While I don't doubt that there are white supremacists, I googled a few of the commonly cited groups and found that none of them describe themselves as such. Some actively reject the notion of white supremacy.
Of course, they could be lying, although if they really thought that white supremacy was a good rallying cry, their refusal to proclaim it would seem to be counterproductive. Nonetheless, maybe they believe that they can better achieve their aims of supremacy by hiding their real motivation for the time being.
The point I'm getting at, however, is the curious and univocal insistence on the term "white supremacist" by the government and media. Wouldn't it be more accurate, neutral and alarming to describe them simply as, say, armed alt-right militia groups -- or use some variation thereon? The supremacist terminology unsupported by any open admissions by any (or most) of these groups suggests to me that a script is being used, perhaps as part of a sort of focus-grouped narrative designed to further a media/government agenda.
Gee, now I've been infected by Caitlin's kookiness.
All this energy put into dispelling these phrases. "1/6 wasn't an insurrection." "White supremacy isn't technically correct." Isn't all this word parsing one of the oldest and most despised Liberal practices of "Politically Correct Language Policing?"
I think 1/6 was an insurrection by fascists. I think these right wing militias are white supremacists. I agree with Woody Guthrie, this machine kills fascists. I don't care if it hurts their feelings if I say so.
You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.
While I don't doubt that there are white supremacists, I googled a few of the commonly cited groups and found that none of them describe themselves as such. Some actively reject the notion of white supremacy.
Of course, they could be lying, although if they really thought that white supremacy was a good rallying cry, their refusal to proclaim it would seem to be counterproductive. Nonetheless, maybe they believe that they can better achieve their aims of supremacy by hiding their real motivation for the time being.
The point I'm getting at, however, is the curious and univocal insistence on the term "white supremacist" by the government and media. Wouldn't it be more accurate, neutral and alarming to describe them simply as, say, armed alt-right militia groups -- or use some variation thereon? The supremacist terminology unsupported by any open admissions by any (or most) of these groups suggests to me that a script is being used, perhaps as part of a sort of focus-grouped narrative designed to further a media/government agenda.
Gee, now I've been infected by Caitlin's kookiness.
All this energy put into dispelling these phrases. "1/6 wasn't an insurrection." "White supremacy isn't technically correct." Isn't all this word parsing one of the oldest and most despised Liberal practices of "Politically Correct Language Policing?"
I think 1/6 was an insurrection by fascists. I think these right wing militias are white supremacists. I agree with Woody Guthrie, this machine kills fascists. I don't care if it hurts their feelings if I say so.
You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
Finally, you could use a proofreader.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.