HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Zenlitened » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Massachusetts
Home country: USA
Member since: Fri Dec 3, 2004, 02:09 PM
Number of posts: 9,488

Journal Archives

Do any of you even know what "centering" means in this context?

Answer: no, you obviously don't. The replies in this thread make that stunningly clear.

Centering people who've been pushed to the margins in the past does NOT mean erasing everyone else.

Forfucksake, this kind of White Liberal Narcissism is pathetic. And I say that as a white liberal myself, one who's making an effort to look beyond the end of her own nose once in a while.

What kind of Glenn Beck wanna-be cesspool is Ring of Fire that they'd publish such laughably stupid, cringe-inducingly earnest nonsense?

And WTF has become of DU, that this bilge-water is being slurped up so eagerly here?

What a pathetic joke.

I can't tell some of you self-ordained "progressives" from John Birchers or Lyndon LaRouchies any more, the stupid self-absorbed paranoia is that extreme.

#BlackLivesMatter is not about Bernie Sanders. It's about black lives.

To reduce the whole issue to nothing more than a "meme" is truly heartless, arrogant and grotesque.

To suggest that black protesters are unwitting pawns of right wing tacticians... or left-wing tacticians... well, that's some of the most racist, supremacist crap imaginable.

I've been white all my life, and a Democrat just about as long.

But what I've seen and heard from purported progressives the last few days has me feeling ashamed on BOTH counts.

Forfucksake, not everything is centered on us and our latest political calculus.

Black lives matter because black lives matter, not because of how the notion makes us feel about our prospects in an election year.

Not even when the movement makes its presence felt on a stage we assumed belonged to us, and us only.

Is that so hard to understand?

If it is too hard, then I encourage us to stop campaigning for Sen. Sanders entirely.

Because we're sure not doing him any favors by perpetuating this image of self-absorbed, bubble-dwelling, Beltway-beholden white liberals.

But if we really are willing to look beyond the ends of our own noses... if we really are committed to doing the work of Democratic coalition-building... then why don't we start by actually LISTENING to the people we'd like to see get on board with our candidate, whichever candidate we prefer?

Maybe even acknowledging that they have something valid to say, even if it's not listed on our own, inward-gazing strategy sheets?

I'll tell you, that's a much better gamble than hoping people will vote for someone whose supporters, they're daily persuaded, are complete assholes.

Remember years ago when LGBT was "the new Black?"

Yeah, that was a pretty specious claim back then. And even more so now, when it's obvious Black is the same Black, and has been right along.

Yet here we are years later, when advances in LGBT rights are counted among Pres. Obama's finest accomplishments.

Believe me, that didn't happen because of irritable Democrats who dismissed the topic with their talk of ponies and "poutrage."

It happened DESPITE them.

If Sen. Sanders wins the party nomination, it sure won't be because of his supporters trying to shout down #BLM, either.

I hate the word "avacado." But I sincerely do want your guacamole recipe.

That's going to be a confusing converation, isn't it?

The solution?

I learn what "avacado" means and then MOVE THE HELL ON.

This endless dithering over the term "white privilege" just seems like a big dodge to me, a stalling tactic to avoid, delay and resist any kind of progress at all.

White Fragility: Why Itís So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism

(Note: The author of the article excerpted below originated the term "white frailty."* She is white, as am I.

What prompted me to post this? The inevitable -- and exasperating -- defensive reaction from some replies to KamaAina's OP on Serena Williams and white tears,

Also: The title of the article says "racism." I'd argue it might be better to say "race," period. Because way too many of us just can't handle it AT ALL when the topic comes up. It's ridiculous.)

White Fragility: Why Itís So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism


...Our socialization renders us racially illiterate. When you add a lack of humility to that illiteracy (because we donít know what we donít know), you get the break-down we so often see when trying to engage white people in meaningful conversations about race...

...Most whites have a very limited understanding of racism because we have not been trained to think in complex ways about it and because it benefits white dominance not to do so. Yet, we have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information...

...The antidote to white fragility is on-going and life-long, and includes sustained engagement, humility, and education.

I say give it a try. Costs us nothing, really. And it's actually pretty painless, only stings for a little while.


*Edit: I don't know why I typed "frailty" there, meant "fragility" as Dr. Diangelo said. Sorry.

It's the recent surge in talking points...

...that's spurring some opposition to this topic, I think.

It's been such an obvious ó and dishonest ó rightwing meme for so long, people are wise to be suspicious.

And it's built on a falsehhood, as if affirming the right of all couples to wed inevitably leads to plural marriage somehow.

It doesn't.

Gay and lesbian couples have simply gained access to an existing legal and societal institution, marriage.

There is no existing legal and social institution for intimate plural relationships, here in the United States.

Perhaps there will be someday.

But it will require the creation of new structures, many of which are not easily inferred from what exists for couples.

And that effort, in my view, will best be led by people in or wishing to be in plural relationships, separate from the current rightwing inspired discussion.

Because the rightwing doesn't really give a damn about what's best for the poly community.

They're just out to puke on the LGBT community in this time of celebration, with the same old cynical lie about "redefining" marriage.

The supreme court justices have not redefined marriage. They have reaffirmed it.

edit: typos

You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished.

Yes, Justice Kennedy spoke at length about the personally fulfilling aspects of marriage. And rightly so.

But he also specifically addressed its societal purpose and benefit. Both of which are enhanced by acknowledging gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.

From pages 16 and 17 of Kennedy's opinion:

... (J)ust as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union...

(The States) ... have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, bene- fits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evi- dence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workersí compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visita- tion rules...

...Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law... The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order...

By all means, let's have the conversation about plural marriage. But let's do so honestly, without suggesting the institution has now been diminished somehow.

The exact opposite is true: The institution of marriage is only strengthened, our society is only strengthened, when we affirm gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.

Congratulations and thank you...

...to everyone who has played a role in making marriage equality the law of the land.

Years, decades, whole lifetimes spent ushering in this day. Actions and deeds large and small... all of it mattered. All of it added up and up and up every day, even when it seemed like it didn't.

Even when it seemed like your own peers were at best indifferent, at worst outright hostile.

You kept at it, no matter what, and now the day has finally come. Well done. You did it. You built this!

Celebrate, and savor it, because this is what accomplishment feels like. And hang on to that feeling. It will be a powerful fuel as we recommit ourselves to the work that still needs doing.

Never fails to disappoint.

A black woman tells of her experience in this life, out jumps a bunch of old white guys to blurt out, "I've never heard of that, it's not a big deal anyway, no you're the racist for bringing up race."

And they've lived such sheltered lives, apparently, that they really don't seem to realize how obviously, glaringly ridiculous their comments are to everyone looking on. Didn't you notice you walked out of the house today with no pants on?

It would be funny, I guess, if it wasn't so toxic. But it's so damn toxic. Leaves even an old white lady like me retching and ill.

Hold on, wait. You need to start at the beginning:

What are words? In fact, what are letters? Are they shapes? Or sounds? Sound-shapes?

What are they for? Can anyone really know? I'm just a poor, puzzled misogyn-- um, I mean, obvious tro--- uh, I just so sincerely wish to understand!

/grim sarcasm

Seriously folks, the OP's point couldn't have been simpler or more clear. But in case it actually was too complicated for you somehow, try this:

Don't use that word.

You're welcome.

"I would LOVE to see Hillary in a free debate with Sanders"

You should tell that to the guy who wrote the OP.

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:32 PM
23. its about power
This is smash mouth politics and I would LOVE to see Hillary in a free debate with Sanders.

See also:

Democrats approve six presidential primary debates
...The debate stage will include Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who is seeking the Democratic nomination. ...
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »