Do people perceive a policy or idea to be politically distinct depending on who makes it?

[Tooting Carmen]

For instance, if a man were to advocate banning pornography, we would almost invariably assume that he is a hardcore social or religious conservative. However, if a woman advocated doing this, it is likely she'd be perceived as a radical leftist feminist. Similarly, if a White person were to advocate banning inter-racial marriages, we would almost invariably assume that (s)he is a far right traditionalist-racist. However, if a Black person advocated this, a lot of people would perceive him/her to be a radical leftist rather than a racist right-winger. Do you agree?

[zebruh]

For instance, if a man were to advocate banning pornography, we would almost invariably assume that he is a hardcore social or religious conservative. However, if a woman advocated doing this, it is likely she'd be perceived as a radical leftist feminist. Similarly, if a White person were to advocate banning inter-racial marriages, we would almost invariably assume that (s)he is a far right traditionalist-racist. However, if a Black person advocated this, a lot of people would perceive him/her to be a radical leftist rather than a racist right-winger. Do you agree?

I mean if shes for banning inter racial marriages, she's racists for obvious reasons. Or else she wouldn't see inter- racial as a problem to her.

If a black person advocated for banning interacial marriages they are racists.

I dont see the difference. One is white, one is black, views are the same

[Tooting Carmen]

I mean if shes for banning inter racial marriages, she's racists for obvious reasons. Or else she wouldn't see inter- racial as a problem to her.

If a black person advocated for banning interacial marriages they are racists.

I dont see the difference. One is white, one is black, views are the same

Well yes. However, not least on this very forum, I have seen anti-White Blacks of the Nation of Islam and EFF variety often referred to as 'far left'. (A prime example being Malcolm X himself, who despite everything was actually very different to MLK, and upon joining the Nation of Islam publicly renounced and 'repented' his previous love of White women).

[sean]

However, not least on this very forum, I have seen anti-White Blacks of the Nation of Islam and EFF variety often referred to as 'far left'.

According to Southern Poverty Law Center website, anti-white blacks/black separatists in America are just like any another hate group. Nothing to do with far-left/ANTIFA types.

https://i.imgur.com/Np5Xgqd.jpg


A prime example being Malcolm X himself, who despite everything was actually very different to MLK, and upon joining the Nation of Islam publicly renounced and 'repented' his previous love of White women.

Malcolm X was a segregationist. He was a legitimate threat to the establishment as he believed neither liberals nor conservatives had black interests at heart.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1598138559773.jpg

If he was never assassinated there would be no hoods today but instead real black communities with their own police, courts, education, and banks.

He understood that white nationalists were not his enemies but allies. If he was white he would've been a proud white nationalist.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1602733439948.jpg

And he beat/abused white women for sport. He violently robbed them to 'get back' at the white race.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1603151901077.jpg

He didn't 'love' them, he just used them. Just like negroes today.

https://i.imgur.com/ky5Ef0e.jpg

[Tooting Carmen]

According to Southern Poverty Law Center website, anti-white blacks/black separatists in America are just like any another hate group. Nothing to do with far-left/ANTIFA types.

https://i.imgur.com/Np5Xgqd.jpg



Malcolm X was a segregationist. He was a legitimate threat to the establishment as he believed neither liberals nor conservatives had black interests at heart.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1598138559773.jpg

If he was never assassinated there would be no hoods today but instead real black communities with their own police, courts, education, and banks.

He understood that white nationalists were not his enemies but allies. If he was white he would've been a proud white nationalist.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1602733439948.jpg

And he beat/abused white women for sport. He violently robbed them to 'get back' at the white race.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1603151901077.jpg

He didn't 'love' them, he just used them. Just like negroes today.

https://i.imgur.com/ky5Ef0e.jpg

If those allegations about his dealings with the KKK are true, then it proves even more than before my growing belief that 'les extremes se touchent': people and ideologies usually perceived as being polar opposites are much of the time in fact very similar.

[Mortimer]

Tooting where would you place me on the political spectrum

[Sakis]

For instance, if a man were to advocate banning pornography, we would almost invariably assume that he is a hardcore social or religious conservative. However, if a woman advocated doing this, it is likely she'd be perceived as a radical leftist feminist. Similarly, if a White person were to advocate banning inter-racial marriages, we would almost invariably assume that (s)he is a far right traditionalist-racist. However, if a Black person advocated this, a lot of people would perceive him/her to be a radical leftist rather than a racist right-winger. Do you agree?

