ACLU. Is it owing to the fact that the former advocates at least some sort of positive or prescriptive vision, as opposed to the mere negative--and morally ambiguous--liberty that the ACLU advocates? That one exists to say something matters, and that the other exists to render pronouncements meaningless?

[TJ in Oregon]

I have no love for John Locke (heck I generally prefer BLM over the ACLU), but tarring the entire liberal tradition with the label of "white supremacy" is utterly asinine. The fact that it was developed in Europe is about as relevant as claiming all users of synthetic rubber are Nazis because it was invented by the Nazis.

On a less sarcastic note, I'm curious as to why you prefer BLM to the ACLU. Is it owing to the fact that the former advocates at least some sort of positive or prescriptive vision, as opposed to the mere negative--and morally ambiguous--liberty that the ACLU advocates? That one exists to say something matters, and that the other exists to render pronouncements meaningless?

Not far off, particularly on the BLM side.

I take BLM to something of a race-based interest group not wholly unlike your average Trump supporter. They have some legitimate grievances about the way, at least at times, police officers have treated blacks. Its loudest voices are, of course, pretty crazy, but that's more or less to be expected. The crazy voices are simply akin to the Trumpists who call BLM terrorists.

On the ACLU, while it is true I am somewhat at odds with their core mission, I'm further at odds with them because they don't follow their core mission so much as provide assistance to boilerplate socially liberal causes. The ACLU is a progressive hack group that specializes in progressive stances on social issues. If they were really devoted to their core "liberty" precept they'd look a lot less like they currently do and a lot more like the Ron Paul people, with whom I'd disagree but have considerably less problems with.

If anything I'd say BLM is more morally ambiguous: they have a legit gripe but their methods are lacking. The ACLU as it currently exists is almost unambiguously bad.

[parochial boy]

No, but it is class supremacy; and class supremacy can exacerbate racial inequalities

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I have no love for John Locke (heck I generally prefer BLM over the ACLU), but tarring the entire liberal tradition with the label of "white supremacy" is utterly asinine. The fact that it was developed in Europe is about as relevant as claiming all users of synthetic rubber are Nazis because it was invented by the Nazis.

On a less sarcastic note, I'm curious as to why you prefer BLM to the ACLU. Is it owing to the fact that the former advocates at least some sort of positive or prescriptive vision, as opposed to the mere negative--and morally ambiguous--liberty that the ACLU advocates? That one exists to say something matters, and that the other exists to render pronouncements meaningless?

Not far off, particularly on the BLM side.

I take BLM to something of a race-based interest group not wholly unlike your average Trump supporter. They have some legitimate grievances about the way, at least at times, police officers have treated blacks. Its loudest voices are, of course, pretty crazy, but that's more or less to be expected. The crazy voices are simply akin to the Trumpists who call BLM terrorists.

On the ACLU, while it is true I am somewhat at odds with their core mission, I'm further at odds with them because they don't follow their core mission so much as provide assistance to boilerplate socially liberal causes. The ACLU is a progressive hack group that specializes in progressive stances on social issues. If they were really devoted to their core "liberty" precept they'd look a lot less like they currently do and a lot more like the Ron Paul people, with whom I'd disagree but have considerably less problems with.

If anything I'd say BLM is more morally ambiguous: they have a legit gripe but their methods are lacking. The ACLU as it currently exists is almost unambiguously bad.

While that's a very interesting perspective that I definitely sympathize with, the idea that "free speech" is a bourgeois preoccupation and that rights once considered inalienable could be tossed aside for entirely cynical reasons is a very concerning development ("development" is a loaded word; there have always been those far leftists that saw the prior liberal triumphs of citizen and human rights as mere prevurisors to something far more material). I can respect the ACLU in that, while perhaps not in a representative amount of cases, they have been willing to represent their political opponents on principle.