There are racists everywhere, but saying that all leftists hate white men is just another layer of generalization, with no more right to judge using prejudice than the racists.
Yes that is true. But they do not ostricize the people that generalize on the left, they ostricize only the people that hate blacks, but not whites or men, so I conclude this is normal behaviour and approved by them. Otherwise they are very loud on racism but not on racism against whites they even redefine the definition.
Furthermore, If you redefine the definition of one world, you have to redefine every definition, otherwise the language would not make sense.
Every definition of a negative world has to be defined by who has more power.
One example: she cannot be insulted by Republicans because they have less power and the word insult is a negative word like racism and sexism. ONly she can insult them. the other way around this would not be possible.
In that case; The Republicans cannot be MAGA and cannot be a threat to America because they have less power and threat is also defined by power. So only Democracts can be a threat.
There are racists everywhere, but saying that all leftists hate white men is just another layer of generalization, with no more right to judge using prejudice than the racists.
Not all, but the behaviour is normalized on the left, because there is no backlash against those people. There is blacklash on the right, so this is not comparable.
One example is AOC:
The future isn’t old, white, and male — and that has conservative men worried
gen.medium.com
She does not mention that countries where old, white, hetero, cis, males are ruling are the least racist and the countries with the most human rights:
How has the protection of human rights changed over time? How does it differ across countries, and between social groups? Explore global data on human rights.
ourworldindata.org
Intolerance is a global problem.
www.upworthy.com
I dont think this has anything to do with race or gender. But if you make those remarks like she does this is the other way around.
In my opinion, Who rules does not define if they are discriminating or not? ONly people with biases are discriminating but most people dont have racist biases like her. So you have to put non-racist people in power but those people exist in every race not only white.
She said she was not sure to marry her husband because he is white. That is not different from people that hate Blacks. The difference is that her behaviour has no backlash in her party:
I think, Identity politics is bullshit. But if you discuss this way you have to say:
Her identities and the identities of her squad are far more racist and discriminating, because the countries where they are ruling are more racist and have less human rights. So if you want to be progressive you have to put more white male in power instead of identities that are worse.
I could also use her extremely low niveau and say all POCs are systemically and institutionally racist and that would be more true than saying white men are systemically racist and discriminating.
But as I said that has nothing to do with race or gender.
That's the binary label assumption I mentioned. Having an ability to generalize does not mean that you hate foreigners, so you completely get lost in translation when talking to lefties and keep arguing with them despite being on the same page in terms of values.
link.springer.com