I don't agree,it doesn't make much sense.How can banning interracial marriages be considered progressive?

[pulstar]

YES!

[Tooting Carmen]

I don't agree,it doesn't make much sense.How can banning interracial marriages be considered progressive?

Well of course it is not. However, playing an extreme form of devil's advocate: while a Black, Chinese or Indian who'd advocate it would be 'far-right' in the classical sense of promoting ethnic supremacism and separatism, it could also be interpreted as striking a blow at the (real or imaginary) global racial hierarchy, where some people believe that marrying Whites shall 'mejorar la raza'.

[El_Abominacion]

Yes, it's how most people think

Left and right is a useless term, just used to throw people into broad boxes in accordance with the two party system. It's a flawed form of tribalism. Being pro black is nowadays considered to be a leftist trait when someone like Malcom X had absolutely nothing in common with modern leftist views aside from being pro-black. In fact he despised them even in his time and saw right through the façade of "We promise we're pro-black, give us your votes." He was a very socially conservative man that happened to be black and was advocating for what he thought was best for his own people. Simply the other side of the coin from white nationalism.

[Sakis]

Yes, it's how most people think

Left and right is a useless term, just used to throw people into broad boxes in accordance with the two party system. It's a flawed form of tribalism. Being pro black is nowadays considered to be a leftist trait when someone like Malcom X had absolutely nothing in common with modern leftist views aside from being pro-black. In fact he despised them even in his time and saw right through the façade of "We promise we're pro-black, give us your votes." He was a very socially conservative man that happened to be black and was advocating for what he thought was best for his own people. Simply the other side of the coin from white nationalism.

It's not that the left is pro black or pro whatever,it's just against discriminations.It is funny that in 2020 we are still struggling to achieve equality.

[El_Abominacion]

It's not that the left is pro black or pro whatever,it's just against discriminations.It is funny that in 2020 we are still struggling to achieve equality.

Like I said the terms right and left are utterly meaningless and broad; unconsciously linked with the Republican/Democrat system. It's one thing to actually be against discrimination and another to simply claim it.

We are never going to achieve 'equality'. There are too many variables, too much that is out of the control of political advocates, too many ulterior motives. Human nature is greedy and selfish and that doesn't line up with the on-paper idea of 'equality'.

[Tooting Carmen]

Like I said the terms right and left are utterly meaningless and broad; unconsciously linked with the Republican/Democrat system. It's one thing to actually be against discrimination and another to simply claim it.

We are never going to achieve 'equality'. There are too many variables, too much that is out of the control of political advocates, too many ulterior motives. Human nature is greedy and selfish and that doesn't line up with the on-paper idea of 'equality'.

I agree that economic equality is an impossibility - humans vary so much in terms of talent, intelligence, work ethic, ability, education... But we can at least have equality before the law, equality before the ballot box and equality of opportunity.

[Tooting Carmen]

Tooting where would you place me on the political spectrum

A centre-leftist who occasionally dabbles in the weird.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes, it's how most people think

Left and right is a useless term, just used to throw people into broad boxes in accordance with the two party system. It's a flawed form of tribalism. Being pro black is nowadays considered to be a leftist trait when someone like Malcom X had absolutely nothing in common with modern leftist views aside from being pro-black. In fact he despised them even in his time and saw right through the façade of "We promise we're pro-black, give us your votes." He was a very socially conservative man that happened to be black and was advocating for what he thought was best for his own people. Simply the other side of the coin from white nationalism.

Correction: he BECAME socially conservative when he became politically prominent. Aside from his well-documented affairs with many women (often White), there are even rumours he had affairs with men too.

[El_Abominacion]

I agree that economic equality is an impossibility - humans vary so much in terms of talent, intelligence, work ethic, ability, education... But we can at least have equality before the law, equality before the ballot box and equality of opportunity.

Legal equality should be an objective practice on paper but every case is different. Some groups of people flat out oppose even an equal legal system and push for the dismantlement of e.g. the police and prison systems.

There's no objectivity in regards to voting equality unless you're implying everyone should be able to vote regardless. Prisoners, non-commonwealth citizens, homeless folks and under 18s cannot vote in general elections and while I think that's reasonable it's subjective so long as any person is prohibited from voting.

I believe that here in the UK at least equal opportunity already exists, there are many programs in place for genuinely disadvantaged people. Though once again, every case is different.

