By - Tayo826
I read that as "face sitting" and got confused
Also not an option!
(Jk, definitely an option)
It's not an option! (you have to)
ಠ ᴗ ಠ
Believe it or not, jail.
But it's not. Come here mawma
Face sitting > fence sitting
Actually same, if that's wrong I don't wanna be right
[Monty Python - Sit On My Face](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dax_tnZRExc)
Wrong subreddit, but it's definitely a sign that you and I both have spent too much time on the Internet.
too much internet hentai
There is no such thing as "not racist." You are either anti-racist or racist.
"The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist."
-Ibram X Kendi
Lol Obama is not the progressive politician you want him to be
I can’t stand fence sitters and centrists, people who say “I don’t get involved in politics”. That’s such a privileged thing to do.
Also beyond just being privileged, it tells me that a person is lacking in either empathy & compassion, or intelligence. Perhaps they are empathetic but have a very poor understanding of the situation due to a lack of intelligence or ignorance. If they understand the situation but just don't care, then they're a shit person. This is like, being human 101.
Ignorance is probably the best way to put it out of all of those, imo.
Like, if you're a cishet white guy living in the suburbs, hearing about political problems like - idk - police brutality against black people is like hearing about slave labor in factories overseas, or children starving in Africa. It's not good, but it's more distanced to the point where it almost doesn't even feel real. As if it's happening in another universe separate from your own. You can afford to not care, or to take lies about those things at face value.
Find yourself in a marginalized group yourself though, and suddenly the reality sets in. That abstraction becomes impossible. Politics affects you.
I’ll put my centrist opinion here for dissection. I suppose I’m center-left for being socially liberal but militaristically conservative.
Most people, 80%, are not interested in politics, according to FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/most-americans-just-arent-that-into-politics/ ). I’m not going to go over why they people aren’t involved with politics because that’s up to the person, but I’ll say that political polarization does not reflect the average American. From my perspective, it’s two parties falling into conflict with one another and trying to drag other people into it that just want to be left alone. For me and for other centrists, I might point to a couple principles:
1) Division doesn’t help anyone. Having two politically zealous sides of equal strength creates an anocratic situation prone to civil war. Everyone loses in a war. So, this “indifference” you’re seeing provides a buffer to civil war by being a big sluggish undecided political block. It maintains American cohesion by (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) acting neutrally and only making slow changes. Outside of that is a threat to stability and a threat to democracy.
2) On the other side of centrism is the opportunistic centrist. Nobody likes what I am about to say but it doesn’t matter how right you are, just how many people are on your side to enact your vision of the world. Without numbers, you have no power, and you have no power to protect the people who support your values. Doesn’t matter what your values are if they don’t lead to the strongest organization. Centrists, and people in general, must calculate where they can live securely and stably. Criticizing centrists as lacking in empathy or intelligence is a great way to lose your fight since (like Trump has recently done with the Nazi alt-right), you gradually rarify your leftist base into political irrelevance. Leftists/liberals cannot win by themselves, you don’t have the numbers, and you must instead hold the center and appeal to centrist values. Don’t push centrists away into becoming conservatives. A heavy criticism I have about a failure of liberalism has been about its application. Liberalism is a lot more appealing to women than it is to men, and thus you get a voter divide between women and men, and I would argue a value divide between these sexes (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/ ). Maybe it doesn’t seem so important, but a difference in values between these sexes is contributing to fewer women-men relationships. Along with education-encouraged delayed marriages, this is leaving many young conservative men outside of relationships. I’m not trying to “force” a relationship since I agree that the views of many young conservative men are rightly toxic, but what happens is that conservative male incels are very much on the path towards extremism and may be contributing to the rise of fascism in the US. So, the unforeseen consequences of how liberalism was applied may be its undoing, as a divided America only makes for temporary changes. You need to not only do what’s right but do it in a pragmatic and self-aware way. My proposed solution is to discuss liberal views in an asymmetric fashion, spending a lot more dollars on discussing them with men rather than with women so that these sexes can converge upon shared values rather than diverge. And, get these men more mental help. But, despite that big flaw in liberalism, I side with and support the left since I see it as gaining in strength, and I take it as an opportunity to better America, whereas conservatism has lost my consideration since it’s become a batshit insane disgrace.
> Most people, 80%, are not interested in politics, according to FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/most-americans-just-arent-that-into-politics/ ). I’m not going to go over why they people aren’t involved with politics because that’s up to the person, but I’ll say that political polarization does not reflect the average American.
