The Donald vs Big Tech

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Good listen this from Douglas Murray.

https://youtu.be/Nmbd60apsfQ

Okay, the BLM movement, lots that's questionable about it, lots of conflation being done, lots of hysterics; this is obvious to anyone who can take a bit of a step back and look at it objectively.

However, I'd have to absolutely disagree with Murray's superficially philosophically interesting premise that the movement is defined in opposition to a non-entity, and that this is where the real problems stem from. Just because the thing one opposes doesn't exist in some cardboard cut-out form that is easy to point at in space and time, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An entity that is diffuse and even taboo is just as existent as one which is visible and explicit; it's their modes of existence which differ, not whether or not they exist. As a fitting analogy, it's similar to the distinction Foucault (intro to 'Discipline & Punishment', for anyone interested) drew between how leprosy was historically dealt with compared to how plagues were dealt with. This isn't a reference I'd usually raise here, but since we're presently living through the experience of dealing with a plague-like viral pandemic, it makes it easier to grasp. SARS-CoV-2 exists as an entity, even though statistically speaking it only very rarely rears its head in a way that is easily perceivable. We're all currently undergoing the consequences of how challenging this virus's mode of existence can be to deal with.

Time and time again, critics of the theory behind "systemic racism" fail (either consciously or otherwise; no one escapes their own cognitive bias) to engage with the kind of entity its opponents painstakingly describe it as being. By basing one's arguments around the non-existence of an entity that the movement is not describing, one can never be truly taking part in the debate. So now, if you do this, you're wrong even if they're wrong. Or rather, you're not even wrong; you're not even discussing the subject!

[Eoin McLove]

He did address the subject. He talked about the actual issue that exists, which is the lack of training that American cops have in dealing with the race issue, as it is being perceived.

Taking down statues and describing western society as an irredeemably racist entity is where the messiness comes in, and the argument gets lost.

I think the irritation coming from the centre and the centre right (we can ignore the far right) is in the broad strokes analysis that depicts everyone and everything that doesn't fully comply with the current popular narrative as being complicit in hate crimes. 

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Within the first ten minutes or so, he twice states that, since you won't find individuals willing to publicly state that black lives don't matter, therefore BLM are defined in opposition to a non-entity. This is what I was referring to. But BLM, and essentially all theorists of systemic racism, don't define themselves in opposition to hypothetical individuals who would be willing to break such a strong taboo; that's what makes claiming that they do a moot and irrelevant point. They define themselves in opposition to something just as real as such hypothetical individuals, but something that is much more diffuse.

[Eoin McLove]

BLM purport, by their very name, to believe that black lives not mattering to mainstream society is a very real issue.  It's the very shield they use to hide their other agendas behind because it sounds reasonable to most people. Why? Because most people agree with the statement. The issue is that the very statement itself sets up a fantastical bogeyman, so that anyone who questions the movement can be tarred with the racism brush. The name itself is the tactic and the weapon.

[Eoin McLove]

The issue is the gulf between the literal meaning of the words and the intent behind their usage. 

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

BLM purport, by their very name, to believe that black lives not mattering to mainstream society is a very real issue.  It's the very shield they use to hide their other agendas behind because it sounds reasonable to most people. Why? Because most people agree with the statement. The issue is that the very statement itself sets up a fantastical bogeyman, so that anyone who questions the movement can be tarred with the racism brush. The name itself is the tactic and the weapon.

That is all true, for argument's sake at least. What is also true is that none of that requires the existence of some other KKK-style bogeyman who will go on the evening news and publicly state that black lives don't matter, which is nevertheless exactly how Murray lays it out. This is also a tactic and a weapon; it's the sort of rhetoric that arms and emboldens people from right across the centre and right-leaning political spectrum to assert things like "Racism doesn't actually exist anymore!" This very thread is full of such assertions, and when someone like Murray (i.e. someone who understands the opposition's real rhetoric much better than he lets on) says things like this, their intent is to discredit the opposition's struggle. It's a classic move.

I'm not saying this to support BLM and all their objectives, though; just pointing out what Murray is up to. I mean, this is the guy who came out with the "Where are the adults?" quote, which was also a clear attempt to discredit the protests. Not too hard to imagine a Brit saying the same thing at the Boston Tea Party, or at the GPO, etc., etc. He, and his ilk on both sides of the debate, peddle in intellectual dishonesty.

[Eoin McLove]

I get your point but as you said yourself before, you need to have a position and I think this position is more productive, less misanthropic and more hopeful for humanity. All Against All is a cool theme for a metal record, less so for a cohesive society, and the push from the (at least vocally) dominant left is for highlighting the major and minor differences between everyone and trying to pry us all further apart, rather than trying to focus on unification. That is how I see it. And I'm allowing for imperfections (minor and major) within societal structures that always need to be tweaked and adjusted. I suppose I find Pinker's analysis/philosphy more inspiring than that of the BLM movement.