[El_Abominacion]

Correction: he BECAME socially conservative when he became politically prominent. Aside from his well-documented affairs with many women (often White), there are even rumours he had affairs with men too.

I'm fully aware. This is one of the many reasons that I don't buy advocates of identity politics as absolute in their beliefs, it's the same story with white nationalists and East Asian/Hispanic women, or diligent anti-gays who have gay orgies (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55145989). Sexuality overrides all and people will fuck who they want regardless of the group they associate with

[zebruh]

Well yes. However, not least on this very forum, I have seen anti-White Blacks of the Nation of Islam and EFF variety often referred to as 'far left'. (A prime example being Malcolm X himself, who despite everything was actually very different to MLK, and upon joining the Nation of Islam publicly renounced and 'repented' his previous love of White women).

I know nation of islam is racists. But they are a fringe group of people. Malcom X stopped being racists later on when he started to explore more outside of the US.
And the nation of islam doesnt have much influence in politics today neither.

[zebruh]

Well yes. However, not least on this very forum, I have seen anti-White Blacks of the Nation of Islam and EFF variety often referred to as 'far left'. (A prime example being Malcolm X himself, who despite everything was actually very different to MLK, and upon joining the Nation of Islam publicly renounced and 'repented' his previous love of White women).The nation of islam also is not a far left group.
Also to add, They are very right wing group.

They are not progressive in their ideals.
They hold alot of conservative values actually, except that they are racists and will be very blunt with it. You are just saying those things because they are minorities, without thinking that alot of their social ideas are very similar to far right wing racists white groups like the KKK or nazis
Just one side feels like they are wronged and the other should be exterminated.

[sean]

If those allegations about his dealings with the KKK are true, then it proves even more than before my growing belief that 'les extremes se touchent': people and ideologies usually perceived as being polar opposites are much of the time in fact very similar.

Everyone works in their self-interest, its a matter of perspective who is worse. There is no human action that doesn't serve the purpose of self-interest including altruistic ones.

Negroes today vote Democrat out of self-interest (welfare, anti-white nonsense), although your fellow spics are gonna be the majority in the future. The black population as percentage is staying the same (13 percent).

Asians vote even worse than negroes. They have so much hatred for whites that they vote against their own self-interest in order to bring whites down a peg or two. The only based Asians are the gooks who fled Vietnam to escape the communist takeover, but two-thirds of them vote for the Democrat Party. Asians' hatred for white men is rivalled only by negroes.

https://i.imgur.com/JnQWpcB.jpg

[Mortimer]

For instance, if a man were to advocate banning pornography, we would almost invariably assume that he is a hardcore social or religious conservative. However, if a woman advocated doing this, it is likely she'd be perceived as a radical leftist feminist. Similarly, if a White person were to advocate banning inter-racial marriages, we would almost invariably assume that (s)he is a far right traditionalist-racist. However, if a Black person advocated this, a lot of people would perceive him/her to be a radical leftist rather than a racist right-winger. Do you agree?

To answer your question for me it doesnt depend only on who makes it and what their policy is but also on what their motives are. For example a black lgbtq female who thinks white men are taking advantage of vulnerable black girls, and therefore is against race mixing, i would consider a far leftist. I saw such intelligentsia and writers before, who wrote about their adventures with white men, black men, women etc. and then realized in the aftermath white men didnt respected their identities and therefore they warn of white men and partriarchy. I wouldnt consider every black person, to be leftist though who is against race mixing, it depends on the motives, but more often then not most black people do not have the same motives or same ideology as white nationalists even if they opposse race mixing, but they do it for other motives and also in other ways, all of those black liberation theology feminists do fuck or fucked white men, they just want to dominate them though because they are against patriarchy. it is very different in usual case. i wouldnt consider wadaad a far left person though. he is a socially conservative black somali nationalist to me.

[Mortimer]

A centre-leftist who occasionally dabbles in the weird.

Do you think "occassionaly dabbles in the weird" means Im politically incorrect with jokes and my form of humour and expression or Im also ideologically truly ocassionaly siding or symphatising with the "weird"?

[Tooting Carmen]

Do you think "occassionaly dabbles in the weird" means Im politically incorrect with jokes and my form of humour and expression or Im also ideologically truly ocassionaly siding or symphatising with the "weird"?

Perhaps a bit of both?