I disagree. Many people have radical opinions even if they claim they’re “not interested in politics”. The reality is that politics touches all of our lives every day and I’ve heard many people say they’re “not interested in politics” and then proceed to give a long political monologue because it’s genuinely impossible to separate “politics” from the rest of life. Hate your landlord and your boss? That’s political, my guy. (Tell me how many people don’t hate their landlords and bosses)
> Division doesn’t help anyone.
I don’t like it either, but right-wingers can hardly be convinced that the stupid culture war they’re fighting is a pointless distraction and that the real boot on their neck is the boot of capitalism.
> Having two politically zealous sides of equal strength creates an anocratic situation prone to civil war.
Correct, we are on the brink of civil war.
> Outside of that is a threat to stability and a threat to democracy.
The status quo isn’t a democracy. You’re correct that the stability of capitalism is being threatened by all of this polarization, to which I say, *good.* SO many people around the globe live in instability and poverty because of capitalism. There are more empty homes than homeless people in America. We are threatening the stability of capitalism *because* too many people have unstable lives *in* capitalism and it has the potential to make millions of lives better if we revolt.
> Criticizing centrists as lacking in empathy or intelligence is a great way to lose your fight since (like Trump has recently done with the Nazi alt-right), you gradually rarify your leftist base into political irrelevance.
Person A: I hate the Jews, let’s kill them all
Person B: No, let’s not kill any Jews
Person C (enlightened centrist): Let’s kill half!
You *don’t get* to be a centrist in some situations, that’s just the reality. There *is* no centrism with white supremacy; either you’re a white supremacist or you aren’t. If you wanna play the “both sides” game when one side is literally genocidal, then you’re just a fascist who won’t admit it. If that makes you uncomfortable, then get on the right side of the argument.
> Leftists/liberals cannot win by themselves, you don’t have the numbers
The left is growing in America *substantially.* This really shouldn’t be a surprise. Millennials have gone through 2 massive recessions by now, why would we want to protect a status quo that has never served us? There are also a LOT of people who are probably socialists but don’t know it because they lack the education to be aware of what socialism is or how it aligns with their beliefs (thanks American education system).
> I’m not trying to “force” a relationship since I agree that the views of many young conservative men are rightly toxic, but what happens is that conservative male incels are very much on the path towards extremism and may be contributing to the rise of fascism in the US.
I agree that this is a problem and that we do need to appeal to centrists to bring them left, however, please keep in mind you’re on a subreddit for anti-fascists, not a debate subreddit. I don’t come here with the goal of convincing anyone because the people in this subreddit are ostensibly people who agree with me already.
> My proposed solution is to discuss liberal views in an asymmetric fashion
To be clear, I am not a liberal, I’m a communist. But I get what you’re trying to say.
People can have radical ideas but not everyone votes. Not everyone participates in a politically meaningful way. And let’s not forget the large block of people without radical opinions that do participate in politics.
You’re not going to convince conservatives that capitalism is bad without examples where non-capitalism doesn’t eliminate their homogeneous culture. Conservative culture is becoming too expensive to maintain, but their ethnocentric culture is what they value at their own expense. Their culture is more important to them than their health and livelihoods.
You might call for revolution, but despite the malaise of the era, make sure that enough people are on your side first. This isn’t enlightened centrism, no Jews should be killed. I do not side with genocide. This isn’t playing both sides either. This is a warning that being a hostile force but lacking in numbers and organization will get you expunged. Conservatives have decades of organization on you and are interwoven with the police. Without centrist involvement, leftists do not have enough people for a successful revolution. Thus, you must try to appeal to centrist viewpoints. And, not in a phony “enlightened centrism” way but in actually communicating with *people* to address their concerns. Even if those concerns seem asinine—assuming they’re not also dangerous and invalid—you need to play the game of politics and make compromises. Your ideals matter less than the practical numbers, organization, and infrastructure you can engender with them. Otherwise, your views make you whiny and weak and asking for trouble. Play the *numbers* game to be actually effective in your goals rather than ineffectually talk about how people are dying or how things are unfair. Organize and compromise to build numbers.
The left is growing, but by my estimation, it’ll be around 2027-2045 by the time the left has unchallenged power. For instance, by flipping Texas or by having the left-leaning next generation be the dominant force in politics. Yes, many people are socialists without knowing it. It think socialism can work and is an area the US needs to experiment with. Centrism is not about protecting the status quo, it’s about making the most practical steps to move forward, and in many cases that means slow gradual change, introspection, and revision. If you initiate a revolution before the left is large enough or organized enough, you won’t have the numbers or support and you will lose.
How you merge ideals with practicality is what will give you the greatest effect.
