On the “Dear White people” trailer’s extreme backlash

Naturally, as it is with any ethnicity, White people’s attitudes and opinions aren’t uniform, and can’t be generalised. Then again, statements beginning like this are based on the idea that Black people, and other minorities groups can’t say those particular things. In addition, it is important to clarify the fact that these types of assertions are not necessarily accusations of racism; they satirically reveal ignorant and/or insensitive behaviours and stereotypes. Therefore, answering “Not all White people are racist” is very much an off-topic response.

However, even if it is true that you don’t have to be racist to make such inconsiderate remarks; racists undoubtedly do hold such views. And, whether we like it or not, it is important to acknowledge that an alarmingly noticeable amount of Caucasians are racist. Remarks beginning in “Dear White people” are thus not based on the definite assumption that White people are racist, but rather on the substantial probability that White people could be racist.  Moreover, these types of comments serve in essence as a way of checking, of verifying one’s attitude. I.e, if you don’t engage in such behaviour, good for you: you can ignore the underlying seriousness of such remarks and enjoy the humour of it all.

Hypothetically, saying “Dear politicians, stop being so corrupt”, shouldn’t conjure up incensed politicians complaining that “Not all politicians are corrupt”. The fact this that, as corruption is an issue with politicians, racism is an issue with Caucasians; whether or not these issues concern the majority of politicians, or the majority of White people.

As for why Whites can’t say “Dear Black people” without being called racist; this goes back to the most fundamental and yet polarising issue as it pertains to racism: that racism isn’t reciprocal. Why can Black people to Whites what White people can’t say to Blacks? The answer is trivial: races are biologically equal; but social experiences between ethnicities differ. This is especially apparent in this particular instance; as the only reason why Caucasians can’t point out racially insensitive remarks uttered by Black people is that Blacks live in a world where Whites dominate politics, finance, beauty standards, the media and most other facets of society* so much that Blacks know and understand White people too well: it becomes harder for them to have ignorant and racially insensitive opinions of Caucasians. So I don’t think you’d have many ideas for a series called “Dear Black People”, unless you do indeed insert racist viewpoints into it – which is why you’d be called a racist – or state falsehoods throughout. Lack of subject matter, I’m afraid.

What’s comically puzzling to me is the fact that, at a time where people complain about minorities getting “triggered” by “politically incorrect” comments, the same people will be outraged when the comedic arrow changes direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzggK5DRBA

*Relax, I’m not blaming White people for that, so you can stop clenching your firsts now. I’m simply stating a fact; without trying to assess its causes.

Quote #8: On The Donald’s “locker room talk, as 2017’s March for Women approaches

It goes without saying that men tend to make inappropriate, insensitive, and chauvinistic sexual comments about women. However, Trump’s “Grab her by the p***y”comments are far worse. Because as severely uncouth and offensive as men can be when talking about women; men do not joke about sexual assault. And what is even more deplorable in Trump’s case; what makes this comparison a case of false equivalency, is that Trump wasn’t joking.

Quote #7: On the use of calling the media ‘fake’

If you can’t trust official government statistics, or independent statistical services, the outlets most likely to be truthful and objective; you can’t trust anything. Everything becomes distorted; each one of us can make up his or her own facts. As a result, what’s true doesn’t depend on fact anymore, but rather on the opinion that is held by the most people; on the opinion of the one who yells the loudest; or on the opinion of the one with the most influence.

So if Donald Trump can make it seem as though the media’s facts and stats can’t be trusted, he can create a world where everything he does is good for his country; where he can convince his nation that he isn’t the one to blame when things go wrong; or that the majority of Americans love him.

On climate change scepticism

I don’t think that you need an environmental science degree to engage in a sophisticated conversation about science. But, if your knowledge of the field exclusively amounts to TEDtalks or Wikipedia; and the majority of scientists disagree with your reasoning, you better stop talking.

And, yet, in the US, a substantial amount of Republican politicians have done the exact opposite, and kept affirming that climate change is a hoax. Incidentally, this comical stubbornness makes me think of Al Franken a former comedian, most notably on SNL, turned senator, who used to say:  “ You know, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”.

A good analogy of this attitude would be for you to imagine if I disagreed with the an author’s interpretation of his own book.

Moreover, it is the arguments used to explain this denial rather than the denial itself that make climate change scepticism inherently hilarious. Aside of the constant conspiracist disagreement with scientific fact, I recently learned about the growing number of Republicans who compare themselves to Galileo in their disagreement with general consensuses.

Let us examine the major differences involved that explain why Republicans are talking out of their you know whats with that asinine comparison:

  • Galileo was a scientist, Republicans aren’t
  • The Catholic Church weren’t scientists, and scientists are (if you hadn’t guessed)
  • Geocentrism was an incredibly old, hence outdated scientific concept

Finally, incentive is the crucial difference in this issue. The Holy Roman Catholic Church endorsed 1800 year old scientific theories because these fit their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, geocentrism wasn’t based on objectivity: it was ideological. Furthermore, the Church being so politically, economically and socially dominant in 17th century society implied that it could make general consensus a view that wasn’t entirely based on rational thought.

As for incentive in climate change scepticism, the incentive to deny is on the Republicans’ side. As it pertains to this issue, money naturally has its say. In fact, I don’t think that their attitude emanates from stupidity; in fact, an article by The Guardian states that “Fossil fuel barons have invested more than $100m in Republican presidential Super Pacs”. Ted Cruz, for example, has received more than a million dollars from fossil fuel companies. 600,000 for Señor Ryan. Same for Señor Rubio. You get the point.

In a nutshell, Republicans’ using of pseudo rationality to repudiate reality is but a particularly weak façade that fails to conceal financial incentives.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/oil-and-gas-industry-has-pumped-millions-into-republican-campaigns

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries./recips.php?ind=E01++

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair