The two segments of the west-of-liberal left can be summed up as "parasite" and "predator."
The first group - Ben Crump, Shaun King, Saira Rao, "DEI x Nu-HR officers" - basically want to take large amounts of money from the current society while presenting themselves as invaluable despite offering nothing even useful.
(2) The second group - de-colonizers, AntiFa black blockers, Black radicals, Aztlan movement and hostile illegal immigrants, actual Commies - really do want to destroy this society and replace it with an alternative.
For that matter, so does the NRx hard right, but that's another tweet series.
(3) To a very large extent, the pitch of the parasite group is that they will protect tax-payers from the predator group if paid: "Give us police reform if you don't WANT a long hot summer."
The correct response to this is: "Fuck off. Learn actual skills, and compete with everyone else, or we'll smash both of you."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Civil war" talk is all fun and games until you actually see 10,000 people from Kentucky or Oakland riding toward you on 4-tracks, blasting "Money, Cash, Hoes" or "Enter Sandman," waving machetes and ARs - coming to kill your family and take all your shit.
Peace is a blessing.
(2) Lot of comments here on who would win.
That's not really the point, but - as a decent political and sometimes military analyst - any conflict like this would be a lot uglier than people think. For example, any competent Blue general would respond to red-state denial of food by authorizing "gleaning" attacks on the red states by his guardsmen or waves of "teens X 10."
(3) Most of the BLUE states - CA, PA, IL - are also totally self-sufficient in food, and just have a lot of immigrants and union members (who would fight pretty well, btw).
And, the standard of living in the reds would collapse by half within the 1st year...because ag. and industrial products could not be sold TO the blues, or through them (the other side would control 80% of the coast-line and patrol all of it) to the world.
This isn't some edgy, radical statement. In the pre-WW2 Right of Conquest era, ~all Asian, European, West African, Amerindian, etc societies recognized it as fully and even legally legitimate to challenge other societies in war, defeat their fighting men, and take their stuff.
Almost any non-religious, non-Gandhi world leader you might admire before about 1954 - Shaka, Iskander, Churchill, Cortes, Washington, Musa, Sun Tzu, Caesar, Hannibal, Crazy Horse - was among other things a conqueror: an acquirer of land and food for his people.
The Scholar has now moved to explicitly claiming that any argument that non-genetic CULTURAL differences (in, for example, study time) between racial and ethnic groups explain group performance gaps is racist.
(2) First, the fact that there ARE large gaps in performance between groups, which have a big cultural component, is disputed by essentially no serious people.
Asian-American kids study ~2x as much as white kids, and 3x as much as Black kids, IIRC after the income adjustment.
(3) The claim that these sort of differences are somehow all due to "racism" (or genes) fails.
Importantly, they also exist between different ethnic/cultural sub-groups of the SAME race. The highest-earning white groups make 200% as much $$ as the lowest..en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e…
An awkward historical fact, which genuinely complicates the reparations debate, is that Black Americans are just obviously better off on average than we would be had our ancestors never come to the United States.
Pointing out something this self-evidently true isn't "justifying slavery," which was obviously terrible FOR SLAVES and existed ~globally in 1850.
But, no one arguing for that $5M today in LA is or has ever been a slave. Pro-POC affirmative action has been the law since '67.
Last: it's worth noting that a version of this is true for ALL Americans. I don't see many alt-right sparring partners actually going back to Hungary, Sicily, Moldova, etc.
Even our Native brothers alive today probably appreciate "supermarkets" and "wheeled vehicles."
An under-recognized aspect of "PC" language is that it serves as a class signalling mechanism.
W/o trying to be rude, there is no logical difference between saying "slow"..."retarded"...or "delayed developmentally." Knowing the more complex term shows you went to college.
Same's true for "colored person" vs "person of color," "POC," "BIPOC," etc.
Obviously, ~no one saying something a la "The hosts were a great local group of colored businessmen" is being wildly racist - but they have instantly pegged themself as older and working class.
(3) "Would YOU call someone a 'colored guy who's slow on tests?' "
Nah. Because I'm a member of the "PMC" myself, and know how to say the exact same thing using words from Latin or Woke. But, I still remember being baffled by all the speech rules when I got to U-I from the hood.
The original claim was that people who critique Black (or Appalachian?) culture are genetic racists, because the forces driving culture - at very least, these were the only ones mentioned - must be genetics or racism.
(2) Massive, culturally-caused differences in income, test scoring (I've attached global PISA), alcohol consumption etc exist all around the world - between genetically similar, same-"race" groups in situations where 'systemic racism' could not even plausibly have played a role.
(3) No one denies that - say - past racism can help shape group culture.
But, so can the original founder culture a group 'carries,' cultures encountered along the way ("Black Rednecks"), systemic incentives like welfare, and even plain luck like region of settlement.