Listen, dude, if you wanna debate or try to convince some leftists of your views go to a debate subreddit. I don't come here for this kind of conversation. I stay *out* of those debate subreddits for a reason. I don't have the spoons for it. I'm fed up with capitalism, fed up with racism and the culture war, fed up with bootlicking and fed up with listening to centrist takes which I get plenty enough of in most of the world every single day. Again, this is r/antifascistsofreddit, not r/debatecommunism or whatever.
I think it's just immaturity. I'd say probably 75% of people I know either don't care about politics or know so little that you can persuade them with very little effort. Unfortunately, they're persuaded back just as quickly by a meme of Biden falling off a bicycle.
Yes. "I'm not political" = "Traditional power structures work out fine for me". Apathy is conservatism.
Yea it's an option for those who can afford to do it unlike minorities, jewish people, etc that are under physical and societal attack
Well that’s the whole thing now.. the fascists discovered you don’t have to do it. You can be a woman and against women’s rights, queer and homophobic, a fan of Israel and antiemetic.. examples are endless!
Pick a lane in life or one will be picked for you.
“Just because you don’t care about politics, doesn’t mean politics doesn’t care about you”
The thing is, antifa is not even politics. There is nothing political about someone’s race/religion. We are not fighting for politics, we are fighting for equality!
I think that reductionism is kind of dangerous in that regard.
Racism is a complicated topic and it's hard to define exactly what racism even is. So I'm not sure it's completely true that you are either racist or not.
You can do racist things but still in your head say that racism is bad and you don't support it.
While everything you said is true, this post is about distinguishing between people who make the conscious choice to be an ally and do their best, vs the people who are malicious bigots. The former type of person can still make mistakes, or have internalized racism to work through, but *they’ve picked a side to fight for.* It’s about the mentality. It’s about clearly picking a side.
I personally have found people who try to be an "ally" to be significantly more marginalizing than people who are just human and put race aside.
I have been treated like a baby for not being a white liberal by people who assumed my life is horrible and my parents are awful just because I have an accent and come from a conservative culture. In an attempt to be "inclusive", I am much more often dehumanized. To be honest, I have never felt included by outspoken liberals, and have really only find comfort in people who are much more interested in just being a good person outside of a self-aggrandizing agenda.
I think you’re creating a bit of a false dichotomy here and treating your personal experiences with self-identified liberal allies as a universal experience. I totally understand why you don’t like being treated that way.
I for one am not a liberal, I am a communist. And in my life personally, I always try to treat everyone I meet with the same basic respect and decency and general humanity and make as few assumptions as possible. I wish we could all simply take a laid-back attitude and just treat each other nicely and that bigotry would dissolve overnight just with the power of love and friendship. But since it doesn’t work that way, I *also* have to take an explicitly anti-bigotry stance because we all have to share the burden of making the world a better place. No superhero is going to come along and fix it for us.
The point of “How to Be Anti-Racist” though is to address how to categorize the type of person you’re leaving out here—the passive ones who aren’t massive bigots but also aren’t doing the work to unpack their bigotry.
I don’t think you’ve said anything that contradicts Kendi’s framework here. Nobody is saying that one’s beliefs have to be perfect. In fact, in his book Kendi explores his own internalized racism and how he worked through it, and that process is part of anti-racist work. Everyone is racist because we live in a racist milieu, so putting people in buckets based purely on belief is not what the framework does, nor do I think that’s what the comment was advocating for.
The point is that the third category, the passive ones, don’t get to be ‘not racist’, the book contends that category doesn’t exist. Because unless your against racism, you’re for it. Maybe it sounds like semantics but I think the book mainly targets the enlightened centrist types.
Edited for spelling
> the type of person you’re leaving out here—the passive ones who aren’t massive bigots but also aren’t doing the work to unpack their bigotry
I wasn't leaving anyone out. I was simply talking about the 2 self-aware ends of the spectrum, and how this post advocates that we have that self-awareness to pick a side, *because* as you (and the author of that book) say, there is no middle ground, "not racist" option. Complacency is passive racism. "All it takes for bad people to win is for good people to do nothing." Etc. We are saying exactly the same thing in a different way. The point is that people need to realize they can't pick this non-existent middle ground. We agree.
However, I do have one point to nitpick:
> Everyone is racist because we live in a racist milieu
While I understand the reasoning behind this belief, it is in my opinion an antagonistic and unconstructive way to frame an important problem. We should recognize our internalized racism, but to call someone who has genuine love and acceptance for others, and tries (imperfectly, as we all do) to correct any bad behavior that was ingrained in them by society a *racist,* is just an overly cynical view of the world that I reject.
Everyone has racist ideas in their heads: you can't escape that propaganda.
