White supremacists v. Liberal supremacists

Updated,

8.30.18:

The name-calling has begun.  Fla. Gubernatorial candidate accused of racism based upon "monkey" remarks.  Some are calling it a "dog whistle".  Now, whether it is or isn't, there is no doubt that liberal supremacy is at work here.

The Democrat nominee is black.  Will it be any surprise then, that he will get black votes just for being black?  The "first black governor" sounds a lot like the "first black president".  Aren't the Democrats riding race as an issue, yet accusing their opponents of using race as an issue?

The pot calling the kettle black.  Ooops!  Can't say that anymore.  It is officially "racist" to talk like that.


Originally posted 8.29.18 @ 6:28 pm:

This is an idea for a post that I had today.  Perhaps you remember a guy named Julian Bond.  He was chairman of the NAACP for a time.  Yes, that guy.  I remember a show that he did for PBS some years ago, in which he compared the word "nigger" with "racist".  He said to call people that name did the same to them that calling a black person a "nigger" did.  That is to ostracize, dehumanize, and to marginalize.

Well, it is no longer socially acceptable to call a person a "nigger" anymore.  It will get you into hot water  People who do this are called "racist".  They are punished.

While calling people who use this word as "racist" may be justified, it does appear that there is no restraint upon calling people racist.  But if there is some restraint on the use of that word, which according to Bond, does the same as calling someone a "nigger", there is certainly no restraint on using the phrase "white supremacist".

What are people who use this phrase doing with that phrase?  Are they not doing the same as calling someone a racist?  It would probably not be denied, although the phrase is a bit more sophisticated way of calling someone that.

I would like to expand upon that thought a bit.  But to do so, I need to make a little light go off in somebody's head.  How to do that?  By getting them to agree with your premises.  Or making it hard to disagree with them.  A liberal is never going to admit being racist, even if he/she is.  But they will agree that they are liberal.  They aren't ashamed of that word, but that label is not highly regarded in all circles.  If you call a liberal a liberal, they may respond "so what"?

If somebody called you white, and if you are a white person, then you might respond to that the same way--- so what?  But add the word "supremacist" to it, and there's a problem.  What is that problem?  It is a subtle way of calling you a racist.  You are made to feel guilty for being white, and being proud of your heritage, and for wanting to preserve it, it is made to seem disreputable.  But why should you be ashamed of that?

You can not only call them liberal, but liberal supremacists in response.  But they will not feel ashamed.  They believe that liberals should be supreme because they like liberals.  That is getting them to agree to your premises, and living up to their own standards.

Why aren't they ashamed then?  Aren't they for equality?  Why aren't they guilty for their supremacist attitude?  If you are supposed to feel guilty for being white, then why aren't they supposed to feel guilty about being liberal?  If supremacy is so bad, then why are they so in favor of it when it comes to themselves?

If you are white, why should you be their doormat?  They are not seeking equality then, but supremacy.  They cannot deny this.