[Pedrito]

I doubt even Murray would be able to argue that racism doesn't exist and by 'attacking' his argument in that literal way i.e. focussing in on words and dissecting them and turning them on their head and analysing them from all angles is almost to assume that the listener isn't adult enough to come at the argument with a fair bit of prior knowledge and understanding already.

He's not arguing that racism doesn't exist or that things don't need to change, the vast majority won't, but it doesn't mean we have to accept the manipulation, the violence, the marxist agendas, the tactics, the LGBTQ and transgender policies, the segregationist rhetoric the group talk about on their websites. They are an extremely divisive group that really would love to pull us all back to segregation albeit segregation on their terms and most right thinking adults, once they read what they're about would be very dubious as to what they are looking to achieve.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I doubt even Murray would be able to argue that racism doesn't exist and by 'attacking' his argument in that literal way

He literally discredits the name of the movement by taking it, literally, focusing in on and dissecting each word, in order to assert that no one would say that black lives don't matter and that therefore the movement is defined in opposition to a non-entity and then states that, for him, this is problematic. That is literally an argument he literally spells out in the first few minutes.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Listen from 4:48 onward, the section that begins with Murray literally saying "Here's the biggest problem, I think, that exists with the BLM protests; they are essentially running against an invisible opposition." Then a minute or so later he calls it an "absent opposition".

The biggest problem, but it's not to be taken too literally??

[Pedrito]

OK, so let's do this. In layman's terms, what should he have said then?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I didn't pluck that section out to be a smart ass about it; it jumped out because what Murray is up to there really is a very classic strategic move for discrediting an opponent. Do you think it's a coincidence that just after saying it he goes into forensic detail about one case of purported unlawful police killing of a black man which turned out not to be what it seemed? And then flippantly adds, "But by then they had another martyr." Another martyr!? Again, discrediting.

Murray knows what he's doing. He's smart, but he's absolutely dishonest. If the facts spoke loudly enough for themselves, he wouldn't have to coat them the way he consistently does.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

OK, so let's do this. In layman's terms, what should he have said then?

It's not about what he should have said: it's about listening and being attentive to what he's really saying and to the rhetoric he's fostering. Rhetoric which, as I've said, this thread is full of; in short, racism is a thing of the past because the KKK aren't burning crosses on lawns anymore, or whatever; that since racism can no longer be "proud and loud", that therefore it doesn't exist. Any concessions he gives to "questionable" events (as he puts it) are the most dishonest offerings of lip service to distinguish him, in the minds of those sympathetic to his view point, from a pure relic of a bygone age. It's all thought out and calculated, and if you don't focus on and dissect what he's really saying, then you're being bought and sold.

[Pedrito]

I'm grown up enough to see what Murray is at. I've listened to him plenty of times before and in many ways I agree with you. However, I don't think you and him are teeing off from the same tee. Society is so swamped with racist talk at the moment that much of what he is saying is starting at a point of 'well racism exists but...' as opposed to 'racism doesn't exist, they're making it up' and I believe most people come to these conversations with that understanding. Of course racism exists but we've got to find some middle ground to work from because arguments about historical atrocities and statues and the likes are akin to trying to catch the wind. In northern Ireland people had to find a middle ground. It wasn't perfect but it was better than what went on before. The BLM movement is asking for things that probably most black people wouldn't get behind if they were truly put to the test.

[Caomhaoin]

I don't think he's saying that 'racism doesn't exist', nor could anybody, after all, we can't see in to the depths of another mans heart. It's the extent of 'systematic, institutional blah blah' racism which is being undermined for the most part by Murray. Skin colour is by the by for him and most right leaning commentators, where as cultural dilution or disintegration (it could be argued that its inevitability is as daft as BLM claims of an inherently racist society) is a real concern, whether you agree with it or not.

Is it racist to be startled by the speed of demographic change in Europe, for example? I was in Bavaria  for a week in 2018, and I saw very little evidence of the grimness he predicts and proports therefore I am always a bit wary of Murray, despite him being the most seductive homosexual around. On the other hand, my Aunt who lives in Sweden, and is about as progressive as you can get, told us that there is a very real preoccupation there, particularly in certain cities. I think very few people give a shit what colour Jimmy next door is, as long as fiefdoms aren't being carved out by assimilation resistant foreigners with a starkly different set of norms, behaviours or religious beliefs at the expense of the indigenous culture. Is that racist? I dunno, ah here, I'll leave it.