A racist is a person who doesn't care about the fact they have racist ideas in their head. One who is willfully ignorant about their own racist ideas is just as much a racist as one who is aware of and actively tries to spread those ideas. Both people *perform, platform, and often subconsciously prefer* their familiar and comfortable racist ideas. Their intentions are moot at that point.
In the words of Desmond Tutu,
>If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Please, if you haven't, read the book "How to be an Anti-Racist" by Ibram X. Kendi- it really clears up this issue, which has intentionally been made difficult to clarify by the racists.
Kendi’s book was the first thing that came to mind. It’s not that you’re either racist or you’re not racist, it’s that you’re either anti-racist or racist. So people actively engaged in self reflection and decolonizing their worldview are engaged in anti-racist work, even if they are still trying to overcome racist programming. It’s not just an ideological purity test, it’s also your actions and the work you do.
This also means that there is no being “not racist” through passivity—the default in society is racism, so concerted effort against the default is needed. Hence anti-racism.
Edited for word order.
Perhaps I did a poor job of communicating my ideas but I completely agree.
I was trying to communicate the same idea I think. Those who claim they “aren’t racists” because they don’t see themselves as participating in actively racism—but also aren’t actively fighting it either within themselves or society—as the group I was referring to as “passive non-racists” (which, to be clear is not a category I think exists, you can’t passively just not perpetuate societal defaults).
And I also agree that the book makes a strong argument for a much clearer delineation: you’re either actively fighting internal and systemic racism and therefore are anti-racist or you’re not and are therefore racist.
I know a lot of white people who are outspoken about being anti-racist, but who have marginalized me and other non-white people for not being "western liberal" enough, not realizing that they're engaging in racism and are more harmful than people who don't read books about minorities and just treat me like a human being. Especially when it comes to social beliefs, it turns out that a lot of minority groups in the U.S. are significantly more conservative than white liberals, and by nature of universalizing their own beliefs as the objectively moral beliefs, they engage in much more racism than conservatives who are just trying to be nice people regardless.
I would say it's much more important to just treat people like humans than go down the road of trying to treat people differently in order to fulfill some "anti-racist" ideology. The more you read and externalize people as different racial groups instead of just approaching people as humans, the more racist you become, even though your intention is to do the opposite.
Exactly. If you think you can only be or not be a homophobe, you may identify as a homophobe and then stop trying to recognize any lingering homophobia that presents itself in your actions or that creeps in from society.
The thing that makes these kinds of issues difficult to solve is that they are baked into our society at almost every level. If you think you can simply declare that you're a good guy and make it so, you're a fool and certainly not part of a solution.
Instead, we need to encourage non-judgemental self analysis so people can understand where they are and chart a trajectory toward ways of being and thought that are more hospitable to diversity, that increase the well-being of others, and that create fertile grounds for equality.
It is critical that this analysis not be judgemental so that people can fully explore what they *actually* are. In order for a person to remove racism, homophobia, elitism from their personality, they must first be able to accept that it's their without believing that makes them categorically monstrous.
Republicans picked their side a long time ago. For years they complained that whenever the left would criticize their right wing fascist bullshit we were comparing them to nazis.
They were always like “when the left doesn’t like someone they just fall back on nazi and hitler blah blah blah.” Now they are openly admitting they love hitler and respect nazis and want America to become a fascist country.
We were always right about them.
I've seen gay homophobes lmfao
Silence is fascist conpliance
Anyone who says they’re none of these things but still voting Republican *really* needs to be pressured on what else they’re possibly voting for. It needs to be beaten over their heads to the point of sounding like a broken record - *they’re voting with these groups.* They need to really think about what that means.
I don’t mean online, that’s futile, I mean the people in our real lives that’ve been sucked into this. It’s an uphill battle still, but those are the people we have a chance at getting through to.
As a bisexual, the term "pick a side" gives me anxiety
I don't think this is helpful rhetoric, fascists using us vs them, black and white thinking doesn't give us license to do the same. With us or against us is a dangerous mentality.
"We need allies who are going to help us achieve a victory, not allies who are going to tell us to be nonviolent. If a white man wants to be your ally, what does he think of John Brown? You know what John Brown did? He went to war. He was a white man who went to war against white people to help free slaves. He wasn’t nonviolent. White people call John Brown a nut. Go read the history, go read what all of them say about John Brown. They’re trying to make it look like he was a nut, a fanatic. They made a movie on it, I saw a movie on the screen one night. Why, I would be afraid to get near John Brown if I go by what other white folks say about him.
