Objectivity, Global Warming, and White Supremacism

This link is about the claim by leftists that believing in objectivity is a sign that one is a white supremacist. So, if one believes that global warming is an objective fact, then one may be a white supremacist. I’ve mentioned this sort of thinking before, but it’s nice to be reminded of it every now and then. All the accusations from leftists about people on the right being science deniers ignores those on the left who are also science deniers.

Incidentally, this whole business regarding the signs of “white supremacy,” many of them perfectly innocuous, is part of a larger campaign. That campaign is designed to show that America is much more racist than the average white American believes, and because of that, those claiming this to be true deserve a lot more power (ostensibly so they can fight it, but more likely just so they can set up the sort of society that they want and that the rest of us don't want). Consider the following:

• Hate hoaxes. The stated purpose of a hate hoax, when it is revealed, is to raise awareness, as though somehow someone somewhere were unaware of what these people have been saying endlessly for decades. The real purpose is to show that America is more racist than typically thought so that their side can gain power.

• The concept of microaggressions. The concept of microaggressions, as with the list mentioned at the link in the first paragraph, is part of an expansion of the bounds of what counts as racist behavior, the purpose again being to show that America is vastly more racist than thought.

• The concept of cultural appropriation is part of that same expansion. Cultural appropriation has puzzled and annoyed even people on the left, but it doesn’t matter because the impulse to expand the definition of racism just keeps driving things forward. Nothing less will do than that virtually every white person can be deemed guilty of white supremacism and therefore can be marginalized.

The whole process needs to be stopped, but exactly how that can be done is anyone’s guess.

Comments

[Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)]

Part of the ever-expanding scope of "racism" is the definition of Islamophobia, which is by definition a subset of racism. See
https://islamophobia-definition.com/
"Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".
This is purported to be a definition, but is not very coherently stated. Islamophobia is "a type of racism". Is it any surprise then that this type of racism "is rooted in racism"? How does the first clause narrow down the definition of Islam? And in defining a term, it is bad practice to use another term ("Muslimness") that has never been defined. The FAQs at that site say that races do not exist, but Muslims constitute a race nevertheless. See also
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/in-britain-that-working-definition-of-islamophobia-just-wont-work

[John Pepple]

Thanks for the comment. Yes, including Islamophobia as a type of racism is another example of what I'm talking about. And of course it's not surprising that a definition of it is incoherent.