But they depict him in this image because he was willing to shed blood to free the slaves. And any white man who is ready and willing to shed blood for your freedom—in the sight of other whites, he’s nuts. As long as he wants to come up with some nonviolent action, they go for that, if he’s liberal, a nonviolent liberal, a love-everybody liberal. But when it comes time for making the same kind of contribution for your and my freedom that was necessary for them to make for their own freedom, they back out of the situation. So, when you want to know good white folks in history where black people are concerned, go read the history of John Brown. That was what I call a white liberal. But those other kind, they are questionable.
So if we need white allies in this country, we don’t need those kind who compromise. We don’t need those kind who encourage us to be polite, responsible, you know. We don’t need those kind who give us that kind of advice. We don’t need those kind who tell us how to be patient. No, if we want some white allies, we need the kind that John Brown was, or we don’t need you. And the only way to get those kind is to turn in a new direction."
You're either a basiji, or not
You know I was just reflecting on how we seem to have come to a point in society where most people either believe in the class war or the culture war, and people are starting to realize it’s one or the other. I’ve seen several former moderates being radicalized both left and right along those lines.
While I don't like what is going on in the us rn I think this message might get the wrong point across. If someone was taking things slower than another so they could carefully and thoroughly assess the situation around them politically but a message that says one is either on one side or the other might alienate them. I think people should be allowed to take politics at their own pace without risk of being put on a 'side' without having the chance to see a 'side'.
How an idea is presented is just as important as the idea itself because it can change how an idea is perceived based on how that idea is shared from person to person.
Nobody calls themselves those things except maybe extremists, the problem is that there are a lot of people who don't understand that they're not being bigoted. They believe themselves reasonable because they've been told lies about others.
Counter-point: You’re either a racist, a non-racist, or an antiracist (this goes for the others as well). Racists are the main issue, but non racists that aren’t anti-racist are complicit in the problem.
The trick is to do it face down with the post in your mouth.
The is reminds me of those videos of people holding up the confederate flag. Then when there interviewed and asked their opinion on slavery, they just say “no comment”
It's more nuanced than that.
I agree that it's very important to know who and what your actions and inactions are supporting, neglecting, and/or harming. I also think that it is far more common for some of a person's actions and inactions to uplift the oppressed amd some to contribute to oppression. Labelling one's Self "anti-racist" is just as bad as saying "I'm a Good Person" or "I'm a Bad Person" - all it does is attempt to absolve you of your responsibility by implying that since your standing as a Good or Bad person is established, you don't need to / can't do anything.
Idk, maybe I'm just nitpicking.
The Coup has a great song called “Ridin’ the Fence” that sums this up perfectly.
“Take a look around and be for or against,
Cuz you can’t do shit ridin’ the fence…”
I read the subject line as “face-sitting,” and I was just like, “Fuck *you* it isn’t.”
I pick the “(insert a word that is forbidden on Reddit)-a-Nazi-in-the-face” sort of side, myself…
I am part of the trans army. Sergeant Major Aly here
You either deal in absolutes, or you do not? ;-)
Yes, tolerance is incompatible with hate.
One of those things it's not like the others.
Can you be pro Palestine but not anti-semitic?
You either allow funding by racists or not.
You either support Apartheid or do not.
You either allow corporations to own politicians or do not.
You either support Democracy or do not.
Politicians either inside trade or do not.
You fund ethnic cleansing, C. camps and a racial supremacist ideology or do not.
You can ban books or do not.
You respect the rights of women and LGBTQ or do not.
You believe that there are no illegal humans or you don’t.
You either accept that politicians somehow, magically become multi millionaires or do not.
You believe that children should freeze and starve to r you do not.
You believe that corporations and millionaires should pay the tax they owe, or do not.
You believe that corrupt politicians should be jailed or do not.
You believe that poor people should die because otherwise how would insurance company CEOs buy nesting yachts and mansions.
It’s almost 2023 and we live in a clown show.
you sound like you are, in fact, a white supremacist and a racist, and probably queerphobic.
You do actually sound like most of those right now
The last 3 points, absolutely. The other two, not necessarily. Considering those last 3, I'd lean towards "yes" in all 5 cases.
I'm just wondering in which conversations you'd need to insert that "whites invented this" or "men and women aren't equal".
1. I don't even know why you'd do this. It does sound like using ai as an excuse for racial profiling, though
2. No, not necessarily.
3. Understand, or recognize? There's a difference, one is likely homophobic
4. Not necessarily, but the context of why you're bringing it up may make it a white supremacist talking point.
4. See 3, replace "white supremacist" with "misogynist"
I'm sure this tweet was super effective at getting all the fence-sitting racists to pick a side and come on down.
You’re either a black supremacist or you’re not